Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Robotics Entertainment

BattleBots Delayed, Will Go Brains Over Babes 125

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the more-engineering-the-better dept.
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?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

BattleBots Delayed, Will Go Brains Over Babes More

BattleBots Delayed, Will Go Brains Over Babes

Comments Filter:

  • Robots? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bitsy Boffin ( 110334 ) on Friday March 14, 2008 @06:34PM (#22756020) Homepage
    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.

    • Re:Robots? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by chuckymonkey ( 1059244 ) <charles.d.burton ... m ['gma' in gap]> on Friday March 14, 2008 @06:42PM (#22756096) Journal
      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.
      • Hay. I resemble that! Well, anyhow, I drove a '71 Camaro for about a year, back in 1985 or so. It was a terrible car.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by CopaceticOpus ( 965603 )
        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

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by More_Cowbell ( 957742 ) *
      Here you go. Not quite a television program, I know.

      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)

      by Chris Burke ( 6130 ) on Friday March 14, 2008 @07:16PM (#22756346) Homepage
      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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by somersault ( 912633 )

        Heck, a lot of AIs go completely mental when faced with unknown stimulus.
        That doesn't just stand for AIs - put your average slashdotter in a room with a naked woman, and prepare to watch the world go mad!

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Rei ( 128717 )
        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

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by lgw ( 121541 )
          It seems pretty obvious to make a robot that can fight from any orientation. If your robot is defeated jus because it's flipped over or sideways, that hardy seems robust.

          I'd like to make a soccer-ball-shaped robot, with 12 or 20 piston-legs spaced evenly as both propulsion and weapons. The software to make something like that roll around smoothly and predictably would be great fun to write, not to mention making it able to pounce!

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Lehk228 ( 705449 )
        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.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Chris Burke ( 6130 )
          you are assuming that the AI is a true AI,

          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)

        by jd ( 1658 ) <imipakNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Friday March 14, 2008 @09:29PM (#22757114) Homepage Journal
        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?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Boronx ( 228853 )
          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.
        • Robot ping-pong has its own risks. It's a well-defined task with well-defined objects and goals. Even so, I've heard a famous story of Marvin Minsky walking by such a system and having his balding head detected as a ping-pong ball, and only its confusion about the size of the ball and its distance from the optical system prevented him from being decapitated.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Yvanhoe ( 564877 )
        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

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by _xeno_ ( 155264 )

      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)

        by Joe Tie. ( 567096 )
        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.
      • They need to allow energy weapons. That would be really interesting. Perhaps they could only use them after a certain amount of time has passed.

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by chroma ( 33185 )
          The robots fight using kinetic energy.

          You don't actually think that it's practical to have robots that fight with lasers, do you?

    • Re:Robots? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by chroma ( 33185 ) <<chroma> <at> <mindspring.com>> on Friday March 14, 2008 @08:12PM (#22756662) Homepage
      Why is it that someone always feels the need to say this on EVERY SINGLE BattleBots related thread?

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Seumas ( 6865 )
      And all the versions of the show were fucking horrid. They had a bunch of douche bag comedians and third rate television personalities hosting them and the focus was on all the wrong aspects. If they were to approach it in more of a NOVA style than a WWF/Arena Football League style, it might be worth setting the tivo for. As it is, I will never *ever* give these idiots my eyeballs.

    • 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.
      You worry too much about semantics too much.

      Sure, they're not technically robots, but it's still fun watching remote controlled things destroying each other. =P

      ~Jarik

  • Well, being a geek... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jugalator ( 259273 ) on Friday March 14, 2008 @06:34PM (#22756022) Journal
    ... 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)
    • Seen on BattleBots fan forums:

      "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."
    • 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.

    • Funny you mention Mythbusters (Score:5, Informative)

      by Manfesto ( 865869 ) on Friday March 14, 2008 @07:03PM (#22756238)
      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."
      • I love how it was removed from competition for the crime of actually being interesting to watch.

