An anonymous reader writes "We got all excited earlier this week about robo-combat returning to TV with ESPN, but now PopMech super geek Erik Sofge talks to the folks at BattleBots and finds out that because of so many early entries, the competition will be delayed until at least November. The reason? Gone are the babes and predictable wedge fights, in are eager engineering students, a crazy ramp arena and lots of new rules. Worth the wait, or do we miss the Comedy Central version?"
Pah. The first (and last) time I watched one of these "battle bots" programmes, I was left thinking "where are the robots". All I saw was (somewhat dangerous) remote controlled toys.
When your battle bot can battle even somewhat autonomously, then I'll watch.
I think that may be the point of using engineering students in this one instead my relatives. By relatives I mean people that even if they don't have a mullet on the outside, they have one on the inside along with a rusted out Camero hidden in the backyard grass.
Engineering students are nerds like us and will naturally gravitate towards autonomy, bonus points to the team that makes their robot detect the amount of damage it has taken and start to act like a helpless injured animal to win sympathy from the other team then turn around and viciously destroy them.
Engineering students will find the problem of autonomy more interesting, but when it comes down to it, human control is going to give a team the greatest chance of winning. Furthermore, if autonomy is not required, the time spent developing it would be better spent on weapons and defense systems. The only way autonomy would happen is if it is required. I'd love to see it as a requirement, but the fact is that controlled machines are going to be more interesting to watch, even if they represent less of a tech
When your battle bot can battle even somewhat autonomously, then I'll watch.
We're not even close to being able to have an AI that would be able to adapt to a new opponent with a new weapon system or form of motion. We've been able to make decent autonomous robots that operate in a strictly controlled environment where they can be programmed to expect everything that can happen -- e.g. robots that play soccer, now toss a football at one, or make the floor like a mogul ski slope, and see what it does. Heck, a lot of AIs go completely mental when faced with unknown stimulus.
So given the practical realities of AI today, you'd essentially have to get rid of all the engineering and design aspects of the robots, and basically have a standard robot so that you could make the necessary assumptions about what enemies it would face. Not that this kind of thing isn't interesting -- I always loved programming crobots which had only one robot with standard abilities. It's just that practically speaking you have to choose between software engineering and hardware engineering, and at this point I just think unique human-controlled fighting machines is more exciting.
Not to mention the extra cost and effort barriers greatly limiting the number of participants. And, if the AI has to be *on* the bot itself, they're putting their expensive computing hardware at risk of destruction, adding even more cost. I think these changes are great. My two biggest complaints were that they tried to "WWF" it, and that it all degenerated into "Wedge vs. wedge". Sounds like they're fixing both of those problems. An uneven ground surface should indeed deal well with the wedges, as well
you are assuming that the AI is a true AI, instead a well designed expert system could classify enemies. using detailed radar or video analysis you can search for fast moving parts since most weapons will be fast movine, then automatically evade what appears to be the range of motion of said moving part. sure it's more complex than a roomba but it's not impossible.
No, I'm not. I'm talking about "weak" AI, the practical side of machine learning and decision making algorithms. Look at our best robots -- Asimo, the RoboCup, even industrial machinery controllers -- and you'll find systems that operate between passably and impressively in their particular controlled environment, but are fairly useless outside it. Even RoboCup -- soccer playing robots -- only works because all the robots are essentially the same, and the ball an
The Micromouse tournaments have had systems that can navigate unfamiliar and changeable environments for something like 30+ years. Robot Table-Tennis has been going on for well over 15 years now and competitors can aim at (and hit) very dynamic targets. Robot Soccer is progressing to the point where multiple machines can target an individual object in an environment of moving targets. Open Source code available from NASA simplifies the development of mission-oriented robot devices. Open Source code available from various other groups simplifies the development of autonomous vehicles.
Given where student robotics already is, and given the software availability, what more can you possibly need for a perfectly viable autonomous robot league for Battlebots?
Soccer leads to one cool thing you could do with autonomous battle bots (as if autonomy shouldn't be enough to interest slashdot nerds): have armies of them fight.
