Every single time these two have met it's been a great fight. Tantrum is quicker and more maneuverable, but has always come up a little short on the weapon side compared to End Game and that along with the latter's superior ground game seems to be the determining factor. I look forward to seeing if Team Seems Reasonable's future designs have a better shot at taking down 4WD verts like End Game and Riptide.
Tantrum has a terrific drivetrain and a very good driver, but its weapon just needs to extend further. Otherwise, these both end up being bots that need to bring other bots to their weapons, rather than the other way around, and End Game has a bigger spinner that effectively reaches further.
Yes Tantrum has a good drive but, if they did make it a larger ranged either they could make the bar extend to a longer range,they could make a bigger spinner but they could prob only make it a bit bigger,or they could make the weapon higher and pointing down to make a much bigger spinner.
All 3 times they fought each other end game won. The thing is that tantrum needs to drive perfectly in order to win, but all end game need is one shot to take off tantrum forks to win. But the defending champ is out, so no back to back champ this season, tho end game still has a chance to win meaning we could still see a repeat, or maybe we get an all new champion, who knows
This feels like endgame would have performed better this match without forks. Before breaking off Tantrum's forks, Endgame's forks prevented Endgame from hitting tantrum rather than the other way around and even after Breaking off Tantrum's forks, Tantrum could pin Endgame by leveraging Endgame's forks against them
End Game needs forks to make proper contact with its weapon. If it had no forks, Tantrum could have slid right under it and landed shots effortlessly. End Game's forks stop that from happening if nothing else. End Game's forks "stopping" it from hitting Tantrum was really Tantrum's forks stopping End Game's from getting under. Saying End Game shouldn't have forks because of that is kind of like saying you shouldn't have an army in a war because they'll get killed.
Tantrum is just mad fast around the box! I mean, i knew it was pretty quick and agile but there at about 30 seconds left in the match when they were zipping around looking for an angle to hit End Game from the sides maybe, you could see just how extremely fast that bot is. Great driving on it too. Excellent driving skills there.
@@what-fw5vk Probably because Tantrum is just about the weakest champion ever. It's the only Nut winner to lose even one qualifying fight the very next season, let alone three. It seems like Tantrum has a pretty hard counter; just a powerful enough vert (even Whiplash's vert did the trick) with good enough forks. It pretty much dodged that design all throughout Season 6. Not so much in S7, and the results of that showed. It might also be because a lot of people think that Hydra won that semifinal, and since Tantrum was awarded the win, they were given a pass they didn't deserve.
@@BayAreaMotorcycleCommuting I watched a video of an up and comer yesterday that leads with a horizontal spinner nearly on the floor. If that kid gets in next year, he will eat the forks for lunch.
ok i kinda can get behind the for complaints from a meta/entertainment perspective (kind of, it's a complicated issue) but everyone acting like either bot would have done better without the forks is like the equivalent of the crowd that thinks an F-86 Sabre could beat an F-22A because they somehow acquired the notion that missiles don't work. we *saw* what happens when you lose the ground game with Tantrum losing its forks and ramping right into the blade. things were slow because they were evenly matched, not because forks somehow made it harder to hit the other.
@@UnpatternedGarbage F-86 Sabre: One of the US Military's first production jet fighters, armed with machine guns and in later variants a pair of primitive missiles. Subsonic, single-engined, no radar. F-22A Raptor: The US Air Force's current Air Superiority fighter with limited multi-role capabilities. A stealth design with thrust-vectoring nozzles on a pair of extremely powerful engines that allow it to retain a considerable degree of directional control even in a deep stall, equipped with radar-guided and imaging-infrared guided missiles as well as a six-barreled rotary 20mm autocannon hidden behind a panel that opens to prevent its muzzle from showing up on radar. Able to hit supersonic speeds without even needing to engage afterburners. Production was harshly limited due to extremely high unit and per-flight-hour costs and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and this has embarassingly led to its only air-to-air kills in practice being a couple of balloons last year, but the performance speaks for itself and it has seen combat and patrol use (including aerial intercepts that did not end in a fight). Basically there remains to this day a bunch of borderline conspiracy theories about how if a real peer conflict were to break out, it would lead to fighting more like wars 70 years ago than the environment the F-22 was designed around, and that the various advancements of the latter actually wouldn't matter against a now nearly century-old design. We've seen how the modern doctrines of air combat play out but they still cling to strange leaps of logic to claim that basically we'll all be crawling back to machine guns instead of missiles that, at this point, are able to hit targets flying behind the launch aircraft; at the end of the day, they're just kind of unable to separate their ideals for "cool" WWII-esque dogfighting from the reality that, while obviously no military is without faults and there would doubtless be harsh lessons learned if a first-world nation were suddenly to be dragged into a conventional conflict with another, we're in an era where it's not even just shooting each other with missiles before you see each other on anything but radar, we're increasingly getting to a point where most aircraft kills will be made before they take off. TL;DR, the point of comparison is that forks are like missiles in this case- they're a bit boring and stalematey, but they work, and the first person who decides they're gonna be coolguy mccool and fight without them will be at a severe disadvantage (horizontal drums and full-body spinners notwithstanding, they kind of get the benefits of forks by virtue of their weapon position).
