# Battlebots 2015 entire season thread with spoilers



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

Was so excited to see this back.

I was surprised not only to see so many returning teams but so many returning robots...which kind of dissapointed me.

Seems like the arena is almost identical with the screws, hammers, and blades in the floor (which I assume will be turned on in later rounds).

Devdog mentioned screaming at Nightmare when he got flipped over...I did the same thing this season...which I also did 10 or 15 years ago when the same robot had the same problem! Learn a little. A simple "flipper" on the wheel would have worked. 

That first robot was really destructive but it's achille's heel is that it needs time to spin up to speed. If a bot could get up on it quick, it might be able to flip it or something.


----------



## markp99 (Mar 21, 2002)

Those tall/top heavy robots = poor design, unless they have a simple upright mechanism.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

pmyers said:


> That first robot was really destructive but it's achille's heel is that it needs time to spin up to speed. If a bot could get up on it quick, it might be able to flip it or something.


That was my thought. No way that sucker can right itself.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

Yeah..if you don't design a robot that can either flip or still function "on its back", I think you are gonna be in trouble.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

For some reason I seem to remember that "flippers" dominated in the past.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

pmyers said:


> That first robot was really destructive but it's achille's heel is that it needs time to spin up to speed. If a bot could get up on it quick, it might be able to flip it or something.


It looked to me like they allowed it to spin up before they blew the horn.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

Dan203 said:


> It looked to me like they allowed it to spin up before they blew the horn.


Sort of....They let them all "power up" before the match to make sure they work. Then they shut them down and hit the ready button. Then they go.

All bots start stationary including any spinners.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

If you looked at the spoilered comment by the guy who was at the taping, that seems to be a final check that everything is working, before they go.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

pmyers said:


> For some reason I seem to remember that "flippers" dominated in the past.


Toro!


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

vertigo235 said:


> Toro!


From the previews:



Spoiler



Looks like the same team has a newer version, called Bronco.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

eddyj said:


> From the previews:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Spoiler



I saw that, and I'm excited, Toro was one of my favorites, I especially liked how it "righted" itself. They would activate the flipper and it would basically do a back flip upright again!


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Toro was awesome indeed!


----------



## scsiguy72 (Nov 25, 2003)

Fun fact.....

I was at the taping, on day 3 they had grudge matches, that was really fun, they had fight after fight, very quick between fights. (didn't count in the standings)



Spoiler



A lot of the promos use footage from these matches.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

scsiguy72 said:


> Fun fact.....
> 
> I was at the taping, on day 3 they had grudge matches, that was really fun, they had fight after fight, very quick between fights. (didn't count in the standings)
> 
> ...


I hope they show the grudge matches!


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

pmyers said:


> That first robot was really destructive but it's achille's heel is that it needs time to spin up to speed. If a bot could get up on it quick, it might be able to flip it or something.


That seemed to be the case with all the spinners. Took time to get up to speed and then came to a dead stop if something gets in the way. I'm kinda surprised these engineers haven't figured out a way to solve that problem. I wonder if it's just too hard to get the necessary torque out of a motor that small.


----------



## MarkofT (Jul 27, 2001)

The motors they user are all high torque, the spinners themselves store a lot of kinetic energy while spinning. When they stop, all that combined power has been expended into the struck object. It's just that those struck objects are quite strong.


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

Not sure why they had to have a rematch when one team merely (and cleverly) took advantage of a rule change. I thought it was a brilliant move.


----------



## justen_m (Jan 15, 2004)

That flaming mini bot with Witch Doctor was cool. I wish the fight would have gone all the way. Bronco was literally smoking at the end of the match.

In the third match with Tombstone and Counter Revolution, I replayed the final knock-out blow a half dozen times! Holy ****!!! That blow knocked CR half way across the arena only to impact high up on the wall! Complete knockout at 2:23!

The present that Complete Control had?! Totally great. I agree, it was a brilliant way to take advantage of the rules. Reminded me of the Roman gladiator battles where the fisherman-themed gladiator had a trident and net. The grudge match between the two was fun to watch. What was the point of the homing device/tracker they mentioned that Ghost Raptor had, during the pre-fight builder interview? 

I just wish they'd show more of the other matches. I am happy with the four wild card picks.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

justen_m said:


> In the third match with Tombstone and Counter Revolution, I replayed the final knock-out blow a half dozen times! Holy ****!!! That blow knocked CR half way across the arena only to impact high up on the wall! Complete knockout at 2:23!


Totally agree. Can't wait to see more of Tombstone. That seems like a nearly invincible design.



justen_m said:


> I just wish they'd show more of the other matches. I am happy with the four wild card picks.


