The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition

[Jared Russell]

So here we are. Week 6. One week until stop build day. By now we have all seen a slew of videos of teams shooting balls, picking them up, autonomous detecting the goals, and even a few of teams auto-balancing on bridges using nothing but sensors and code. We have all seen 179's incredible outside-the-box concept and the word Einstein came up more than once in their teaser thread.

But I am here to say that I believe there is a strategy/concept even more game-breaking than any we have seen (posted publicly on this forum) so far. At least in one aspect of this game. Potentially reminiscient of 469's legendary Breakaway concept (hence the title of this thread, an homage to this (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80202)).

Anyway, here's the concept...

EXHIBIT A:
When the final score is assessed per [G37], a Balanced Alliance Bridge will earn points based on the number of Alliance Robots completely supported by the Bridge, per Section 2.2.5, as follows (...table...)

Okay, so a robot must be completely supported by the balanced bridge, per Section 2.2.5, in order to score bonus points.

EXHIBIT B:
A Bridge will count as Balanced if it is within 5° of horizontal and all Robots touching it are fully supported by it.

Alright. Seems straightforward. Now all we need is a definition of what constitutes the bridge....

EXHIBIT C:
Q: What physical parts make up the bridge by definition? Essentially, where does the bridge begin and end? For example, does the welded structure under the bridge that the top connects to count as the bridge? Does the lateral bar that rotates with the bridge that count as the bridge?

A: The Bridge consists of all components included in the Bridge Assembly drawing, GE-12017

Alright, let's look there...

EXHIBIT D:
Take a look for yourself: http://www.usfirst.org/sites/default/files/2012GameSpecificDrawings_rev2.pdf

The drawing starts on page 22 of the PDF. Notice Item #9 on Sheet 1 of GE-12017.

The Ball Ramp Assembly.

Now put it all together.

A robot that is 8" tall at maximum (the minimum height from the carpet to the bottom of the bridge platform; see the next page in the Game Drawings PDF). Bumpers at the minimum height (2"-7" off the floor). All it has to do is drive under the bridge platform, park on the ball ramp, and it is considered "fully supported", given all of the information we have so far. On top of that, it is basicaly impossible for the bridge to come down on the side where the robot is now parked; you have a robot in the way!

QUESTIONS:
Does it meet all of the required criteria to be scored as a fully supported robot? I believe so.

Does it break any other rules? I do not believe so. The robot is not grabbing/grappling/grasping any field structure. The bumpers appear to be legal.

Is this what the GDC intended? I don't know, but I have submitted a Q&A question (albeit one with a couple of typos, sorry GDC!) in order to find out.

How many teams are planning on exploiting this? We'll find out. I am sure it is nonzero. My team is not one of them; we didn't see the loophole until we had already designed and built a shooter tower that is far taller than 8".

[Aren_Hill]

From my perspective Engineering drawings don't have grey area, so 100% legal.
If they change the definition of bridge it'll probably mess up other wording and make things nice and confusing, not like they haven't done that before though.

[thefro526]

QUESTIONS:
Does it meet all of the required criteria to be scored as a fully supported robot? I believe so.

Does it break any other rules? I do not believe so. The robot is not grabbing/grappling/grasping any field structure. The bumpers appear to be legal.

Is this what the GDC intended? I don't know, but I have submitted a Q&A question (albeit one with a couple of typos, sorry GDC!) in order to find out.

How many teams are planning on exploiting this? We'll find out. I am sure it is nonzero. My team is not one of them; we didn't see the loophole until we had already designed and built a shooter tower that is far taller than 8".

Jared, I have done similar research on the subject over the last week and here is what I've found.

-A robot in contact with the polycarbonate ball deflector and no other surface is indeed 'Fully supported' by the bridge.

-I don't believe that this robot would break any other rules as it is passively interacting with the field structure. I guess one could argue that the act of wedging oneself between the bridge and the ball deflector is some sort of 'grasp or grapple' or other method of attachment, but I doubt that'll hold true.

-I'm not sure if this is what the GDC intended. With their clear lack of a response to your Q&A, I'd imagine that they're having a lot of internal discussion as to whether or not this is in the spirit of the rules. If this strategy remains legal, I can see Robots with just drivetrains becoming hot commodities for those who know how to exploit this rule.