New rules :
* the first day, every robot fights a simple robot or remote-controlled one, created by the organizers. Those who can fight it are admitted. These challenges are public so that each team can see the other teams' robot in action.
* 24 before the fight, teams know which robot they will have to fight
* They have one hour between each battle to change the program of their robot or to input new parameters
That's approximately what is being done in the European Robotic Cup Eurobot [eurobot.org]. The intent is not
While I agree that it does seem kind of lame that a show titled "BattleBots" featured no actual robots, I highly doubt that a show featuring autonomous bots would actually be interesting to watch.
To borrow a quote from bash.org [bash.org], all you'd end up watching are robots that "collect data about the surrounding environment, then discard it and drive into walls."
But even assuming that the AI could match the human-controlled bots, it wouldn't make it any more interesting. Instead of watching a bunch of human-co
The lack of destruction was the main thing for me as well. Battlebots, the show with no actual battling going on and no actual robots. On comedy central, but also featuring no comedy. The show failed on so many levels.
... it's the bots that turn me on, so I'm not sure I understand what the loss would be.
(seriously though, I think focusing on the main content instead of "babes" will give the show much better longevity -- while Kari Byron can be pretty in MythBusters, that's not the main reason to why I watch that show)
I agree that loosing the 'babes' is a good thing. Sex sells, but it also waters down what I'm really watching for: expensive toys breaking other expensive toys in the coolest possible manner. I assume that most people were watching for the same reason, not to see the cheerleaders.
As much of their crew are former competitors in the BattleBots league.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadblow [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blendo [wikipedia.org]
Grant's bot was Deadblow - it ranked #2 in the middleweight division and had quite the badass hammer (I remember it putting holes in a number of competitors).
Jamie and Adam's robot was Blendo, and my favorite quote from the wikipedia page:
"Blades attached to the shell caused grievous damage to its opponents, removing bodywork and in some instances causing them to be thrown over the Lexan safety shields into the audience. After two fights it was deemed too hazardous to compete by the event supervisors and the insurance company. It was given co-champion status in exchange for withdrawing from the competition."
Worth the wait, or do we miss the Comedy Central version?
It's worth the wait and we - I, at least - miss the CC version.
I'd love to see more programming that shows "nerds" / "geeks" / whatever you want to call us in a positive light. We've conquered the public programming sector (PBS, NPR, the cable channels with a scientific bent, etc), but we have made little success in the mainstream programming sector.
Seeing a pale skin dude (or chic!) on ESPN... workin' a bot... will be a wonderful day.
And I may actually watch ESPN! (I've got my system setup now so it automatically skips over the channel when surfing.)
I guess the subject says it all. These are just fancy RC cars. I'd be about a million times more interested in seeing the FIRA RoboWorld Cup [fira.net] or RoboCup [robocup.org] televised.
There's a rather significant difference between the two. Robo Soccer contestants don't have to deal with levels of kinetic energy that would make a large rifle blush from sheer inadequacy (I'm not joking here - some of the KE numbers on the big spinners are absurd). The sport is already hideously expensive - top contestants can be over $100/lb in just construction, and flying teams and shipping robots isn't cheap, not to mention the possibility (probability?) that a significant percentage of that investment
Sheer kinetic energy doesn't make robots interesting. What makes it interesting are the extremely difficult AI problems one needs to solve to make an autonomous robot. Nova's Great Robot Race [pbs.org] was a facinating program to watch for just that reason. Nobody went particularly fast, and I don't even remember if anyone crashed. What I do remember are the teams weighing the tradeoffs between having sensors on a gimble or using software stabilizing routines. Or the problems involved in using stereovision, or ge
I'm not arguing that the KE is what makes it interesting. I'm arguing that the KE makes it a far, far more difficult engineering problem than most people seen to anticipate. Comparing trying to make a Battlebot autonomous to making a robot soccer robot is an apples and oranges comparison - it's a whole different level of engineering and sophistication.