I don't understand why they waste so much time between matches with the human interest stories and the studio analysis and then take two minutes to speed through the highlights of four full matches. Less of that unnecessary crap and they could have shown all 12 first-round matches in their entirety.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

justen_m said:


> That flaming mini bot with Witch Doctor was cool. I wish the fight would have gone all the way. Bronco was literally smoking at the end of the match.
> 
> In the third match with Tombstone and Counter Revolution, I replayed the final knock-out blow a half dozen times! Holy ****!!! That blow knocked CR half way across the arena only to impact high up on the wall! Complete knockout at 2:23!
> 
> ...


I think Complete Control should have been a Wild Card. They jammed something in the arena and lost most of their mobility and they still could have won that match on points. If they had not had that mechanical failure, they would have won outright, IMO. Even without the net.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

What is the spiral spoked wheel with a few teeth that many bots have? It must come off the shelf somewhere. It's really useless!


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

scooterboy said:


> Not sure why they had to have a rematch when one team merely (and cleverly) took advantage of a rule change. I thought it was a brilliant move.


It _sounded_ like the Umpires (or whoever makes official determinations on rule compliance) thought that the guy was wrong. Despite the (apparently) removing mention of entanglement in one spot in the rules they rules that entanglement was still against the rules.

IOW the loophole he thought he found was ruled not to exist; so the net was illegal. At that point their options are basically a directed forfeit for rules violation or a rematch. Presumably because the refs saw there was legitimate room for misunderstanding they didn't just award the match to the other team.
I'm glad they had the bots fight it out.

But just getting minimal highlights for most of the matches was annoying. I'd have much preferred to see those. After all, the fighting is why I'm watching. Don't skimp on that!


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I got the sense that the absence of any rule against the net was accurate, but that it was unintentional by whoever sanctions the fights and creates the rules, and this situation simply brought that error to light. 

So at that point, they can either throw up their hands and say, "Well, there's nothing we can do about it now" and then every bot with a spinner would be defeated by the opponent adding a net. 

Or they fix the rule, state that you can't use entanglement devices from here on out, and then let those two bots start over from scratch. 

Frankly, that was an excellent way to create some drama and discussion about the show. I wouldn't be at all surprised if that whole net fiasco was orchestrated by the producers, with the team using it knowing that they wouldn't be penalized and it would simply be "no harm, no foul."


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> I got the sense that the absence of any rule against the net was accurate, but that it was unintentional by whoever sanctions the fights and creates the rules, and this situation simply brought that error to light.
> 
> So at that point, they can either throw up their hands and say, "Well, there's nothing we can do about it now" and then every bot with a spinner would be defeated by the opponent adding a net.
> 
> Or they fix the rule, state that you can't use entanglement devices from here on out, and then let those two bots start over from scratch.


Could be. Though from the few quotes we heard it sounded like at least some examples of incapacitating material (I specifically remember fishing line and ball bearings) were specifically disallowed - leaving at least an impression that bots were allowed to use, and shouldn't have to be designed to mitigate against, materials to tangle them up or remove their mobility (other than through direct damage)
But it's certainly an easier decision to make when the net was obviously an optional add-on; not a core part of Total Control's design.

It would probably have been harder to just "clarify" the missing (or at least confusing) rule if someone's entire bot combat strategy was built around entangling opponents. (But then that would probably be obvious enough to have come up and been addressed prior to the match)


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I'm not sure I'm going to make it through the whole run. I remember why I lost interest in this show the first time around. These are not "bots" they're remote controlled cars with weapons. The ones that always win are either fast and low to the ground, so they can get under the other bots, or have some sort of super destructive spinner like that tombstone guy. The rest are all style over function and just get annihilated. 

It's been what 15 years and I see zero innovation over the old designs.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

This is my first season watching this show and have been really enjoying it! Can't wait for more destruction!


----------



## MarkofT (Jul 27, 2001)

MikeAndrews said:


> What is the spiral spoked wheel with a few teeth that many bots have? It must come off the shelf somewhere. It's really useless!


It's a modification to the long bar spinner. Those few teeth are the hammers on the end of a long bar but to prevent the bar from breaking in the middle due to hitting something solid, they connect the ends of the bar with 2 semi circles increasing the strength of the bar without adding any weight to the center portions. A weighty center of the bar doesn't add much inertia to the weapon but does suck energy from the motor during spin up.

The really effective spinner weapons are short bars or a few cylinders with a few teeth.



Dan203 said:


> I'm not sure I'm going to make it through the whole run. I remember why I lost interest in this show the first time around. These are not "bots" they're remote controlled cars with weapons. The ones that always win are either fast and low to the ground, so they can get under the other bots, or have some sort of super destructive spinner like that tombstone guy. The rest are all style over function and just get annihilated.
> 
> It's been what 15 years and I see zero innovation over the old designs.


At least half of the bots in this series are the bots from the old show. And they made such huge gains in designs back then, all that is left are refinements. It's like physics. There has been nothing new in the last 50 years.

What I haven't seen are any two wheels spinners. Those were the biggest innovation from BattleBots. I guess that's because they didn't make any superheavyweights using that tech.