In any case, a Robot built to exploit this loop hole may struggle during Quals if it's only goal is to balance the bridge. The TRUE game breaker would be a robot that could play the first minute and forty five seconds of the game well and then wedge itself under the bridge for an essentially effortless bonus. I'm not sure what kind of wizard would build that robot, or if they'd be sane after doing so.

[Jared Russell]

P.S.: Why am I posting this?

(A) It will be out in the open pretty soon anyhow.
(B) It will make for a pretty interesting discussion.
(C) I am curious to see if Chief Delphi can find something wrong with this strategy that renders it illegal.
(D) It is week 6, this strategy was first mentioned in this thread (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=100920), and there haven't been any Q&A responses or team updates on the matter since. I personally hope that it is ruled illegal, as I feel it basically breaks an aspect of this game :)

[Brandon Holley]

I agree that as its written right now its legal. What I find funny is that there has been an obvious attempt by the GDC to mitigate "outside the box" ramping strategies. At least in the way I've seen the rulings come down (ie: no suction cups, no grasping, etc.). It would be almost comical to allow this through as a balancing strategy while ruling the others illegal.

-Brando

[Clinton Bolinger]

The only thing I can see that could make this boarder line is the potential of damaging the field elements. I am not for sure what this strategy will do to the cables and zip ties that hold the ball ramps to the bridge, after repeated abuse.

If this strategy stays legal, I can see a lot of rookie or chassis bots converting at the events. If done right there is nothing saying a team can't remove their shooter after the qualification matches. As long as they don't add anything else on or weigh in with all of their components.

We will have to see what the GDC says.

-Clinton-

[DampRobot]

As presented, the strategy seems legal. However, I really hope that this strategy is deemed "illegal" in Q and A. To me, a robot that purely wedges itself under the bridge seems like it would exploiting a loophole, not an innovative game strategy. Now, a robot as mentioned that plays the first minute and then goes under the bridge does seem more reasonable.

This reminds me of hanging on the tower in 2010. A number of teams realized that they could hang on to the side of the tower and still be defined as supported by it. However, these teams still played the rest of the game.

[Jared Russell]

This reminds me of hanging on the tower in 2010. A number of teams realized that they could hang on to the side of the tower and still be defined as supported by it. However, these teams still played the rest of the game.

The tower was worth 2 points in 2010. Making a triple balance trivial is worth 40 in 2012.

[Colin P]

I don't think this is game-breaking as it doesn't provide a serious advantage. Balancing on the bridge isn't all that difficult and wedging under would only save you a few seconds of effort. It would be nice for eliminations to get that extra 20 pts a lot more easily, but qualifications would be a mess. As mentioned by some others before, it would be hard to make this sized robot perform well during teleoperated mode.
I think if a team could fit this size without sacrificing any scoring performance, it'd be a very good strategy, otherwise it doesn't really seem worth it and I don't anticipate many teams actually doing it.

[Siri]

Yeah, we talked about this back when it first popped on the Q&A and noticed it as feasible about three weeks ago. I think it's entirely legal, and don't expect it to be ruled illegal at this point (nor should it be). However, I think it's going to take some care not to break the ball ramp, which is a G12. I'd like to see someone do it right.

[MrBasse]

I think this could be huge if done right, in fact I brought it up a few weeks back and the idea was met with a lot more questions of legality and general harassment of the idea. Most of that probably had to do with the fact that I saw no way to practically implement such an idea so I didn't take too long in wording my idea eloquently. If I remember right I referenced the dukes of hazard for better imagery. But then lack of sleep can do that to you...

I think a short robot with a flip out manipulator or a way to Oudh balls as a feeder that can also prop the bridge would be a huge benefit. 5 degrees is a pretty small target, this idea can guarantee that you make the 5 degree window every time. Makes it good for end game even out of eliminations...

[JesseK]

There is a large difference between a 11-oz ball and a 50-lb robot. That polycarb probably won't hold up over the course of a competition.

[XaulZan11]

Looks legal to me. I wonder how willing box bots will be to risk their robot under the bridge while their partner(s) attempt to balance. Could make for some interesting qualification match strategy discussions.

[MrBasse]

I don't know why people would consider there being risk to a robot under a bridge, if you build the frame so that it will hold the weight, all you need to do is ensure that your machine could hold up at least 120lbs or so and you'd be good. With thick axles and heavy duty wheels, I don't think there would be an issue. If the machine is less than 8" tall, I doubt anyone would have a weight issue to worry about.