It was destructive but too short imo. I think Riptides best fight was the copperhead fight(I’m not saying this because it lost but because it was actually a really great fight)
Stupid designs with forks that prevent you from attacking your enemy. Take of your frigging forks so you can actually chew into the other bot. Boring fork duel. They might as well not have any spinners.
@@Durwood71 okay.... Start at 6:33. In the next 5 seconds you'll see Tantrum's team with their jerseys and a picture of the robot, then you'll see End Game with its weapon spinning and "End Game" on its tail, while Tantrum has no weapon motion, but you can see "Tantrum" written in orange on its tail.
"Let's give our robots spinning weapons, then give it forks (arms) that prevent the use of said weapon". This fight was boring and design choices are never going to be exciting, or lead to a champion-caliber machine. Literally neutering the main weapon and turning the match into a push fight. No one wants to see that, might as well have put foam on both and had them go at it, it would have been equally "exciting".
it's a push fight because the one without forks would be fed right into the other weapon. i'm confused- do you think taking the forks off of either would actually give it an _advantage_ or do you just think it should be banned from everyone or something?
@@northropi2027 That is like having a gun. yet putting a plexiglass shield in front of it. The forks are too long, so they kept the main weapons from being effective. It keeps the other bot at bay, but in turn it makes it so that the main weapon is nearly useless. The weapons do not extend far enough to begin with, so the arms are basically a safety. This not only makes it a boring fight, but tactically you are neutering your offensive ability for pure defense.
@@ricsim78 and *not* playing along with it is where the real problem starts. a design that wholly foregoes the ground game will always lose it. if a bot with just a flat face went up to End Game like this, it wouldn't even have weapon-on-weapon hits- it'd fly over the disk and take the hit to its belly armor. Having long forks allows for a shallower angle of incidence, making them effectively "sharper" for a fixed rear height, allowing them to become more effective- the problem starts when, as we see here, they're evenly matched, and neither gets all the way under the other, instead "locking horns" all the same as if they butted flat shields with each other. The part I'm honestly not sure you're grasping is that this isn't a trend that they're blindly following with their thumbs up their arse. The only way for a bot other than a floor-scraping drum spinner, HUGE, or a horizontal (which has its own counters) to create a winning engagement against a bot with superior ground game would be to attack from the side, which End Game has proven extremely effective at preventing and Hydra directly shuts down in certain configurations. An End Game or Tantrum that just gave up on the ground game versus an End Game or Tantrum that didn't (or for an even more infuriating example, the early parts of Hydra vs Ribbot this season) would be getting hit square on the chin every engagement. The result looks like pussyfooting, sure, but the teams here didn't just make their weapons unusable on accident. You use the example of a gun hidden behind a shield, but a squad behind cover being suppressed by a machine gun or sniper doesn't just make an oorah charge when they get bored of waiting. What the rules can do about it... Will make this comment even longer and I'm not an expert here so I'll save it. The problem of metas, here and in games where the term came from, is nuanced and hard to come up with universal answers for.
@@northropi2027 I understand perfectly well why they put forks on it, but especially End Game would have been a lot more leathal without the forks. The forks tend to get cut off by spinners anyhow. The way End Game is built, the forks were basically keeping too much distance because the spinning weapon does not stick out far enough and the forks helped Tantrum avoid power shots from the main weapon. I disagree with you 100% that the forks were good to have, necessary, and the way this match played out backs up my thoughts. The forks avoided both from getting really good shots, End Game would have likely torn up Tantrum up, if not for the forks. Not to mention, the forks get blasted off these almost always, which actually happened to Tantrum. They also cost you points when the other team snaps them off. Just because you have a difference of opinion does not make everyone else not understand, not know what they are talking about. What happened in the match also contradicts what you are saying. It's clear why they did it, but the end results show that the forks were more a determent than help. Tantrum has a reach disadvantage with the main weapon to begin with, forks just made that fact worst, hence why End Game was hitting Tantrum unchecked and able to hit. Try to debate this without taking shots at people, you might get a better response.