----------



## dtle (Dec 12, 2001)

Here are the Rules:
http://www.docdroid.net/152oj/battlebots-2015-design-rulesrev-11a.pdf.html


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

I think this part would make the net illegal. Bolding mine.



> Squirting glue, throwing out fishing line, ball bearings *and such*.


This is a generic rule, not a specific to only those items, and the intent seems pretty clear.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

I think this part would make the net illegal. Bolding mine.



> Squirting glue, throwing out fishing line, ball bearings *and such*.


This is a generic rule, not a specific to only those items, and the intent seems pretty clear.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Technically, it did not "throw out" the net. It was just holding it and the spinner entangled itself when it attacked the box with the net.

Personally, I would like to see the judges interpret the rules more leniently in cases like this. That might get people thinking and innovating more.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

MarkofT said:


> At least half of the bots in this series are the bots from the old show. And they made such huge gains in designs back then, all that is left are refinements. It's like physics. There has been nothing new in the last 50 years.


But it's not like there aren't innovations to be made. These guys are just content with their designs because the "work". I want to see something like the battle bot on Big Hero 6.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

Dan203 said:


> But it's not like there aren't innovations to be made. These guys are just content with their designs because the "work". I want to see something like the battle bot on Big Hero 6.


I agree, mostly. Some of these bots just look like they brushed off the dust from 13 years ago and came on the show. Maybe there are "advances" in the controls, or motors that we can't see....but externally they all look like the same bots from 13 years ago.

Not to mention that the arena is exactly the same.

I am loving the show...but I would have preferred more "freshness".

Maybe have a division for non-traditional bots....like ones with no wheels or something.


----------



## Big Deficit (Jul 8, 2003)

It's like football. The game changes, but not very fast. The athletes improve, but at the same time so the overall impression is of little change. The external shells could be changed for style, but the boring looking strong wedge shape will still be preferred. These things could be 200% stronger and faster than their 2001 counterparts, but if they all have similar internal upgrades, it will appear as little has changed. They could change the arena, but they're already far into the goofy there and adding more is potentially even goofier ( Robot Wars anyone?). I'm sure if CC hadn't (and shouldn't have) canceled the original, we would have seen a bit more change. Hopefully, the ratings will be there without any petty internal network bickering that can often kill profitable shows (and probably killed this one the first time around)? We'll get another season and some noticeable innovation. Now, where's Tazbot?


----------



## Donbadabon (Mar 5, 2002)

We need an autonomous category where the robots are not controlled by humans, and they have to search out and find each other in order to fight.

That is what I would expect from a modern day show.

I agree, it really is like they picked up where they left off. I love the mayhem and destruction still.


----------



## justen_m (Jan 15, 2004)

Donbadabon said:


> We need an autonomous category where the robots are not controlled by humans, and they have to search out and find each other in order to fight.


I agree, but for tv audiences, it might be a bit boring. Much of the battle would be the 'bots just trying to find each other and make contact and much less carnage.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Dan203 said:


> But it's not like there aren't innovations to be made. These guys are just content with their designs because the "work". I want to see something like the battle bot on Big Hero 6.


The thing is, while a more complex robot might look cool, it really becomes more of a hindrance than anything else. Simple bots are often the most effective.


----------



## MarkofT (Jul 27, 2001)

DARPA bots and autonomous vehicles can barely navigate a short course. They have a long long way to go before they could fight. And it would all be so fragile that the most dangerous weapon would be a 6 oz ball peen hammer.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Nah. If they can build an autonomous hurdling dog robot, they can build an autonomous fighting robot.






They need not be fragile. They could be tough battlebots, just with more sensors.


----------



## MarkofT (Jul 27, 2001)

That video was published just over a month ago. It's abilities are recent.

And the bots could be touch, but the sensors are extremely fragile.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

MarkofT said:


> And the bots could be touch, but the sensors are extremely fragile.


Not true. There are plenty of sensors that can withstand high forces and g-shocks.


----------



## MarkofT (Jul 27, 2001)

Yes, but not the ones needed for machine vision.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

MarkofT said:


> Yes, but not the ones needed for machine vision.


Wrong.

Of course there are CCD sensors that are able to withstand high forces and g-shock. There are all sort of applications where a CCD sensor (and associated optics) are required to operate in all sorts of hostile environments and harsh conditions. These would be fine for use in a battlebot.

Also, you are assuming that "machine vision" is required to make an autonomous battlebot. I can think of several designs that could sense the opponent and environment without using "machine vision".


----------



## MarkofT (Jul 27, 2001)

Build one then.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

yeah but part of the fun for the builders is actually piloting them..


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Plus there's a major cost issue. These "RC bots" probably only cost a few thousand dollars, whereas an autonomous bot that could detect and destroy the other competitor all on its own would probably be more like hundreds of thousands if not millions in R&D plus hardware and programming.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

DevdogAZ said:


> Plus there's a major cost issue. These "RC bots" probably only cost a few thousand dollars, whereas an autonomous bot that could detect and destroy the other competitor all on its own would probably be more like hundreds of thousands if not millions in R&D plus hardware and programming.


