[TC11] Technic Contest Battle Bots - Discussion Topic

[offroadcreations]

1 hour ago, GroundskeeperWillie said:

That's creative! I was thinking an EMP cannon. But these solutions are hard to sneak past the contest rules ;-)

We just need to find out how to do this with a "legal" Lego part solution!

[krtwood]

We're thinking about it all wrong.  Rather than disable the other bot disable the other operator.  Color vomit your bot so badly that they rage quit the match before it even starts.  Hmm, that might backfire and they become extra determined to destroy it.

[Mantarri]

16 hours ago, krtwood said:

We're thinking about it all wrong.  Rather than disable the other bot disable the other operator.  Color vomit your bot so badly that they rage quit the match before it even starts.  Hmm, that might backfire and they become extra determined to destroy it.

Who wouldn't want to take the poor think out of It's misery?

[agrof]

One question to admins @Milan@Jim: is friction-gearing allowed? Example: using wheels+tires, tires would be slightly deformed (<0.5 studs overall) due to necessary compression. As it is officially allowed (legal) to bend the 2M rubber damper , than could we state this for rubber tires too?

EDIT 1: LDD allows me to place the parts as described - just checked.

EDIT 2: another question appeared from my side, is it OK for the contest to "misplace" the tyre on the rim, or does it count as part modification? I would like to use the inner side of the lip of the rim (space restrictions).

LEFT: original - RIGHT: inner placed.

I would be very happy about positive feedbacks, as my concept relies on these 2 points. 

Thanks in advance!

Edited March 6, 2017 by agrof
questions

[Milan]

On 3/6/2017 at 2:59 AM, agrof said:

is friction-gearing allowed? Example: using wheels+tires, tires would be slightly deformed (<0.5 studs overall) due to necessary compression.

Tires are also slightly "deformed" when used in some heavier MOCs, so Yes, it is okay for you to make your friction-gearing gizmo

On 3/6/2017 at 2:59 AM, agrof said:

another question appeared from my side, is it OK for the contest to "misplace" the tyre on the rim, or does it count as part modification? I would like to use the inner side of the lip of the rim (space restrictions).

This is ok, too.

[agrof]

 I am a happy puppy now, thanks! 

[GroundskeeperWillie]

I hate to bring up the "secondary bot" subject again, but I feel we are left with very few possibilities for demonstrating the signature move. Just to be clear; if I build a flipper or an axe, I can only demonstrate this into thin air in the entry post/video?

But in the discussion topic there are no limitations?

Did I get this right? I don't want to argue about it, I just want to make the rules absolutely clear.

[Erik Leppen]

On ‎6‎-‎3‎-‎2017 at 2:59 AM, agrof said:

One question to admins @Milan@Jim: is friction-gearing allowed?

I didn't even think of asking this. I just assumed this to be possible/allowed.

[agrof]

Better to ask, than facing with a luctual "Disqualified" label. 

[aminnich]

I feel like with the past contests we have had WIP topics by now.  I wonder why this one is different, is it because you do not want your competitor to know what kind of weak points your bot has? 

[offroadcreations]

1 hour ago, aminnich said:

I feel like with the past contests we have had WIP topics by now.  I wonder why this one is different, is it because you do not want your competitor to know what kind of weak points your bot has? 

That's why mine is (mostly) hidden. 

[aminnich]

Mine was on bricksafe, but I deleted those pictures since I took that one apart, rebuilt, took apart and I am now building my 3rd bot.... 

All the same style, but they are getting stronger each time.  

 

[Mantarri]

I might just take a jab at a bot, can't enter, but I can still have fuuuuuun *insert lightning strike & evil laugh here*. 

[PKW]

13 hours ago, aminnich said:

I feel like with the past contests we have had WIP topics by now.  I wonder why this one is different, is it because you do not want your competitor to know what kind of weak points your bot has? 

My bot will have no weak points muahahahah

 

Well no i'm just overthinking my ideas because it has a lot of features that are not limited/ruled in the rules but as the dummy bot there can be hidden rules that won't allow them despite being allowed by original rules so i'm waiting to collect all this "rules lacks" and ask them when i'll finish my showcase topic, I still have to make lots of video and ldd files for it.

2nd thing I still wait to build my new arena for filming other videos a boy bots and I would like to start the topic with some hints and the arena (that will be finished later in march)

 

15 hours ago, GroundskeeperWillie said:

I hate to bring up the "secondary bot" subject again, but I feel we are left with very few possibilities for demonstrating the signature move. Just to be clear; if I build a flipper or an axe, I can only demonstrate this into thin air in the entry post/video?

But in the discussion topic there are no limitations?

Did I get this right? I don't want to argue about it, I just want to make the rules absolutely clear.