I remember being SO excited for the BB premiere and being totally disappointed at how lame it felt to actually watch it. It was all WWE-style hyperactive and the announcers were just annoying as hell and wouldn't shut up with their inane drivel. I remember one bot had a cheesy head thing mounted on it and they went NUTS when it got knocked off, even though it was just a superficial piece and in no way connected to function of the actual robot.
Sounds like they're taking the right approach this time!
That's what destroyed BattleBots in comparison to Robot Wars, the wrestling style comments. Highly fake, highly American, and highly annoying. Why would I want to see some bulky duo of Americans talking about robots fighting, when I could actually watch robots fighting? The commentators are necessary if you want to take something that is essentially dull, and make it exciting, such as American Football (great moments of tactical play interspersing boring, short maneuvering). But in this case... Robots! FIGHT
I was really disappointed with the Battle Bots on CC. I never could get into the episodes; they all felt really staged and predictable. The winner was always decided quickly and rarely had much trouble ascending through the ranks. Also, the mayhem was just too limited. I wanted more sparks, more dismembered, twitching robot bits laying on the arena floor.
What I'd really like to see is different divisions, RC controlled robots with killer death-hammers, saws and drills. And another division with AI bots th
First off, what did Comedy Central have to do with fighting robots? ESPN I sort of get (they call Poker a "sport", so I guess battlebots can be one, too), but why Comedy Central.
More to the point, I miss Battle Bots being televised, but I don't miss Comedy Central. The announcers were annoying, Carmen Electra was pointless, and they spent too much airtime dithering about nothing. The worst of it was that the camera angles and microphone pickup made the bots look like toys. Many of these machines took a team of guys to lift them out of the travel van and get them into the arena. Every year, they thickened the lexan around the arena, and every year, something managed to pierce it. These are nasty machines, but they never looked more powerful than an unmodded nerf gun.
I absolutely loved Robot Wars when it was shown here in the UK, one of the tv hilights of the week for me, seeing machines bash the shit out of each other is much more entertaining than any boxing match or wrestling match.
I'd heard about Battle Bots in the midst of watching Robot Wars and eventually one of the tv stations here aired a few shows, what a complete let down it was! there was some serious hostility of the opponents being portrayed on screen, wether it was real or staged it just felt nasty compared to the UK's Robot Wars where the teams would help each other out because they were mainly there for the whole entertainment & experience, not to gloat over their wins.
I would hope there's more friendly rivalry in the upcoming Battle Bots instead of nasty "I'm better than you" type taunts & attitude, but being an American show I don't hold out much hope, except perhaps that someone will torrent the shows because I really miss seeing robots beat the crap out of each other, half because of the fights and strategy involved and half because I love seeing the ingenuity and designs of the robots.
To a great extent it was simply not the done thing to completely demolish an opponent's robot. Even if it was shit, it represented a huge investment of effort, and most teams had at least one little kid involved - you don't want to make the geek-in-training cry, now, do you? This may have been encouraged further by the fact that BBC special effects had put together a squad of house robots that were enormously over any legitimate weight limits. If you think you've built a super-tough robot, try your hand aga
some of my favorite matches had only-a-wedge-on-wheels bots! it was funny watching them take one or two hits from a pneumatic pick hammer and stop working, or even better, get flipped over and impaled again.
He won't take your money, he just wants your life Collecting on your bounty just for being alive Shock you with his sockets, empty out your pockets, The police look for a clue but all they will find is you -
He uses the night to sneak past your sight Ninjas and pirates, they've got nothing on this guy He's sneaky and quiet, so keep your house lit Careful where you step, careful where you sit, 'cuz
(chorus) He's a Tin-Can Hitman, try to catch him if you can Secret robo-agent with a secret r
The Comedy Central version was just pathetic. At first it started off talking about the robots, but slowly turned into a joke. I blame both the contestants and Comedy Central. I blame Comedy Central for taking the show and taking away the nerdy aspects and instead focusing on marketing the show to more people and they did a pretty bad job at that with my next reason.