I'm sure people said the same thing about the first remote controlled battlebots 20 years ago.

Fortunately, there are a lot of people who are not so defeatist in their attitudes towards invention and innovation.


----------



## nataylor (Apr 26, 2000)

This is the kind of "excitement" you get with autonomous robots today:






It's going to be a while before we have autonomous fighting robots that are more exciting than watching paint dry.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

nataylor said:


> This is the kind of "excitement" you get with autonomous robots today:


Those are not battlebots. They are human analogue robots. Much more difficult to make bipedal robots that play a game like humans than to make a robot with wheels (or 6 or 8 legs) that moves in whatever way is most efficient for fighting.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

john4200 said:


> I'm sure people said the same thing about the first remote controlled battlebots 20 years ago.
> 
> Fortunately, there are a lot of people who are not so defeatist in their attitudes towards invention and innovation.


It's not defeatist. It's realist. As long as they're relying on the competitors to build things in their garages and as hobbies, the cost of autonomous bots will be prohibitive. If the TV show can somehow fund the development, then that could be a game changer.


----------



## nataylor (Apr 26, 2000)

john4200 said:


> Those are not battlebots. They are human analogue robots. Much more difficult to make bipedal robots that play a game like humans than to make a robot with wheels (or 6 or 8 legs) that moves in whatever way is most efficient for fighting.


The point is that the level of autonomy you want is very hard to do. Ignore the bipedal form of the robots. They still take way too long to lock on to a target. They have trouble coordinating their motion even at their low speed. They get confused easily. And they have a very hard time dealing with physical contact with other robots. Those are all things a righting robot would pretty much have to be perfect at for it to be entertaining to the general masses.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

DevdogAZ said:


> It's not defeatist. It's realist. As long as they're relying on the competitors to build things in their garages and as hobbies, the cost of autonomous bots will be prohibitive.


Nope, it *is* narrow-minded, defeatist thinking.

There is a proud history of hobbyists building things in the garage that are remarkable works of invention and innovation. When you are open to trying different things, and clever enough to come up with unusual ideas, you can often accomplish a great deal without spending a lot of money.

You need to think differently. While it may currently be expensive to build a very intelligent robot with lots of processing power and expensive sensors that think and perform similarly to a human controlled battlebot, such a thing is not necessary in order to make an effective autonomous battlebot.

There are all sorts of clever designs that can be made with relatively inexpensive hardware in order to make autonomous battlebots. For example, think along the lines of "obstacle ahead, reverse direction -- motion detected that way, move that way, contact, bash! flip!". Obviously there are ways that can go wrong, but that is where the innovation can come in. There are plenty of inexpensive motion detectors and rangefinders (optical or acoustic) that can be built in, and even some more complex sensors (similar to Kinect or Leap motion) could be utilized.


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

The driver of Stinger was pretty stupid. He flipped Warhead early and could have just waited out the clock. Instead he flipped Warhead back over (multiple times) risking his easy win.


----------



## doom1701 (May 15, 2001)

nataylor said:


> And they have a very hard time dealing with physical contact with other robots.


Yet another thing I have in common with robots.


----------



## Donbadabon (Mar 5, 2002)

Wondering why the builders put time into making fire? Has this ever been shown to be effective? Are they hoping to burn wiring? It just seems to be something that would take too long to accomplish.

We've said it so many times, simple is best. Low profile, high power, and just shove them into the obstacles. It is almost embarrassing how quickly the bots they brought back were rendered useless.


----------



## justen_m (Jan 15, 2004)

JETarpon said:


> The driver of Stinger was pretty stupid. He flipped Warhead early and could have just waited out the clock. Instead he flipped Warhead back over (multiple times) risking his easy win.


I thought there were better battles last week.

The first ended fairly fast after Ice Wave landed a handful of hard hits, stripping off a bunch of armor and then finally taking a couple wheels off Chomp, immobilizing it. Not bad, but quick. I'm a bit disappointed, because Chomp's flamer was pretty cool.

Stinger kicked Warhead's butt, flipping it on the first hit, and Warhead doesn't seem to be able to self-right. You are right, the smart thing for Stinger would have been to just leave Warhead stuck upside-down. The arena needs more powerful motors for the screws. Warhead seemed to stall them out. I wanna seem them grind a stuck bot into itsy-bitsy pieces. Stinger suffered battle damage to its rear wheel after it could have won.

Fight three was a surprising upset, especially considering the major battle damage Ghost Raptor was dealing with. Winning without your main weapon is pretty impressive. I was hoping Warrior Clan won. The flaming mini-bots, may they RIP, were cool.

Bronco had another easy win and sustained no damage. Driving and flipping Plan X into the screws, upside down. Again, the screws stopped, but Plan X was stuck.