@@ricsim78 first off i wasn't trying to come off as disrespectful. i'll admit my initial impression was that you were suggesting that the ground game is just a myth that everyone's stupid for following or something, but i held my snark back pending clarification on what you were saying. yes, this *is* how i sound on low snark. you can blame the all-you-can-eat buffet of mental illnesses swimming in my head for this. while i am somewhat relieved to see that you're not just in denial of the "ground game" as a whole, i still don't entirely agree with your conclusions. an entirely piano-key configuration would have made Tantrum's weapon, which is low-slung when extended, more likely to chip the fronts of the keys off, as they're wider targets from the front aspect, and a lot of their vulnerability is at the base rather than their tip, which is covered in this mixed configuration on End Game. we actually see this happen- while Tantrum loses its forks, End Game keeps its forks but receives a lot of bending and even some apparent chipping to the wedgelets. i feel like Ribbot vs Hydra corroborates this, with Ribbot's tiny forks beating out Hydra's broad and extremely well made wedge because, well, wedges get less perfect contact because of their wider span. forks afford a funneling effect versus disc verts (less so against drums, and if horizontals had more breathing room without the upper deck forks would as a whole become much more situational), and combining the two seems to be an attempt at something analogous the three-tooth dustpan on Sawblaze. moreover, forks are simply "sharper" as a wedge than piano keys are due to their length, and it's likely that End Game did not trust its piano keys to be sufficiently low on their own. with regards to their fragility, this is of course a considerable downside compared to wedgelets and solid wedges- however, especially if you're aiming to make it through many matches without burning through your part supply, that's still better than taking a hit. the fact that the two seem to get so readily caught on each other's forks proves that the forks are evenly matched, and if we consider that the piano keys are probably less low than forks, that means that going for wedgelets would mean forfeiting the ground game, which both competitors in this match demonstrated themselves to be very good at up to this point. all of this is sort of to say agree to disagree given i'm certainly not an expert, but from a geometry standpoint this seems to just be the logical endpoint of fighting for low ground- two extremely wedged robots meeting each other about as firmly as a pair of bricks.
@Discovery, you might want to edit the "About Battlebots" section in the description box. Battlebots is not about the traditions of craft whiskey... but I bet many traditions involving "drinks" were enjoyed after each night's taping. 🙂
Every single time these two have met it's been a great fight. Tantrum is quicker and more maneuverable, but has always come up a little short on the weapon side compared to End Game and that along with the latter's superior ground game seems to be the determining factor. I look forward to seeing if Team Seems Reasonable's future designs have a better shot at taking down 4WD verts like End Game and Riptide.
battleforks
slap night
Water day
Mid box
shallow 6
😂😅
Tantrum has a terrific drivetrain and a very good driver, but its weapon just needs to extend further. Otherwise, these both end up being bots that need to bring other bots to their weapons, rather than the other way around, and End Game has a bigger spinner that effectively reaches further.
Yes Tantrum has a good drive but, if they did make it a larger ranged either they could make the bar extend to a longer range,they could make a bigger spinner but they could prob only make it a bit bigger,or they could make the weapon higher and pointing down to make a much bigger spinner.
All 3 times they fought each other end game won. The thing is that tantrum needs to drive perfectly in order to win, but all end game need is one shot to take off tantrum forks to win. But the defending champ is out, so no back to back champ this season, tho end game still has a chance to win meaning we could still see a repeat, or maybe we get an all new champion, who knows
Seemed like the forks on Endgame were getting in the way, holding Tantrum out of range of Endgame's weapon.
This was a good rematch. Tantrum tanked this hits and still carried on, End-Game’s forks were the main factor in the fight.
What a comeback
Might be the best push fight ive seen. Tantrums power really makes it the better bot. The pilots too.
I don't know what chains some of these bots use, but possibly look into The Shadow Conspiracy bmx interlocking Supreme chain.
This feels like endgame would have performed better this match without forks. Before breaking off Tantrum's forks, Endgame's forks prevented Endgame from hitting tantrum rather than the other way around and even after Breaking off Tantrum's forks, Tantrum could pin Endgame by leveraging Endgame's forks against them
End Game needs forks to make proper contact with its weapon. If it had no forks, Tantrum could have slid right under it and landed shots effortlessly. End Game's forks stop that from happening if nothing else. End Game's forks "stopping" it from hitting Tantrum was really Tantrum's forks stopping End Game's from getting under. Saying End Game shouldn't have forks because of that is kind of like saying you shouldn't have an army in a war because they'll get killed.
Is this a rerun? I’ve seen it before today
It is from the episode 2 weeks ago, the first episode of the World Championship bracket.
Tantrum is just mad fast around the box! I mean, i knew it was pretty quick and agile but there at about 30 seconds left in the match when they were zipping around looking for an angle to hit End Game from the sides maybe, you could see just how extremely fast that bot is. Great driving on it too. Excellent driving skills there.
Tantrum will always go down as the bot that got a free ride to the championship.
I think they earned it just as much as any other champion
why does everyone say this
@@what-fw5vk Probably because Tantrum is just about the weakest champion ever. It's the only Nut winner to lose even one qualifying fight the very next season, let alone three. It seems like Tantrum has a pretty hard counter; just a powerful enough vert (even Whiplash's vert did the trick) with good enough forks. It pretty much dodged that design all throughout Season 6. Not so much in S7, and the results of that showed.
It might also be because a lot of people think that Hydra won that semifinal, and since Tantrum was awarded the win, they were given a pass they didn't deserve.
1:58 I KNEW JOHN LENNON WAS STILL ALIVE!!! Hes a battle bot dude, with end game!
Tay Tay rooting for End Game...
battle of the forks, this is what battlebots has become
Ban the forks !!!!!! If you cannot afford the hit, get out of the box
Kudos to the teams for identifying an effective strategy, but I’d welcome some rule changes next season to address this
@@glyphs3maybe just put a rule were fork and weaglets have to be a specific length
Huuuge we'll have something to say about those useless forks
@@BayAreaMotorcycleCommuting I watched a video of an up and comer yesterday that leads with a horizontal spinner nearly on the floor. If that kid gets in next year, he will eat the forks for lunch.
ok i kinda can get behind the for complaints from a meta/entertainment perspective (kind of, it's a complicated issue) but everyone acting like either bot would have done better without the forks is like the equivalent of the crowd that thinks an F-86 Sabre could beat an F-22A because they somehow acquired the notion that missiles don't work.
we *saw* what happens when you lose the ground game with Tantrum losing its forks and ramping right into the blade. things were slow because they were evenly matched, not because forks somehow made it harder to hit the other.
I mean I agree but what are F-86s and F-22As?
@@UnpatternedGarbage F-86 Sabre: One of the US Military's first production jet fighters, armed with machine guns and in later variants a pair of primitive missiles. Subsonic, single-engined, no radar.
F-22A Raptor: The US Air Force's current Air Superiority fighter with limited multi-role capabilities. A stealth design with thrust-vectoring nozzles on a pair of extremely powerful engines that allow it to retain a considerable degree of directional control even in a deep stall, equipped with radar-guided and imaging-infrared guided missiles as well as a six-barreled rotary 20mm autocannon hidden behind a panel that opens to prevent its muzzle from showing up on radar. Able to hit supersonic speeds without even needing to engage afterburners. Production was harshly limited due to extremely high unit and per-flight-hour costs and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and this has embarassingly led to its only air-to-air kills in practice being a couple of balloons last year, but the performance speaks for itself and it has seen combat and patrol use (including aerial intercepts that did not end in a fight).
Basically there remains to this day a bunch of borderline conspiracy theories about how if a real peer conflict were to break out, it would lead to fighting more like wars 70 years ago than the environment the F-22 was designed around, and that the various advancements of the latter actually wouldn't matter against a now nearly century-old design. We've seen how the modern doctrines of air combat play out but they still cling to strange leaps of logic to claim that basically we'll all be crawling back to machine guns instead of missiles that, at this point, are able to hit targets flying behind the launch aircraft; at the end of the day, they're just kind of unable to separate their ideals for "cool" WWII-esque dogfighting from the reality that, while obviously no military is without faults and there would doubtless be harsh lessons learned if a first-world nation were suddenly to be dragged into a conventional conflict with another, we're in an era where it's not even just shooting each other with missiles before you see each other on anything but radar, we're increasingly getting to a point where most aircraft kills will be made before they take off.
TL;DR, the point of comparison is that forks are like missiles in this case- they're a bit boring and stalematey, but they work, and the first person who decides they're gonna be coolguy mccool and fight without them will be at a severe disadvantage (horizontal drums and full-body spinners notwithstanding, they kind of get the benefits of forks by virtue of their weapon position).
Ladies & gentlemen the 3 judges at arenaside have turned in a 27-18 decision for the blue square, END GAME!
Definitely prefer BattleBots over Robot Wars. They really get to scrappin' on BattleBots.
Pochi ?
Tantrum should just drive in circles, and win every match without ever touching their opponents
Oh, you're _so_ funny. Ha. Ha.
End Game has a weakness. It lifts its left side when trying to rapidly turn right. Tantrum’s speed could have taken advantage of this.
In BattleBots (2022)
Like to see this version of endgame go against prime biteforce they are so similar
correct
When a fake champ meets a real champ.
We teach them to fight because we’re afraid to teach them to love. But seriously, what would that even look like?
I miss the original tantrum build
The OG tantrum build had a weak flipper that didn't do much damage
please do sawblaze vs deadlift
PLEASE post Riptide vs. Hypershock, easily the best fight of world championship 7
Are you Ethan Kurtz
@@gzilla7814 no, I just rage bait people with pro riptide comments since they hate them
@@sweetrocks610 XD
It was destructive but too short imo. I think Riptides best fight was the copperhead fight(I’m not saying this because it lost but because it was actually a really great fight)
Lmao
Not bad at all…
Not an ass kickin, but still kind of disappointing for Tantrum
i dunno about this one
Those forks should be illegal, killing all the action.
Stupid designs with forks that prevent you from attacking your enemy. Take of your frigging forks so you can actually chew into the other bot. Boring fork duel. They might as well not have any spinners.
End Game was torn to shreds, lost its primary weapon, but was still awarded the win? Why?
I think you have the two robots confused. Tantrum took almost all the damage in this match.
@@ytwom1 No, I'm not confused. I just double checked the robot names, and End Game is the one that took damage and lost its primary weapon.
@@Durwood71 okay.... Start at 6:33. In the next 5 seconds you'll see Tantrum's team with their jerseys and a picture of the robot, then you'll see End Game with its weapon spinning and "End Game" on its tail, while Tantrum has no weapon motion, but you can see "Tantrum" written in orange on its tail.
@@ytwom1 Huh... it seems you are correct. But I think they used the wrong robot picture when announcing the winner, which is why I was confused.
@@Durwood71 not exactly, if you look closely you'll see that's and old photo of end game
Not a robot ita remote controled car with weapons robot are programed and do it with out human move ments
congrats to endgame, they had an edge going into the fight by being more boring
i sense a riptide fan
@@ryanbarker5217 which bot was that again?
"Let's give our robots spinning weapons, then give it forks (arms) that prevent the use of said weapon". This fight was boring and design choices are never going to be exciting, or lead to a champion-caliber machine. Literally neutering the main weapon and turning the match into a push fight. No one wants to see that, might as well have put foam on both and had them go at it, it would have been equally "exciting".
it's a push fight because the one without forks would be fed right into the other weapon. i'm confused- do you think taking the forks off of either would actually give it an _advantage_ or do you just think it should be banned from everyone or something?
@@northropi2027 That is like having a gun. yet putting a plexiglass shield in front of it. The forks are too long, so they kept the main weapons from being effective. It keeps the other bot at bay, but in turn it makes it so that the main weapon is nearly useless. The weapons do not extend far enough to begin with, so the arms are basically a safety. This not only makes it a boring fight, but tactically you are neutering your offensive ability for pure defense.
@@ricsim78 and *not* playing along with it is where the real problem starts. a design that wholly foregoes the ground game will always lose it. if a bot with just a flat face went up to End Game like this, it wouldn't even have weapon-on-weapon hits- it'd fly over the disk and take the hit to its belly armor. Having long forks allows for a shallower angle of incidence, making them effectively "sharper" for a fixed rear height, allowing them to become more effective- the problem starts when, as we see here, they're evenly matched, and neither gets all the way under the other, instead "locking horns" all the same as if they butted flat shields with each other.