        • I love how it was removed from competition for the crime of actually being interesting to watch.
          Plus, you know, that minor thing where it was an actual danger to the people watching.
    • "while Kari Byron can be pretty in MythBusters, that's not the main reason to why I watch that show"

      ZOMG do we have a female on slashdot ?

      Anyway speak for yourself.

      • Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)

        by Jugalator ( 259273 )
        I don't know about you, but I did watch MythBusters before she even was on the show. ;-)

  • Yes and yes. (Score:3, Funny)

    by urcreepyneighbor ( 1171755 ) on Friday March 14, 2008 @06:38PM (#22756044)

    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.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by txoof ( 553270 )
      I agree, the FIRA WorldCup or perhaps something similar would be vastly more interesting to watch on a weekly basis. The geek factor would trump the slowness of it all. Also, with the magic of TV, the matches could be sped up and really just run as highlight reels for some of the longer matches.
    • 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

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Hatta ( 162192 )
        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.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by chroma ( 33185 )
      The rules don't actually prohibit autonomous bots. Just build your machine with a remote start and stop and bring it to the event.

  • First one suffered from faux excitement (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SendBot ( 29932 ) on Friday March 14, 2008 @06:47PM (#22756128) Homepage Journal
    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
  • Blendo [wikipedia.org] participates.
    • I hope Linguo [brendoman.com] participes. "No. Its 'You will blend me.'"

    • Re:I hope... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by meringuoid ( 568297 ) on Friday March 14, 2008 @08:24PM (#22756746)
      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...

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Rei ( 128717 )
        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.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by chroma ( 33185 )
        HypnoDisc really isn't that powerful compared to American spinners like Nightmare, Megabyte, and Phrizbee/Shrederator.
  • Watching some people running RC cars around a battle arena has zero interest for me. I watched the first episode back when it started, and then would occasionally hit it channel surfing, and it was lame IMHO. I understand what goes in to building the bots, and yes, that has some geek factor to it. Good job on the construction guys.

    I would much rather see people putting some time into some programming, and letting the bots fight each other based on it. Anyone who grew up playing something like http://en. [wikipedia.org]
    • 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.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by sakusha ( 441986 )
      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

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Belial6 ( 794905 )
      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

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by chroma ( 33185 )
      Hey, BattleBots is planning having an 'open' category this time around where they'll try to match up similar robots that don't really belong in the standard competition. So build a couple bots like that and enter them.
  • Yeah... but am I crazy, or didn't Carmen Electra host? She at least made the show more tolerable. But yes, with some actual serious robots, the show might actually find some sort of engineering student cult following. Especially if they actually got a host that new what a servo was. (and got carmen back)
    • She did, for the last season, and my circle thought she sucked.

      Jonah Hex

    • Re:Yeahh.... (Score:5, Funny)

      by glavenoid ( 636808 ) on Friday March 14, 2008 @08:48PM (#22756900) Journal

      Especially if they actually got a host that new what a servo was. (and got carmen back)
      Or, better yet, they could let Tom Servo host!!

      • Or, better yet, they could let Tom Servo host!!

        That would actually be hysterical. Crow, Tom Servo, and a smart woman who's being forced to play a dumb announcer by the scheming exec who wants to make Battlebots huge worldwide entertainment. Basically you have a comedy show wrapped around the bot battles, the same way MST3K had skits wrapped around the cheesy movies. In fact, scrap the entire "real robot competition" angle and fake the whole fights with elaborate puppetry and s'plosion's. Guest announcing spots would be from other famous robots in media

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by puppet10 ( 84610 )
          Have the little RC cars competing and then have a 20 pound sledge come in from the side of the screen and pound one into oblivion then go on how wonderful the other 'bot' was in defeating its opponent so devastatingly.
      • TV's Frank!
        TV's Frank!
        TV's Frank!
      • Get the female assistant host from the US version of JunkYard Wars. She was a hot blonde, wore some great leather outfits, and she was clearly as smart as some of the contestants if not as well-educated. She was also vastly smarter than the primary host, and clearly so.
  • 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
  • Give the robots big guns and take away the audience. Shooting at a moving target while your moving will be a lot easier with some level of autonomy. The key is to make the weapons so devastating that the first one to make contact will usually win. This type of competition will favor machines that make some of their own decisions without direct human control. Autonomy will be necessary but not mandated.