I blame the contestants for not letting their robots get smashed to bits. Most battles ended with the winner giving pity to the other contestant. Only a few battles featured the other robot getting destroyed. I wanted to see the robots fight to the death. Its like the money shot of the show. They first discuss the robot and how it works, all the aspects behind building it, etc. Then they go at it. I know alot of hardwork go into building these but seriously, when you put your machine in a arena full of dangerous obstacles and a competing robot, do you expect it to come out peacefully.
The majority of battles ended with a robot malfunctioning on the first blow and then if it didn't work after 30-60 seconds they ended the round.
Bonus mass allowance for autonomous robots. Remote control is neat and all that, but real robots have senors and logic (and flamethrowers)
Bonus mass allowance for legged robots. Additionally, there should be terrain features that favor legged bots over wheeled bots. Steps and potholes come to mind. Potholes with flamethrowers.
Large bonus mass allowance for bipedal legged robots. Hey, if you can make a bot walk and smash things then you're doing alright. If it walks and carries a flamethrower it is just about ideal.
A venue where flame and projectile weapons are safe (and encouraged). The ultimate bots from the previous incarnation of the series tended towards those that stored up huge amounts of angular momentum. Without the ability to counter this huge offensive potential with countermeasures such as nets or chains or flails these bots were almost unstoppable. I'm not sure how a flamethrower would help here, but flamethrowers make for great TV.
Finally, using the aforementioned flamethrowers, get rid of the WWE style announcers.
Personally I'd rather have something happen rather than watching a robot drive into a wall repeatedly or start attacking a box for no good reason. AI just isn't up to the level where the average joe with a bit of technical knowledge can build a fighting robot which will actualy do anything of value.
Could it be done? Sure, but your going to need a much bigger budget to do it.
Oh, the old show had its moments. I remember one particularly deadly battlebot, it had a spinning steel blade on top, like an inverted lawn mower. It would just cut the opponents to pieces. It was a pretty brilliant design, it was so low that in order to get under the blade to kill it or invert it, you had to get close enough for it to rip you to shreds. Other designs were obviously intended to be crowd-pleasers, tall robots with spinning circular saws or huge claws that looked great but performed badly. Oh
I hear you. I would actually be more interested if they made a standard bot that they supplied to contestants, and the only customization the contestants could do is put on logos and load the software. Heck, they could even make them humanoid torsos on caterpillar track bases. Give them arms and head. Then let them clutch midevil weapons. Put "soft spots" on them where a hydrolic line could be cut that would immobilize body parts. And, as you say, make it all autonomous. Maybe have rounds where the b
Blendo, from what I've heard, was very similar in concept to a UK robot called Hypnodisc. Big flywheel, all about the angular momentum. Hugely destructive - tears most robots to shreds.
Trouble was, the robots that rivalled Hypnodisc for the title were always well built and well armoured. So Hypnodisc would utterly destroy the no-hopers, and then when it met the likes of Cassius or Chaos or Razer or Panic Attack it found itself rather worse off. A flywheel weapon relies upon the one-hit kill; it's expensive in energy, so we often saw Hypnodisc running low on power after a few jolts, and left vulnerable. Worse yet, hit something that doesn't yield and you hurt yourself maybe more than the target...
That's because it was powered by lead-acid batteries. Nowadays, they'd be powered by things like A123 nanophosphate batteries [youtube.com], which you can get for a rather pricey but still affordable $2/Wh by breaking up Dewalt power tool battery packs. 3 times the energy density, almost twenty times the power density as lead-acid.
Robots? (Score:5, Insightful)
When your battle bot can battle even somewhat autonomously, then I'll watch.
Re:Robots? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The only way autonomy would happen is if it is required. I'd love to see it as a requirement, but the fact is that controlled machines are going to be more interesting to watch, even if they represent less of a tech
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrano [wikipedia.org]
Don't think I want to be around to watch when it decides to 'neutralize' some targets personally.
Re:Robots? (Score:5, Insightful)
We're not even close to being able to have an AI that would be able to adapt to a new opponent with a new weapon system or form of motion. We've been able to make decent autonomous robots that operate in a strictly controlled environment where they can be programmed to expect everything that can happen -- e.g. robots that play soccer, now toss a football at one, or make the floor like a mogul ski slope, and see what it does. Heck, a lot of AIs go completely mental when faced with unknown stimulus.