I also feel the lexan would hold up just fine, the majority of the weight would be on the ground, there is one point where the lexan would be slightly off the ground that would see some strain, but probably not enough to break it. The key is making sure you know how high off the ground the mounting point is and building to ensure that you have no sharp edges that could possibly scratch or damage that lexan surface. We held a piece of lexan under stress for almost a year and the only thing that broke it was applying more force after bending it a full 270 degrees in a 2" radius curve. When it finally gave way it was exciting though...

[Jon Stratis]

Looks legal to me. I wonder how willing box bots will be to risk their robot under the bridge while their partner(s) attempt to balance. Could make for some interesting qualification match strategy discussions.

How much of a risk is it, really? Back in Rack 'n Roll, teams had multiple robots on top of them all the time!

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/27516

[XaulZan11]

I don't know why people would consider there being risk to a robot under a bridge, if you build the frame so that it will hold the weight, all you need to do is ensure that your machine could hold up at least 120lbs or so and you'd be good. With thick axles and heavy duty wheels, I don't think there would be an issue. If the machine is less than 8" tall, I doubt anyone would have a weight issue to worry about

I agree that if you designed your robot for this strategy, then there shouldn't be any risk to this strategy. I'm more concerned with the teams that show up at a competition with an electrical board on wheels. Those are the teams that can benefit the most with this strategy as they switch from almost worthless to a very popular 2nd round pick. Will you be able to convice them that they should risk putting 150+ pounds directly on their electrical board? Even if they have something on top of their robot, it may be a risk they are unwilling to take.

How much of a risk is it, really? Back in Rack 'n Roll, teams had multiple robots on top of them all the time!

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/27516

I'm well aware how easy it is to support a robot IF you plan to do so. Looking back at my team's robots, I don't think I'd want to put 150 pounds right on top of any of them.

[Kellen Hill]

The main possibility of field damage comes from the zip tie that holds the steel cable that holds the polycarb sheet to the bridge (zip ties can be seen at 50 seconds in the field tour movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AMaqqmoLgQ&feature=BFa&list=PL23DFAFBB434CDB79&lf=results_main). Depending on where the robot puts pressure on the polycarb sheet, those zip ties might wind up breaking.

We've termed this idea as "Trolling." This comes from the idea that trolls like to hide under bridges as found in the children's story of Three Billy Goats Gruff.

[gurellia53]

Like everyone else has said, its completely legal right now. Designing a robot to fit under the bridge would introduce huge restrictions on size. Heck, the cRIO probably wouldn't even fit.

I think its possible to go beyond electronics on kitbot with this idea, but probably not by much.

If they answer this Q&A by making it illegal, they probably ruin a few teams' strategies, introducing some distrust in the GDC.

[Tom Line]

Like everyone else has said, its completely legal right now. Designing a robot to fit under the bridge would introduce huge restrictions on size. Heck, the cRIO probably wouldn't even fit.

I think its possible to go beyond electronics on kitbot with this idea, but probably not by much.

If they answer this Q&A by making it illegal, they probably ruin a few teams' strategies, introducing some distrust in the GDC.

Team 179's robot, in retracted mode with their ramp laid down, would appear to fit already.

They can shoot balls, allow other robots to climb up them onto the bridge....

Really not so hard to engineer (once you've thought of the idea).

[Madison]

We talked about this some after the Q&A clarification about what constitutes the bridge. And, while we really like to win and really want to win a Championship, we decided to stay on the course we were already heading down and build a more traditional robot.

Why? Well, because this is probably the most boring "game-breaking" robot design that could ever exist.

[thefro526]

Looks legal to me. I wonder how willing box bots will be to risk their robot under the bridge while their partner(s) attempt to balance. Could make for some interesting qualification match strategy discussions.

I've seen common kit frames support well over 300lbs of static weight. (2008 & 2009 robots with people standing on them)

I don't see this being a major issue, though we are considering bringing a few parts with us should we pick a box bot and modify them into a Troll-Bot. Hehehe.

[BrendanB]

Why? Well, because this is probably the most boring "game-breaking" robot design that could ever exist.