  • 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)

    by hack slash ( 1064002 ) on Friday March 14, 2008 @07:48PM (#22756540)
    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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by meringuoid ( 568297 )
      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

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by MooUK ( 905450 )
        Apart from being huge and heavy, though, the house robots weren't really that impressive compared to the cream of the competitors' designs. Even in the first series they didn't always win, and the entrants generally improved.

        I may need to hunt down and watch some robot wars now. Damn you! ;)

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by chroma ( 33185 )
      Most of the American competitors are, in fact, friends. Teams go a long way to help each other out. I've met some wonderfully intelligent and creative people through robot fighting.
    • I think the most important thing about Battle bots was how pathetic they were. During the international Robot Wars competitions there were a few American robots which were simply anihilated. You'd have some uber geek who'd spent $10k on making a robot that stuggled to go through glass and the americans would go crazy for it.

      Robot wars was great you saw real progressions in designs as the series went on, from self righting mechanisms (thank you road block and chaos 2), to better protection (thank you hypn

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by chroma ( 33185 )
        Really, you have no idea what you're talking about. I won't go into the detail, but I'll just point out that Team Logicom, from Florida, USA, brought one of their bots, a spinner, over to RW UK. They were told that it was too powerful and wouldn't be able to compete.
        • Too powerfull? There are certain rules about entering a robot wars competition one of those being a weight limit of 100KG's and a weapon system which won't damage the safety perimeter (as well as a few other rules.) After looking at their robots on their web page and doing a bit of googling on battlebots rules. The heavyweight class would be appropriate for robot wars the super heavyweight being to heavy. So my guess is that either they brought a super heavyweight which was too heavy, or the disc contained

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by chroma ( 33185 )
            I think Robot Wars is great too.

            I heard the story directly from Brian Nave of Team Logicom, but I'm sure you could find the tale on the RFL or BattleBots forums on Delphiforums.com. Team Logicom has a variety of robots; I believe the machine in question was in or near the 220 pound class. The fact that the RW producers were worried about it damaging the arena should tell you something.

            I think your analysis is, indeed, flawed. You could just as easily look at the RW UK robots/teams that competed at BB and se
    • Most of battle bots was ridiculous show boating and playing to the camera, encouraged by the stupid commentators and in the first season a constant obsession with babes. It had the air of a lame wrestling show, I dunno about the later series, but thats how the first series was.

  • being nostalgic (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Pvt. Cthulhu ( 990218 )
    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.
  • Well when I said that I'd offer my suggestions for free in the old thread I didn't think they actually would.

    Oh well, my payment will be in the form of a show that I'll definately be watching.
  • Put some of these into fights:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foster-Miller_TALON [wikipedia.org]

    And I would watch it.

  • Tin Can Hitman - Robotronica

    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

  • Comedy Central Version (Score:4, Interesting)

    by dunezone ( 899268 ) on Friday March 14, 2008 @08:31PM (#22756790) Journal
    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.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by chroma ( 33185 )
      It's a tournament, and often you really need to save your bot for the next round, even if you win. Plus most of the better robots aren't that easy to destroy.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by CAIMLAS ( 41445 )
      We need more battle bots with acetylene torches attached. And fewer bots built with the "tanker" approach - ie, more agile or fast bots with different movement techniques employed. If they had teams build the bots exclusively for fighting - ie, not necessarily to win, though that'd be neat - not only would the fights be more fun to watch, with less predictable outcomes, but we'd see more unique bots, I think.