So given the practical realities of AI today, you'd essentially have to get rid of all the engineering and design aspects of the robots, and basically have a standard robot so that you could make the necessary assumptions about what enemies it would face. Not that this kind of thing isn't interesting -- I always loved programming crobots which had only one robot with standard abilities. It's just that practically speaking you have to choose between software engineering and hardware engineering, and at this point I just think unique human-controlled fighting machines is more exciting.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I think these changes are great. My two biggest complaints were that they tried to "WWF" it, and that it all degenerated into "Wedge vs. wedge". Sounds like they're fixing both of those problems. An uneven ground surface should indeed deal well with the wedges, as well
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, I'm not. I'm talking about "weak" AI, the practical side of machine learning and decision making algorithms. Look at our best robots -- Asimo, the RoboCup, even industrial machinery controllers -- and you'll find systems that operate between passably and impressively in their particular controlled environment, but are fairly useless outside it. Even RoboCup -- soccer playing robots -- only works because all the robots are essentially the same, and the ball an
I disagree. (Score:5, Interesting)
Given where student robotics already is, and given the software availability, what more can you possibly need for a perfectly viable autonomous robot league for Battlebots?
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Ah! (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
* the first day, every robot fights a simple robot or remote-controlled one, created by the organizers. Those who can fight it are admitted. These challenges are public so that each team can see the other teams' robot in action.
* 24 before the fight, teams know which robot they will have to fight
* They have one hour between each battle to change the program of their robot or to input new parameters
That's approximately what is being done in the European Robotic Cup Eurobot [eurobot.org]. The intent is not
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
While I agree that it does seem kind of lame that a show titled "BattleBots" featured no actual robots, I highly doubt that a show featuring autonomous bots would actually be interesting to watch.
To borrow a quote from bash.org [bash.org], all you'd end up watching are robots that "collect data about the surrounding environment, then discard it and drive into walls."
But even assuming that the AI could match the human-controlled bots, it wouldn't make it any more interesting. Instead of watching a bunch of human-co
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You don't actually think that it's practical to have robots that fight with lasers, do you?
Re:Robots? (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Well, being a geek... (Score:5, Insightful)
(seriously though, I think focusing on the main content instead of "babes" will give the show much better longevity -- while Kari Byron can be pretty in MythBusters, that's not the main reason to why I watch that show)
Re:Well, being a geek... (Score:5, Funny)
"My God, look how that bot's exoskeleton shines in the moonlight."
"Those mechanical legs go all the way up, baby."
"Seeing the lubricating oil spewing from that gouged bot makes me tingle in all the right places."
"Hot three on one bot action!"
"Man, those two bots just kept ramming the other one into submission! I had to change my underwear."
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny you mention Mythbusters (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ZOMG do we have a female on slashdot ?
Anyway speak for yourself.
Yes and yes. (Score:3, Funny)
I'd love to see more programming that shows "nerds" / "geeks" / whatever you want to call us in a positive light. We've conquered the public programming sector (PBS, NPR, the cable channels with a scientific bent, etc), but we have made little success in the mainstream programming sector.
Seeing a pale skin dude (or chic!) on ESPN... workin' a bot... will be a wonderful day.
And I may actually watch ESPN! (I've got my system setup now so it automatically skips over the channel when surfing.)
Re:Yes and yes. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
not autonomous, not interested (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
First one suffered from faux excitement (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like they're taking the right approach this time!
Bad commentators (Score:3, Insightful)
Why would I want to see some bulky duo of Americans talking about robots fighting, when I could actually watch robots fighting? The commentators are necessary if you want to take something that is essentially dull, and make it exciting, such as American Football (great moments of tactical play interspersing boring, short maneuvering). But in this case... Robots! FIGHT
I was really disappointed (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, the mayhem was just too limited. I wanted more sparks, more dismembered, twitching robot bits laying on the arena floor.