Good point. While this a strategy that could work, you can't fit much in 7inches of robot to score an 8in ball or be useful in a match to help your partners make up the points you may not get while doing a triple balance.

Cool strategy but I doubt we will see it and if we ever did I smell a rules update or a referee with his own opinion about what constitutes a bridge.

[wilhitern1]

There is a large difference between a 11-oz ball and a 50-lb robot. That polycarb probably won't hold up over the course of a competition.

Not just 50 LBS. The second robot drives onto your side of the bridge. Now it's 170 lbs plus what ever leverage working on breaking the under ramp.

The first time a bridge breaks, I'll bet it gets outlawed for all time...

[EricH]

I'd go with the first time the strategy is used, regardless of the bridge's broken/unbroken status. Anyone else remember the robots that started stacked in '07, and the immediate response from the GDC?

I would guess that any game-breaker robots, while they may not necessarily be "troll-bots", are ones that come up with something very unique for bridge balancing with 3 robots.

[Kyler]

I feel like "trolling" requires a significant enough deviation from a standard robot design that teams doing it designed their robots around it. Week 6 is a terrible time for the GDC to nullify such a critical part of a robot's design. That puts the GDC in between two decisions they don't like. Firstly they can leave trolling legal and change what they visioned for bridge balancing. Second they can make some teams robots drastically less functional (or possibly non functional). IMO it causes less harm for them not to change the interpretation of the rules and they should leave trolling legal. Its too late in the season at this point to do otherwise. My guess is that we will find out tomorrow in a team update.

[IndySam]

I would also expect this strategy to be quickly outlawed. The GDC made great pains to make this years rules simple. This kind of stretching the rules is why the rule book ends up so large.

[jason701802]

I've seen common kit frames support well over 300lbs of static weight. (2008 & 2009 robots with people standing on them)

I don't see this being a major issue, though we are considering bringing a few parts with us should we pick a box bot and modify them into a Troll-Bot. Hehehe.

As XaulZan11 said, the strength of the frame is not the part to be worried about, it is the electronics board that is often mounted unprotected on top of the frame of a box-bot that one should be worried about.

[Swampdude]

lol, we haven't thought of this but, we apparently sport a troll mode.... No charge!

[lemiant]

In a strange twist our robot chassis is only 7" high. 6 bolts to remove the mechanism and troll on ;).

[Aren_Hill]

I would also expect this strategy to be quickly outlawed. The GDC made great pains to make this years rules simple. This kind of stretching the rules is why the rule book ends up so large.

This stretches absolutely nothing, if you're taking a standard engineering approach to balancing first you must define "balanced" which they did in the manual, saying all robots must be supported by the bridge and it must be level. Second you look for what the define the "bridge" as, which in this case is an engineering drawing with all parts listed.

I should hope they don't punish anyone for taking a fairly standard path of thought regarding solving an engineering problem.

[Clinton Bolinger]

Why? Well, because this is probably the most boring "game-breaking" robot design that could ever exist.

Tell this to Beatty in 2002, with their Big Blue Banners.

-Clinton-

[nickwroyer]

Honestly, I doubt that this would be feasible. The balls themselves are what, 8 inches tall max? Any robot capable of slipping into that gap wouldn't be able to control its balls effectively. Then again, what do I know?

[ablahblah]

Has anyone Q/A'd this yet? I'm particularly interested since I know my team's chassis is currently built for troll mode (we're kinda late, still need to merge launcher to drivetrain, haha). Weight wise we seem to be fine as well,at least I think.

You guys think direct drive BaneBot GB's will be able to support another 120 lbs? We're floating them and their appropriate bearing plates between 80/20 aluminum (which makes turning troll mode on even easier >.>).

EDIT :: just noticed the amount of gearboxes does matter, we're running 3. Yep, kiwi drive. Originally wanted to hold that back until game day, but vet advice is almost always good :)

[thefro526]

Has anyone Q/A'd this yet? I'm particularly interested since I know my team's chassis is currently built for troll mode (we're kinda late, still need to merge launcher to drivetrain, haha). Weight wise we seem to be fine as well,at least I think.



The question was posed to the Q&A last week. As of this post, it's still in the pending state.