The part I'm honestly not sure you're grasping is that this isn't a trend that they're blindly following with their thumbs up their arse. The only way for a bot other than a floor-scraping drum spinner, HUGE, or a horizontal (which has its own counters) to create a winning engagement against a bot with superior ground game would be to attack from the side, which End Game has proven extremely effective at preventing and Hydra directly shuts down in certain configurations. An End Game or Tantrum that just gave up on the ground game versus an End Game or Tantrum that didn't (or for an even more infuriating example, the early parts of Hydra vs Ribbot this season) would be getting hit square on the chin every engagement. The result looks like pussyfooting, sure, but the teams here didn't just make their weapons unusable on accident. You use the example of a gun hidden behind a shield, but a squad behind cover being suppressed by a machine gun or sniper doesn't just make an oorah charge when they get bored of waiting. What the rules can do about it... Will make this comment even longer and I'm not an expert here so I'll save it. The problem of metas, here and in games where the term came from, is nuanced and hard to come up with universal answers for.
@@northropi2027 I understand perfectly well why they put forks on it, but especially End Game would have been a lot more leathal without the forks. The forks tend to get cut off by spinners anyhow. The way End Game is built, the forks were basically keeping too much distance because the spinning weapon does not stick out far enough and the forks helped Tantrum avoid power shots from the main weapon.
I disagree with you 100% that the forks were good to have, necessary, and the way this match played out backs up my thoughts. The forks avoided both from getting really good shots, End Game would have likely torn up Tantrum up, if not for the forks. Not to mention, the forks get blasted off these almost always, which actually happened to Tantrum. They also cost you points when the other team snaps them off.
Just because you have a difference of opinion does not make everyone else not understand, not know what they are talking about. What happened in the match also contradicts what you are saying. It's clear why they did it, but the end results show that the forks were more a determent than help. Tantrum has a reach disadvantage with the main weapon to begin with, forks just made that fact worst, hence why End Game was hitting Tantrum unchecked and able to hit.
Try to debate this without taking shots at people, you might get a better response.
@@ricsim78 first off i wasn't trying to come off as disrespectful. i'll admit my initial impression was that you were suggesting that the ground game is just a myth that everyone's stupid for following or something, but i held my snark back pending clarification on what you were saying. yes, this *is* how i sound on low snark. you can blame the all-you-can-eat buffet of mental illnesses swimming in my head for this.
while i am somewhat relieved to see that you're not just in denial of the "ground game" as a whole, i still don't entirely agree with your conclusions. an entirely piano-key configuration would have made Tantrum's weapon, which is low-slung when extended, more likely to chip the fronts of the keys off, as they're wider targets from the front aspect, and a lot of their vulnerability is at the base rather than their tip, which is covered in this mixed configuration on End Game. we actually see this happen- while Tantrum loses its forks, End Game keeps its forks but receives a lot of bending and even some apparent chipping to the wedgelets. i feel like Ribbot vs Hydra corroborates this, with Ribbot's tiny forks beating out Hydra's broad and extremely well made wedge because, well, wedges get less perfect contact because of their wider span. forks afford a funneling effect versus disc verts (less so against drums, and if horizontals had more breathing room without the upper deck forks would as a whole become much more situational), and combining the two seems to be an attempt at something analogous the three-tooth dustpan on Sawblaze. moreover, forks are simply "sharper" as a wedge than piano keys are due to their length, and it's likely that End Game did not trust its piano keys to be sufficiently low on their own.
with regards to their fragility, this is of course a considerable downside compared to wedgelets and solid wedges- however, especially if you're aiming to make it through many matches without burning through your part supply, that's still better than taking a hit. the fact that the two seem to get so readily caught on each other's forks proves that the forks are evenly matched, and if we consider that the piano keys are probably less low than forks, that means that going for wedgelets would mean forfeiting the ground game, which both competitors in this match demonstrated themselves to be very good at up to this point. all of this is sort of to say agree to disagree given i'm certainly not an expert, but from a geometry standpoint this seems to just be the logical endpoint of fighting for low ground- two extremely wedged robots meeting each other about as firmly as a pair of bricks.
Forks are ruining the sport
You can understand teams trying to be smart about strategy and such, but defense is never much fun for the fans.
@Discovery, you might want to edit the "About Battlebots" section in the description box. Battlebots is not about the traditions of craft whiskey... but I bet many traditions involving "drinks" were enjoyed after each night's taping. 🙂
Hahahaaha you are right!
I HATE FARUQ!! He needs to go away.
The faruq beef