I have and idea but not sure if this will be accepted:

 

Using a copy of the entry as dummy bot:

-no "robot made to be destroyed" because dummy weaknesses will be you entry weaknesses

-no "gain vote for dummy" as it is legal to gain vote for the entry

-no secondary build in the main topic

If someone say "who has got lots of brick will have and advantage because can build a dummy-copy"... Every lego contest is mostly a question of who has more bricks and not only more skill this is pretty obvious so I don't think this is a problem

 

I'm still waiting to know if I can use lego official sets or cardboard boxes with weights as a dummy "thing"

[AVCampos]

This is a great idea for a contest and an opportunity to use some of my rarely-used elements! Also, to be honest, I'm more looking forward to the SBrick prizes than the set prizes.

 

In case you guys and gals need inspiration (or some virtual testing) on which kind of battle robot design to pursue, here's something to practice on: Robot Arena 2.

I played this a few years ago and the "Aries 2" I built was almost unbeatable. Let's see if I can built something similar physically with LEGO bricks.

[Erik Leppen]

13 hours ago, AVCampos said:

an opportunity to use some of my rarely-used elements!

Indeed. In my case, especially 36t and 40t gears. I rarely use those, but I needed all of them now :)

[Slewentogzz]

Really cool competition! Are you allowed build a lego copy of a real battle bot?

[Milan]

8 minutes ago, Slewentogzz said:

 Are you allowed build a lego copy of a real battle bot?

Already answered.

Yes, you can.

[Jim]

I have seen one of the entries and it made me realise that 45x45x45 is pretty limiting for a battle bot.

What is your guy's stance on increasing the maximum size and adding a couple of weeks to the deadline?

[agrof]

I don't find it fair. 

Seriously: I think it is a pretty good constraint to increase creativity!

IF size change should be done - there is not too many complaint about it though -, I would say maybe, but volume constraint must be the same: 91125 L³ (45x45x45). In this case longer/wider but lower robots can be built, like these (Bite Force - wider; Tombstone - longer) below. What about voting in this topic (1 week long open)?

 

Another thought: the structural stability should be considered at final voting too, for example it is really hard to realize Tombstone's flat rotating blade in LEGO, without falling into pieces at the first hit. Maybe a roll-over demonstration (made by hand) in the video should represent the durability of a bot. We have seen lot nice MOCs already, which are pretty as static models, but as You touch or move them, turns out, that parts are filmsy, connections get loose, etc... wouldn't survive too long. This is what I mean:

 

Edited March 13, 2017 by agrof
added content

[Thirdwigg]

I vote no. I think there is enough room, and we have had some good planning time with this size. 

[aminnich]

I understand why contestants are against changing the size limitations, but instead of a size constraint of 45x45x45, changing it to a volume constraint of 45x45x45 would be better.  

For example, the bison bot is 9L tall, this is mainly because the bot is able to be flipped over and still be able to drive (great idea by the way) For taller bots, they are more prone to get flipped over because they are top heavy.  

The problem I am having with my bot is the small constraint.  I also want to make mine fairly short, but I keep finding myself having to build up instead of out, because I cant go out. My main  body (fully functional and armored) is almost 45x45x45 without a main weapon.  And this is with the main body super condensed inside, No room to room the wires at some spots. 

The real battle bots are fairly large, 45x45x45 is the size of one of the smallest bots.  

Ultimately, it is the admins decision, but I vote yes, change it from a size limit to a volume limit, keeping the same dimensions.  

[agrof]

Despite I brought the volume theme on the table, personally I find the original rules perfect here, we don't need to build monsters, but cute toys. 

This was the case of the Mini contest too (http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?/forums/topic/96430-mini-technic-mini-build-contest-information-topic/), 200 pcs was very-very limited, still excellent entries were born. So instead adjusting the rules, I suggest adjust solutions. Speaking from experience: there is always a way to achieve the same goal. If a robot is bigger than it would fit, than scale it down for example. Yes, it can hurt to get rid-off from some nice detail solutions, which with we are already in love, but the final result will be even more satisfying.

 

[aminnich]

I agree with you that you can make whatever you are building smaller, but in this case, some not have a ton of components for the not to perform like it should. 

You bring up the mini contest, the 200pcs maximum part count with the whole idea behind that contest. With the battle bot contest, the size constraint is just a percaution of "we don't want giant bots that would eat the other ones" which is fair, but I still think 45x45x45 is small. And Jim said the original size limit was 35x35x35

 

[agrof]

I also don't own a ton of parts (just like many of us), I was lucky enough to have a local BL store with all the necessary missing parts for my entry. We don't want to make another sub-categories for "Built with already owned parts" and "Built with additionally bought parts", do we? Let's don't go on this line further, it has nothing to do with the contest in my opinion.

I just repeat myself: constrains - whatever if size, part count or part availability - are accelerants for creativity, and for thinking out of the box. History shows countless examples for this. And also: it is LEGO.