Active Weapon or Not?
From Combat Robot
Maybe we can move some of the divisive rhetoric concerning the merits of active weapons that is popping up in various non-related topics on this wiki.
Pros:
- More exciting matches, more sparks, more like actual combat
- Some people just like to break stuff
- Sparks are pretty-more entertainment value.
- Higher technical achievement
- JudgeDave said so
Cons:
- Greater complexity - KISS theory
- Not needed to produce a winning 'bot
- Requires expensive arena to contain debris
- Expensive - more parts required
- Decreases the chances of winning
- Harder to Build
Stuff to think about
- In the end, it's all a matter of your goals -- are you looking to win the match or to build and fight a cool machine?
- What's better, to easily do, or to try awesomely? (Not that it's easy to build ANY winning 'bot)
- Put another way, is it better to literally shake the arena with weapons, to draw a huge crowd with the angry whine of ICE, or do you prefer to stick to low-energy, heavily-armored boxes and driving skill?
- Would you rather awe audiences and incite flash-bulb action with insectile walkers or a pneumatic hammer that can literally warp the floor, or put on the match that empties the bleachers, instead of the pits?
- Bottom line: would you rather win the match or show off an awesome machine?
Commentary
Some builders of destructive weaponry put forth the argument:
Our sport is robot combat. Combat is defined as "Fighting, especially armed battle; strife."(from the free dictionary).
A sport of robot sumo already exists for those who wish to build robots that fight without weapons.
Alternately, taking down an active weaponed 'bot with a simple 'bot and driving skill is a accomplishment. Think of it as bare-handed karate versus some thug with a crowbar. Who doesn't want to be Bruce Lee?