[JesseK]

I don't expect the GDC to outlaw "trolling". Any language used would put 179's bot in jeopardy and let's be honest -- 179 has a pretty fantastic and creative bot this year (and it's obvious that 'trolling' wasn't its intent). If the GDC doesn't want trolling, due to how boring it will be (and oh will it ever be...) then all the GDC has to do is mandate to the FTA's that they use fewer zip ties to support the polycarb. [G12] would then whack every troll on the field.

Of course, if a troll bot couldn't do anything else, especially in autonomous, their 20 point contribution is almost completely and utterly moot. Thus, it's not a game breaking design (just a field breaking design...). I don't expect a 'troll only' bot to be on Einstein for the very simple fact that a troll-only bot removes 2 balls from the autonomous of their alliance partners -- either the balls are on the bridge (huge mistake), or they're stuck on the bot and not scoring 8-12 points.

It'll probably cause a ruckus in quals though.

[Madison]

Tell this to Beatty in 2002, with their Big Blue Banners.

-Clinton-

I'm not sure how you extrapolated from what I wrote here that I thought the 71 robot in 2002 was boring.

Building a robot that controls all the field elements and has one shot at succeeding is ambitious -- maybe even crazy -- but it isn't anywhere near boring.

[EricH]

Building a robot that controls all the field elements and has one shot at succeeding is ambitious -- maybe even crazy -- but it isn't anywhere near boring.
Especially when they aren't the only ones that are able to do it. I distinctly remember hearing that other teams could do it, but Beatty beat them out for the Championship.

[Clinton Bolinger]

I'm not sure how you extrapolated from what I wrote here that I thought the 71 robot in 2002 was boring.

Building a robot that controls all the field elements and has one shot at succeeding is ambitious -- maybe even crazy -- but it isn't anywhere near boring.


I guess what I was trying to get at is that there is nothing boring about building a "Game-Breaking" Robot.

-Clinton-

[Jon Stratis]

I don't expect the GDC to outlaw "trolling". Any language used would put 179's bot in jeopardy and let's be honest -- 179 has a pretty fantastic and creative bot this year (and it's obvious that 'trolling' wasn't its intent). If the GDC doesn't want trolling, due to how boring it will be (and oh will it ever be...) then all the GDC has to do is mandate to the FTA's that they use fewer zip ties to support the polycarb. [G12] would then whack every troll on the field.

Of course, if a troll bot couldn't do anything else, especially in autonomous, their 20 point contribution is almost completely and utterly moot. Thus, it's not a game breaking design (just a field breaking design...). I don't expect a 'troll only' bot to be on Einstein for the very simple fact that a troll-only bot removes 2 balls from the autonomous of their alliance partners -- either the balls are on the bridge (huge mistake), or they're stuck on the bot and not scoring 8-12 points.

It'll probably cause a ruckus in quals though.

All they have to do is redefine the bridge to not include the Lexan ball guards underneath it - essentially, define it to be what someone off the street would define it as. Then a robot like 179, which hangs off the end of the bridge without touching the ball guard, would be legal, but a "troll" would not be.

[waialua359]

This will now be the most interesting decision/non decision the GDC makes this season. :)

[AdamHeard]

Even if executed perfectly, I hardly see this as a gamebreaker.

[waialua359]

Even if executed perfectly, I hardly see this as a gamebreaker.

Probably so, but I sure would love to have one on our team during the eliminations......:) 40 points is a lot.

[AdamHeard]

Probably so, but I sure would love to have one on our team during the eliminations......:) 40 points is a lot.

I don't see getting three on the ramp at championships being a terribly difficult proposition.

Even if 3 was prohibitively difficult, it's really only a 20 point difference.

To make achieving these 20 points trivial at the expense of all other scoring ability really isn't that threatening at the championship level.

However, it's all conjecture right now... We shall see...

[Andrew Lawrence]

Probably so, but I sure would love to have one on our team during the eliminations......:) 40 points is a lot.

Like Adam said, this won't be much of an advantage at the championships, especially when the bridge points are lowered. Don't believe me? Check "The Game" (manual) and see for yourself. According to the rules, the bridge points will get lower or higher, though most likely at the champion level they will be lower.

As the level of competition at the FIRST Championship is typically very different than during the competition season, the Game Design Committee will possibly alter the value of Balancing at the FIRST Championship within the range of 5 to 15 points per Robot.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Probably so, but I sure would love to have one on our team during the eliminations......:) 40 points is a lot.

Its only +20 (since you'd already have 2 balanced).