      For instance, I don't think I ever saw a lightweight "spider" bot which employed flame/heat as a wea
  • Would it be so hard to find both in the same package?
  • I'll take everything everyone else has said about autonomy...that is being an actual robot...as given. You want to get me to watch? Lose the Lexan encased "arena" and the studio audience.

    Put the thing somewhere like the Bonneville salt flats and make it anything goes. And I do mean "anything": strong corrosives, blowtorches, missile weapons, guns, woodchippers, explosives , or anything else destructive the builders can think of. I've seen all the hammers, wedges, and spinny things I care to. Bring on

  • Wish List for Robot Combat Show (Score:3, Interesting)

    by pyro_peter_911 ( 447333 ) on Friday March 14, 2008 @09:58PM (#22757236) Homepage Journal
    • 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)

      by chroma ( 33185 )
      BB already has/had a bonus for walkers. It didn't really help. I would prefer to see a separate walker tournament.

      Flamethrowers do look cool, but you'd have to allow a weight bonus for them, as they don't do squat against metal armor.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Fifth Earth ( 1172333 )
      As mentioned, there is bonus mass for walking robots. but it's not big enough and the rules defining a "walking" robot are very strict. The bonus in Battlebots is only 50% extra, and the walking system can have no continuously rotating parts, so any sort cam-based or eccentric driveshaft-based movement is totally out. Bear in mind, you have to deal with not only increased complexity, but also walking systems are generally more fragile than wheels, making them doubly unnatractive. There was only ever one rob
    • You guys are close, but here's the cigar: allow *only* walking robots into the competition. This would solve many of the problems that plague the last version of battlebots:
      * walking implies falling, which would allow for variations on KO rules
      * walking reduces the impression that these are just gussied up RC cars
      * maybe it's just me, but robots lumbering around a course just seems more... interesting.
  • Where are the EMP guns? Hell, where are the guns, period?

    There's no reason people have to be particularly close to the action, so take the gloves off.
  • I haven't watched since they got rid of Bill Nye. That took the credibility out of what was left. Then he was replaced with a dumber than dirt face with boobs to get more teenage viewers. Hear that? That is the sound of any actual enthusiast switching the channel.
  • Engineering students is good, but bring back the damn babes!!!
  • Sofge is a contrarian jerk whose only goal is to stir up messes so that he can gain from the attention. This is the "super geek" who blasted the Wii [slate.com] and, as a way of demonstrating a complete inability to connect the dots, he bashed Gary Gygax [slate.com] after Gygax's death. His bashing of Gygax was monumentally stupid because his argument was essentially this: There are much better RPGs than Dungeons and Dragons today, therefore, we ought to remember Gygax as the guy who invented the shitty RPG. He seems to completely
    • What a dumb reason to bash Gygax. A much better one is that he stole the credit for everything that made D&D great, and only begrudgingly granted co-creator credit to settle a lawsuit.

      On topic - I hope Mauler comes back. That bot never realized its potential. It fucking atomized bowling balls, just couldn't ever really get it together on the competition floor.
  • It just got worse when Carmen Electra came in. The "set of giant golden nuts" jokes just kept making it worse and then they had the stupid mini-music videos with her just gyrating around. Sure, let her interview the people, but put her in an autoshop jumpsuit or something.
    The announcers weren't that bad... I know people complained about them, but they kept things moving fairly smoothly.... Bill Nye was in the first (or second or both??) season, and under-used... He could have had a better role...
    This is goi
  • ....isn't another WWE style robot combat show with little substance beyond being a fancy radio controlled car. Instead, how about bringing us shows with robot competitions where true ingenuity, intelligence and cunning are the major attraction vs a bigger hammer or spike on a wedge.

    For example, did anyone ever watch "Robot Rivals" on the DIY channel over the last couple years? Not only did you get robotic competition, you got to watch each team construct a robot specific to each task with a fully stocked su

Slashdot Top Deals

Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand.

Close