Are the screws really so weak they stall out? Or do the arena operators shut them off? Fear of burning out the screw motors? Damaging them? Pity on the stuck bots?


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

nataylor said:


> It's going to be a while before we have autonomous fighting robots that are more exciting than watching paint dry.


I don't think people understand how difficult it will be to get good TV action from autonomous robots. As a scientific/engineering contest it would be an interesting challenge and fun to watch, but it wouldn't have as broad an appeal as human operators. I also think it would restrict the design space, since some designs would lend themselves much more to autonomous control. A horizontal spinner robot, for example needs only to know how to ram and then run away.

From their intro segment, it did look like the Neato Robotics team was using machine vision for something, but it wasn't clear to me what advantage this was offering his robot.



DevDogAz said:


> These "RC bots" probably only cost a few thousand dollars, whereas an autonomous bot that could detect and destroy the other competitor all on its own would probably be more like hundreds of thousands if not millions in R&D plus hardware and programming.


They could always install beacons on the robots to make detection easier.

I don't think you're looking at hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars to make this happen.



DevdogAZ said:


> I wouldn't be at all surprised if that whole net fiasco was orchestrated by the producers, with the team using it knowing that they wouldn't be penalized and it would simply be "no harm, no foul."


That was my first impression, that it was fake drama intended to make the TV more interesting. When they set the box on the robot, I told my wife that if it was me (having no idea of the rules), I would put some kind of string or wire in there to tangle up the other robot.

I have trouble believing the officials had no idea what was in that box. It fit the narrative really well of that robot & builder being one of the villains from the original series, prone to testing the rules with unorthodox techniques.



JETarpon said:


> The driver of Stinger was pretty stupid. He flipped Warhead early and could have just waited out the clock. Instead he flipped Warhead back over (multiple times) risking his easy win.


That was one of my favorite fights this season. Warhead didn't seem to be a significant threat. It was much better television for the fight to continue. Some people I think believe on putting on a good show, even if there is some risk. It upped my opinion of stinger significantly.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

smbaker said:


> I don't think people understand how difficult it will be to get good TV action from autonomous robots.


I don't think you understand what can be accomplished with autonomous battlebots.

For one thing, it would be possible to build a battlebot that could move and react faster than one controlled by a human. I think a lot of people would find a series of high-speed collisions, grapples, flips, etc. to be entertaining. Also, I can imagine highly suspenseful situations where you have one battlebot slowly homing in on another, the audience on the edge of their seats wondering whether the big meanie is going to be able to lock in on the underdog bot and clobber it.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

More likely just get in a steady state and orbit one another until the match ends.

Humans have intuition, and the ability to quickly alter a strategy if the initial strategy isn't working. 

I do admit that I would find autonomous battlebots fascinating, but that's me. Back in the late 80s, for a while I worked on an autonomous robot simulation game. Players would write programs for the robots, and the game would graphically simulate the combat until a robot was dead (i.e. basically a crobots clone). Trying out various algorithms was fun and educational, but mainly for people who were interested in software and algorithms. I just don't see it having a sufficiently broad appeal compared to a human driving a robot, emotionally invested in destroying his competition. There's too much of a disconnect between the builder and the autonomous machine.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Warhead was totally useless in both bouts.

I think they only gave it a wild card because it looks cool like the USS Enterprise.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Here's episode 3 edited down to just the fights.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

MikeAndrews said:


> Warhead was totally useless in both bouts.
> 
> I think they only gave it a wild card because it looks cool like the USS Enterprise.


I really didn't understand the point of Warhead. Sure, it looks cool, but what was it supposed to do? The spinner didn't seem to be able to inflict any damage on anything, and the arms and tail don't seem to have an offensive function. And then it's easy to flip and can't right itself. I just don't get why that design was allowed into the competition at all.

Same with Plan X and Chomp. Those bots that are not low to the ground and have lots of extraneous parts are just pointless.


----------



## ehusen (Jan 7, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> I really didn't understand the point of Warhead. Sure, it looks cool, but what was it supposed to do? The spinner didn't seem to be able to inflict any damage on anything, and the arms and tail don't seem to have an offensive function. And then it's easy to flip and can't right itself. I just don't get why that design was allowed into the competition at all.
> 
> Same with Plan X and Chomp. Those bots that are not low to the ground and have lots of extraneous parts are just pointless.


I agree Warhead's design isn't very effective but I think it actually did pretty well in the old Battlebots on CC. One thing that surprised me about it was it's ability to just survive. I think it won a lot of bouts just because the other robot finally broke down after wailing away. Even in these bouts it was still functioning at the end, just had trouble righting itself. But yeah it really isn't that effective a design just really durable.

The girl who ran Plan X was the same one who had the Ladybug sandbox robot from the old BB. That robot was cute and actually not as ineffective as one would think.

It does seem that flippers, pushers, and spinners are the optimal designs.