What I'd really like to see is different divisions, RC controlled robots with killer death-hammers, saws and drills. And another division with AI bots th
CC Version Cool Despite Producers Worst Efforts (Score:4, Interesting)
First off, what did Comedy Central have to do with fighting robots? ESPN I sort of get (they call Poker a "sport", so I guess battlebots can be one, too), but why Comedy Central.
More to the point, I miss Battle Bots being televised, but I don't miss Comedy Central. The announcers were annoying, Carmen Electra was pointless, and they spent too much airtime dithering about nothing. The worst of it was that the camera angles and microphone pickup made the bots look like toys. Many of these machines took a team of guys to lift them out of the travel van and get them into the arena. Every year, they thickened the lexan around the arena, and every year, something managed to pierce it. These are nasty machines, but they never looked more powerful than an unmodded nerf gun.
UK Robot Wars (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd heard about Battle Bots in the midst of watching Robot Wars and eventually one of the tv stations here aired a few shows, what a complete let down it was! there was some serious hostility of the opponents being portrayed on screen, wether it was real or staged it just felt nasty compared to the UK's Robot Wars where the teams would help each other out because they were mainly there for the whole entertainment & experience, not to gloat over their wins.
I would hope there's more friendly rivalry in the upcoming Battle Bots instead of nasty "I'm better than you" type taunts & attitude, but being an American show I don't hold out much hope, except perhaps that someone will torrent the shows because I really miss seeing robots beat the crap out of each other, half because of the fights and strategy involved and half because I love seeing the ingenuity and designs of the robots.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
being nostalgic (Score:2, Interesting)
Perhaps I should reconsider (Score:2)
Oh well, my payment will be in the form of a show that I'll definately be watching.
Guns, please (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foster-Miller_TALON [wikipedia.org]
And I would watch it.
Obligatory robotronica reference (Score:2)
Comedy Central Version (Score:4, Interesting)
I blame the contestants for not letting their robots get smashed to bits. Most battles ended with the winner giving pity to the other contestant. Only a few battles featured the other robot getting destroyed. I wanted to see the robots fight to the death. Its like the money shot of the show. They first discuss the robot and how it works, all the aspects behind building it, etc. Then they go at it. I know alot of hardwork go into building these but seriously, when you put your machine in a arena full of dangerous obstacles and a competing robot, do you expect it to come out peacefully.
The majority of battles ended with a robot malfunctioning on the first blow and then if it didn't work after 30-60 seconds they ended the round.
Wish List for Robot Combat Show (Score:3, Interesting)
- Bonus mass allowance for autonomous robots. Remote control is neat and all that, but real robots have senors and logic (and flamethrowers)
- Bonus mass allowance for legged robots. Additionally, there should be terrain features that favor legged bots over wheeled bots. Steps and potholes come to mind. Potholes with flamethrowers.
- Large bonus mass allowance for bipedal legged robots. Hey, if you can make a bot walk and smash things then you're doing alright. If it walks and carries a flamethrower it is just about ideal.
- A venue where flame and projectile weapons are safe (and encouraged). The ultimate bots from the previous incarnation of the series tended towards those that stored up huge amounts of angular momentum. Without the ability to counter this huge offensive potential with countermeasures such as nets or chains or flails these bots were almost unstoppable. I'm not sure how a flamethrower would help here, but flamethrowers make for great TV.
Finally, using the aforementioned flamethrowers, get rid of the WWE style announcers.Peter
Re: (Score:2)
Could it be done? Sure, but your going to need a much bigger budget to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Other designs were obviously intended to be crowd-pleasers, tall robots with spinning circular saws or huge claws that looked great but performed badly. Oh
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I hope... (Score:4, Interesting)
Trouble was, the robots that rivalled Hypnodisc for the title were always well built and well armoured. So Hypnodisc would utterly destroy the no-hopers, and then when it met the likes of Cassius or Chaos or Razer or Panic Attack it found itself rather worse off. A flywheel weapon relies upon the one-hit kill; it's expensive in energy, so we often saw Hypnodisc running low on power after a few jolts, and left vulnerable. Worse yet, hit something that doesn't yield and you hurt yourself maybe more than the target...
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Jonah Hex
Re:Yeahh.... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent