I would actually replace Damage with Weapon Effectiveness. Here is why: We know lifters and flipper cannot do significant damage. Each robot has a weapon, so the usage of the weapon should count for points. Therefore, Weapon Effectiveness should be a category.
I agree, because the main objective of any fight is to completely destroy OR DISABLE your opponent. So in order to not bias against any weapon type, the criteria should determine how effective your chosen weapon is. Otherwise, builders are going to purposely choose weapons that fit the biased criteria in order to win, making the field lack diversity. That’s why vertical spinners are oversaturating the meta. I like this idea, but I know the BattleBots producers would never allow this because fights between lifters would be “boring”. So I kept damage as a category, but made it less important than aggression as a compromise. That way, all robots must be aggressive to win regardless of weapon type without completely sacrificing visceral carnage.
Personally, I have a massive hot take here, but I think the damage category needs to go. You could have damage be 1 point and it would favor spinners more than other designs because they deal more damage.
I’m totally okay with damage being a category, but I think it should be equal to the control category. That way, a control bot who can’t get damage points has a fair chance against a spinner that can’t get control points. Having damage as a category is required in a sport like this, but I don’t think it should be weighed so heavily against the other categories. Having aggression be the deciding factor makes sense because any bot can show aggression regardless of what weapon they have. Damage and control are dependent on each bot’s weapon, so having those two categories be equal would make fights fair and keep the field diverse.
@@Jellyman1129 I was thinking about if it makes sense to say this, but my problem with the damage category is that while many robots in theory are capable of dealing damage to their opponent, spinners are the only ones that can reliably do that in a spinner meta. I would personally replace the damage category with the old strategy category from years ago, rework how that category works to make it less unclear, and change effective use of your primary weapon to efficient use of your primary weapon. Effective use wants you to deal damage while efficient use wants your weapon to do its job. Thoughts?
I see what you’re getting at, but damage has to be a category somewhere. It would make JDs extremely controversial. Yes, spinners are the only ones to do significant damage, but control bots are the only ones to get significant control. So I’m okay with damage and control being categories as long as they’re equal. Then aggression being the most heavily weighted category would encourage aggressive fights and keeping them entertaining. Plus, any bot can be aggressive regardless of what weapon they use. Heck, you could argue control should be worth MORE than damage because control bots rely on lasting the full three minutes and winning by JD. Spinners rely on getting KOs, so they should be penalized for not killing their opponent. Look at Tombstone vs. Gruff from Season 4. By my judging criteria, Gruff won that fight. If a fight LOOKS like one bot dominated, but the scoring on PAPER gives the win to the other bot, then that judging criteria is heavily flawed. And I feel like that’s what we’ve been seeing time and time again. So my philosophy is that the judging criteria should mimic what we saw in the fight. It’s not about punishing spinners and ignoring damage, it’s about properly recognizing control as a viable category and keeping it just as valuable as damage.
Most control bots are BORING and nobody wants to turn most matches in a snoozefest shoving match. Nobody gets excited for control bots, they're the bane of battlebots. It doesn't much matter what else you think, this is entertainment and if it's not entertaining, it ceases to exist. This isn't huggingBots, its not wrestlebots, its BATTLE bots. And here's the co-creator of battlbots supporting what I just said ruclips.net/video/JR-smvlT0M4/видео.html . They got cancelled when there were too many push bots.
Your opinion of what counts as entertaining doesn’t mean you can bias the judging criteria to your liking. The old days of BattleBots had literal bricks with wedges on them. It’s not like that anymore as control bots have an actual active weapon that either lifts or grapples or crushes. Even the co-creator himself said control bots like DUCK!, Gruff, and Kraken are indeed entertaining. If you insist that spinners are the only viable weapon, then every bot will look like End Game in a few years. It’ll be nothing but vertical spinners as far as the eye can see. At least the 2015 season had a diverse cast of robots. I’d rather watch a pushing match and occasional use of the arena hazards than two vertical spinners having super long forks trying to get the ground game. That strategy has been done to death and is more boring than any pushing match. If the judging criteria was that good, why would they need to add a Match Steward that allows competitors to appeal judges decisions?
I would actually replace Damage with Weapon Effectiveness. Here is why:
We know lifters and flipper cannot do significant damage. Each robot has a weapon, so the usage of the weapon should count for points. Therefore, Weapon Effectiveness should be a category.
I agree, because the main objective of any fight is to completely destroy OR DISABLE your opponent. So in order to not bias against any weapon type, the criteria should determine how effective your chosen weapon is. Otherwise, builders are going to purposely choose weapons that fit the biased criteria in order to win, making the field lack diversity. That’s why vertical spinners are oversaturating the meta.
I like this idea, but I know the BattleBots producers would never allow this because fights between lifters would be “boring”. So I kept damage as a category, but made it less important than aggression as a compromise. That way, all robots must be aggressive to win regardless of weapon type without completely sacrificing visceral carnage.
Personally, I have a massive hot take here, but I think the damage category needs to go. You could have damage be 1 point and it would favor spinners more than other designs because they deal more damage.
I’m totally okay with damage being a category, but I think it should be equal to the control category. That way, a control bot who can’t get damage points has a fair chance against a spinner that can’t get control points. Having damage as a category is required in a sport like this, but I don’t think it should be weighed so heavily against the other categories.
Having aggression be the deciding factor makes sense because any bot can show aggression regardless of what weapon they have. Damage and control are dependent on each bot’s weapon, so having those two categories be equal would make fights fair and keep the field diverse.
@@Jellyman1129 I was thinking about if it makes sense to say this, but my problem with the damage category is that while many robots in theory are capable of dealing damage to their opponent, spinners are the only ones that can reliably do that in a spinner meta. I would personally replace the damage category with the old strategy category from years ago, rework how that category works to make it less unclear, and change effective use of your primary weapon to efficient use of your primary weapon. Effective use wants you to deal damage while efficient use wants your weapon to do its job. Thoughts?
I see what you’re getting at, but damage has to be a category somewhere. It would make JDs extremely controversial. Yes, spinners are the only ones to do significant damage, but control bots are the only ones to get significant control. So I’m okay with damage and control being categories as long as they’re equal. Then aggression being the most heavily weighted category would encourage aggressive fights and keeping them entertaining. Plus, any bot can be aggressive regardless of what weapon they use.
Heck, you could argue control should be worth MORE than damage because control bots rely on lasting the full three minutes and winning by JD. Spinners rely on getting KOs, so they should be penalized for not killing their opponent. Look at Tombstone vs. Gruff from Season 4. By my judging criteria, Gruff won that fight. If a fight LOOKS like one bot dominated, but the scoring on PAPER gives the win to the other bot, then that judging criteria is heavily flawed. And I feel like that’s what we’ve been seeing time and time again.
So my philosophy is that the judging criteria should mimic what we saw in the fight. It’s not about punishing spinners and ignoring damage, it’s about properly recognizing control as a viable category and keeping it just as valuable as damage.
Most control bots are BORING and nobody wants to turn most matches in a snoozefest shoving match. Nobody gets excited for control bots, they're the bane of battlebots. It doesn't much matter what else you think, this is entertainment and if it's not entertaining, it ceases to exist. This isn't huggingBots, its not wrestlebots, its BATTLE bots. And here's the co-creator of battlbots supporting what I just said ruclips.net/video/JR-smvlT0M4/видео.html . They got cancelled when there were too many push bots.
Your opinion of what counts as entertaining doesn’t mean you can bias the judging criteria to your liking. The old days of BattleBots had literal bricks with wedges on them. It’s not like that anymore as control bots have an actual active weapon that either lifts or grapples or crushes. Even the co-creator himself said control bots like DUCK!, Gruff, and Kraken are indeed entertaining. If you insist that spinners are the only viable weapon, then every bot will look like End Game in a few years. It’ll be nothing but vertical spinners as far as the eye can see. At least the 2015 season had a diverse cast of robots. I’d rather watch a pushing match and occasional use of the arena hazards than two vertical spinners having super long forks trying to get the ground game. That strategy has been done to death and is more boring than any pushing match.
If the judging criteria was that good, why would they need to add a Match Steward that allows competitors to appeal judges decisions?