I do remember one robot from the old show that had some sort of pincer. It was pretty cool. Didn't always work but every so often it would manage to catch the opponent and just slowly "vice grip" the pincer into it.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> I really didn't understand the point of Warhead. Sure, it looks cool, but what was it supposed to do? The spinner didn't seem to be able to inflict any damage on anything, and the arms and tail don't seem to have an offensive function. And then it's easy to flip and can't right itself. I just don't get why that design was allowed into the competition at all.
> 
> Same with Plan X and Chomp. Those bots that are not low to the ground and have lots of extraneous parts are just pointless.


Plan X made me laugh, what a horrible design. It made it even funnier when she said it was too big to flip. Then within 10 seconds it was flipped and out of commission.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

MikeAndrews said:


> Warhead was totally useless in both bouts.
> 
> I think they only gave it a wild card because it looks cool like the USS Enterprise.


Totally agree and I don't remember the same design working very good 13 years ago.

Like I said earlier....I'd love a "misc" category for unorthdox bots that would actually encourage some inovation. Not many people are going to stray from the status quo when they know they have no chance.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Warhead is so poorly designed that near the end when it was nowhere near Iced Wave it flipped itself upside down just due to the opposite torque force of the spinner. The only feature it has is the ability to start with the kung fu pose.

In the previous incarnation there was a low multi-wheel wedge bot that could run equally well with either side up.  That seems to be a killer feature.

It looks like multi-wheels have the best traction and are the fastest.

The flamethrowers haven't had any effect but how about the Lithium battery fire - which can be caused by a short? BAD THING.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

I do like how some of the bots can "adapt" to their opponent by taking off certain weapons or adding armor pieces. I like the modular designs.


----------



## tivoboyjr (Apr 28, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> I really didn't understand the point of Warhead. Sure, it looks cool, but what was it supposed to do? The spinner didn't seem to be able to inflict any damage on anything, and the arms and tail don't seem to have an offensive function. And then it's easy to flip and can't right itself. I just don't get why that design was allowed into the competition at all.
> 
> Same with Plan X and Chomp. Those bots that are not low to the ground and have lots of extraneous parts are just pointless.


Same here. I don't get what advantage they are supposed to have beyond being gimmicky.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

Somebody messed up on that Plan X team or they had an instant malfunction. Their hammer never started up.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

If you are into podcasts, you should checkout the 6/16/2015 episode of Adam Savage's podcast "Still Untitled: The Adam Savage Project".

He and a couple other guys are talking about Battlebots and their experiences with building bots and being on the show back when it was still Robot Wars. They are talking about being at a filming of the latest version too.

http://www.tested.com/tech/531449-battlebots-and-kingsman-6162015/


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I watched the last episode in about 10 minutes by skipping the fluff and just watching the fights.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> I watched the last episode in about 10 minutes by skipping the fluff and just watching the fights.


Did the same. I'm not even sure it took 10 minutes. Who are these people that want to watch all this extra fluff and analysis and backstory? I'd be totally fine if each episode started with a graphic showing which two bots were fighting, and then cut to the blinking light counting down the 3 seconds before the fight starts, and then when the fight is over, cut to another graphic showing the next two competitors, and then cut to the blinking start light again.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

That's how I watch this, AGT, The Voice, etc. Just the performances and nothing else.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

Well if they did that the whole season could probably done in an hour.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

=guilty...I kinda like the fluff.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> Did the same. I'm not even sure it took 10 minutes. Who are these people that want to watch all this extra fluff and analysis and backstory?.


Commercial time!

You might as well why ask they don't show the Super Bowl in 90 minutes instead of 8 hours of hype.


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

MikeAndrews said:


> Commercial time!
> 
> You might as well why ask they don't show the Super Bowl in 90 minutes instead of 8 hours of hype.


No one is asking them to shorten the show or reduce the number of commercials. We just want the fluff replaced with more battles.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

scooterboy said:


> No one is asking them to shorten the show or reduce the number of commercials. We just want the fluff replaced with more battles.


I think the problem is with the number of contestants. I'm sure it's tough people to potentially piss away large amounts of money.


----------



## JohnS-MI (Jan 25, 2014)

Dan203 said:


> I watched the last episode in about 10 minutes by skipping the fluff and just watching the fights.


FF is the key to enjoying this show.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

JFriday said:


> I think the problem is with the number of contestants. I'm sure it's tough people to potentially piss away large amounts of money.


Then ABC should fund the bots.


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

scooterboy said:


> No one is asking them to shorten the show or reduce the number of commercials. We just want the fluff replaced with more battles.





JFriday said:


> I think the problem is with the number of contestants. I'm sure it's tough people to potentially piss away large amounts of money.


I don't see what one has to do with the other. 

If anything, more contestants = more battles they could show instead of insipid announcers and extended builder profiles.

ETA: wait - did you mean there are too few contestants?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

scooterboy said:


> I don't see what one has to do with the other.
> 
> If anything, more contestants = more battles they could show instead of insipid announcers and extended builder profiles.
> 
> ETA: wait - did you mean there are too few contestants?


I'm pretty sure that he meant there wouldn't be enough contestants to fill out the same number of episodes if each episode were just battle-battle-battle. These teams spend tens of thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours building these bots, and I suspect there isn't an unlimited supply of competitors.


----------



## tcristy (Feb 11, 2005)

There is an extremely limited number compared to the old days. This time they limited it to one size of bot instead of four classes and most people left the sport after the old show was cancelled. Looking at my list from the last season I competed, there were around 300 bots entered.


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> I'm pretty sure that he meant there wouldn't be enough contestants to fill out the same number of episodes if each episode were just battle-battle-battle.


That makes sense as we get closer to the finals. But for the first x episodes, there's plenty of matches they could have shown instead of the talking heads.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

scooterboy said:


> That makes sense as we get closer to the finals. But for the first x episodes, there's plenty of matches they could have shown instead of the talking heads.


We seem to be seeing all the matches they held. The only possible exception is the second episode, where they whipped through the Capt. Shredderator/Stinger, Overdrive/Chomp, Radioactive/Sweet Revenge, and Hypershock/Mohawk battles. While they breezed through these, most of these seemed to be nearly instant knockouts where we got to see the full battle (all 30 seconds of it or so).

Other than those four, as far as I can tell, we're seeing all of the other battles.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

There were 28 bots entered into the competition. 24 were chosen to battle, while 4 were entered as reserve bots. That means 12 first round battles, of which 4 were shown in the first show, while 4 were shown in full and 4 in "digest" form in the second episode.


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

So they showed all 12 round one battles in the first 2 episodes. They could have skipped the "digest" form and shown 6 full battles in Episode 1, and 6 full battles in Episode 2.

Even a boring battle would be better than spending that time on the fake sportscasters and the obligatory pretty announcer. I don't mind the builder profiles, but they would be more interesting if they got into showing the mechanics and design of the bots from a more technical aspect. I would think most people who are watching this show in the first place would find that interesting. Maybe I'm wrong though.


----------



## scsiguy72 (Nov 25, 2003)

I was at the filming of this season and talked to some of the bot designers. They told me that they only had a little over 2 months to get ready for the filming, and that is why some opted not to compete.


----------



## nataylor (Apr 26, 2000)

Bronco vs. Tombstone should be good next week.


----------



## Donbadabon (Mar 5, 2002)

Come on Witchdoctor. If you are going against a bot that can flip you, invest in a way to right yourself in case you end up turtled! You had it won. 

It would seem for all these bots, even a simple pneumatic rod that just fires straight up would give you a chance to right yourself. Anything is better than nothing.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

yeah, self righting is a requirement

I'm talking to you ICEwave and Witch Doctor.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Yeah Witch Doctor would have knocked Tombstone out of it if it had a way to right itself.


----------



## ehusen (Jan 7, 2002)

Yeah, self righting is a must (or drive upside down)

Bronco's flipper is also it's self-righting mechanism. I loved that fight with Stinger. Bronco flips himself over onto the grinders and you think that is it. Then it just drives off and flips itself back over. It then proceeds to flip Stinger right out of the ring in a huge fireball.

I think durability is just as important as having a good weapon. Tombstone was getting more damaged by its own hits on Witch Doctor than it was dealing out.

I think the left bracket had way tougher bots than the right.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

Yeah tombstone obviously uses a lot of his allowed 250lbs in his spinning bar, so when the bar hits something built well it sends the light section of his bot flying though the air.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

It was good to see Tombstone get knocked out because the driver was cocky before keeping the spinner off at first. It actually damaged itself with its own power.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I don't really understand what the bots like Bite Force and Overhaul are meant to do. It doesn't seem like they're good at flipping. They don't have any offensive weapons. They're like someone trying to wrestle when their opponent has a chainsaw.

The bout between Bronco and Stinger was awesome. But it's kind of lame that they constructed the arena with a void space behind the wall where a bot could get stuck like that. I don't want to see a bot win because the other bot got stuck behind a wall. I want to see the bot win by damaging the opponent beyond repair.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> I don't really understand what the boys like Bite Force and Overhaul are meant to do. It doesn't seem like they're good at flipping. They don't have any offensive weapons. They're like seine trying to wrestle when their opponent has a chainsaw.
> 
> The bout between Bronco and Stinger was awesome. But it's kind of lame that they constructed the arena with a void space behind the wall where a bot could get stuck like that. I don't want to see a bit win because the other bot got stuck behind a wall. I want to see the bot win by damaging the opponent beyond repair.


Yeah. Those pincer bots need "Hey, stand still for a moment while I grab you. Where ya going?" Good thing they "coincidently" had two pincers face each other, huh?

Getting tossed over the screws is like wrestlers tossing the opponent out of the ring.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

MikeAndrews said:


> It was good to see Tombstone get knocked out because the driver was cocky before keeping the spinner off at first. It actually damaged itself with its own power.


Huh? Tombstone did not get knocked out. Flung through the air, damaged, but still mobile, and won its round.


----------



## midas (Jun 1, 2000)

OK, this time in the right thread. 

I'm just glad to see those MIT guys lose.


----------



## tivoboyjr (Apr 28, 2003)

The matches leading up to the championship (last week and this week) were great. The actual championship was a bit of a let-down. As often happens with sports, the "real Super Bowl" was in the semi-finals, with Bronco vs Tombstone. I think the damage that Tombstone sustained right at the end of that match vs Bronco, stupidly going for the knockout, carried over into the finals and probably cost it the Giant Nut. Bite Force never really impressed me as a bot that could win it all but that guy was a great driver. He just would not let Tombstone get a clean shot at his treads (I thought Tombstone would incapacitate Bite Force pretty quickly).

Anyone know how much actual time passed between the semi-finals and the finals? I'm curious as to how much time they had to prep the bots for the finals.

If there's a next time for Tombstone and he can add weight under the rules, that base needs to be a lot heavier. The worst shots Tombstone took, in this match and every other one, were self-inflicted as a result of the force of its blade hitting the other bot and flipping Tombstone.

I also never really got the rules around being able to customize your bot for your opponent. Seems like some people did it and some didn't, which made me wonder whether it was more of a question of resources - if you had the money, parts, expertise and so on, you could change your bot around, but if you didn't too bad. Seems like that should be more of an even playing field. Either you can't do it, or give everyone more of an equal opportunity.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

tivoboyjr said:


> Anyone know how much actual time passed between the semi-finals and the finals? I'm curious as to how much time they had to prep the bots for the finals.


The only thing I have found out was, the entire tournament was taped over a three-day period at what used to be Mare Island Naval Shipyard northeast of San Francisco.
I have a feeling the schedule was something like:
Day 1 - first round; everybody fights once (12 matches)
Day 2 - round of 16 (8 matches)
Day 3 - quarter-finals, semi-finals, "three-way match", final (8 matches)
The problem with a schedule like this is, one finalist gets at least an hour more than the other to prepare for the final, unless there was some rule preventing the first semi-final winner from being worked on until the second semi-final ended. Then again, they probably considered that an advantage for being in the "top half" (the half with the #1 seed) of the bracket.

Then again again, if they can have 12 matches on the first day, they can have the 8 round of 16 and 4 quarter-final matches on day 2, and the semi-finals and finals on day 3; this gives the teams plenty of time to work on the robots between matches.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

That final matchup was very anticlimactic. Bite Force really had no weapon. The only thing it could do was shove. Unfortunately, Tombstone's driver made a very stupid call in the prior match that caused lots of damage. 

I loved the overall design of Tombstone with a killer spinning blade and the ability to function just as well upside down. Seems the only other thing it needs is a wedge of some sort on the backside that can be used to push opponents if/when the spinner gets damaged. That was the main reason Bite Force won, because Tombstone wasn't designed to push, and therefore was kind of at the mercy of the opponent if it couldn't attack.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

I was disapoitned that bronco didn't win, but i was still entertained by the series. Hopefully they renew and next year they get more participants.


----------



## Odds Bodkins (Jun 7, 2006)

Hopefully they'll tell Chris Rose to tone down the "OOOHHHHs!" and the reflex jerking every 5 seconds for next season. Still, so fun to have this show back. Next time, more bots and less background packages kindly.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

pretty much agree with what everybody is saying about the final.

I do love the robots that are "modular" and change to match their opponents. That's smart.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

I liked the final battle, I mean it could have been 10 seconds if Tombstone caught the other right right and just broke it. It was a decent back and forth for a bit


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

And you have to give the winner credit....the only reason they stayed in that match was because of the addition of that iron skirt they put on the front.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

Yeah that was cool, the bite force guy seemed to have experience against the tombstone guy and said he knew how to beat him.

And he wasn't lying!


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

vertigo235 said:


> Yeah that was cool, the bite force guy seemed to have experience against the tombstone guy and said he knew how to beat him.
> 
> And he wasn't lying!


Yeah the key is to use tombstones torque against him. Once he hits you, if it's solid enough it shoots HIM up into the air and does a lot of damage to himself


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

Odds Bodkins said:


> Hopefully they'll tell Chris Rose to tone down the "OOOHHHHs!" and the reflex jerking every 5 seconds for next season. Still, so fun to have this show back. Next time, more bots and less background packages kindly.


I don't know about that, but Season 2 has been confirmed.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Hopefully having the show renewed this early will allow more bot builders to get involved, which may lead to more battles and less filler.

Hopefully.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

Yes, new bots and new classifications. If they had a "non-traditional" class, maybe we'd get some new designs!


----------