... and at a max of 8" tall, it will be difficult to score (other than balancing).

I suspect that the GDC will allow this strategy, but warn the head refs about field damage.

[waialua359]

Its only +20 (since you'd already have 2 balanced).

... and at a max of 8" tall, it will be difficult to score (other than balancing).

I suspect that the GDC will allow this strategy, but warn the head refs about field damage.
Honestly, I wouldnt expect them to score.
The other alliance would have to outscore your alliance by, in one example, seven 3 point shots.
I'd place a friendly wager that the majority of teams will NOT be able to score 7 3 pointers in a match at all this season.

[JesseK]

Honestly, I wouldnt expect them to score.
The other alliance would have to outscore your alliance by, in one example, seven 3 point shots.
I'd place a friendly wager that the majority of teams will NOT be able to score 7 3 pointers in a match at all this season.

2 high goal auton shots + 3 high goal teleop shots. Dead reckon autonomous and have a preset delay so the shots don't interfere with partners. It's very doable.

[liam.larkin]

Jared you trying to tell us something...What will Ms. Daisy come up with year.....That has been my montra all year....You wanna be the best you got to play like the best....

A 341/272 deep run together is way way way overdue

[pribusin]

All this talk of how to circumvent the rules makes me wonder if people are missing the objective here. I've heard and read repeatedly from the folks at FIRST that the rules are there to provide guidelines on how to play the game and should not be interpreted as an invitation to find ways to circumvent them. While the ideas proposed are all good and sound and would probably result in three bots 'on a balanced bridge' it is clearly not the intent of the game.

I hate to be Negative Nellie here but I strongly believe in letting the intended game decide the results and not a supposed loophole in a set of rules. We are not a bunch of laywers looking for a loophole to get an advantage over others. We are engineers who are supposed to come up with elegant solutions to a problem.

Just my opinion - for what it's worth...

[remulasce]

Yes, but the problem we are trying to solve is outlined in the game rules. The GDC never tells us to play "Rebound Rumble", they tell us to get the most Coopertition Points by wining the most matches by scoring according to the rules in the manual. I wouldn't even say there is a "Spirit of the Game" before the game is actually played- it never goes as the GDC imagines. Otherwise they would out and out tell us "Play a game like Basketball except like this..." and would make the rules supplementary. No, in FRC we play the game as handed to us in the rulebook, and evidently they completely support the emergent gameplay that results. I highly doubt they intended a 469-style bot to be created and dominate as happened in 2010, but the GDC did nothing about it. This "lawyering" of the rules nearly got 469 the Championship. In comparison, the designs and strategies suggested here seem distinctly mediocre.

[waialua359]

2 high goal auton shots + 3 high goal teleop shots. Dead reckon autonomous and have a preset delay so the shots don't interfere with partners. It's very doable.

Yes, very doable......but by the majority?

[EricH]

I hate to be Negative Nellie here but I strongly believe in letting the intended game decide the results and not a supposed loophole in a set of rules.
What is the intended game?

Allow me to clarify that question a bit. I'm currently in a class where the topic du jour, every class, is effectively, "what did the designer intend by X tolerance callout?" Or, as a designer, "Justify why you did this this way." As an engineer, if I don't convey my intent clearly to whoever is making the widget I designed, it can either make their job and mine much harder, or the part could be produced poorly, or both, or, or.... If I do convey my intent clearly, then whoever is making the part has a much easier time, and may in fact have extra tolerance in where a given feature of a part goes. (The class is studying ASME Y14.5-2009, a dimensioning and tolerancing standard.)

So, the question, what is the intended game, is a bit of a tricky one to answer. You can ONLY use what the GDC gave you to do it, or the Q&A--anything more must only be used to fill in gaps, and that is where you can easily make a wrong assumption.

Is it a loophole? Or did the GDC forget something in saying their intent? If they forgot something, we have to make an assumption--the next team over may assume differently. Unless and until something comes from the GDC to clarify intent, your assumption on a gap is as good as mine--once that clarification comes, we know intent, and can no longer assume anything.

[Nate Laverdure]

I've heard and read repeatedly from the folks at FIRST that the rules are there to provide guidelines on how to play the game and should not be interpreted as an invitation to find ways to circumvent them.
This is a professionally-produced competition we're participating in. Our rules should reflect this in internal consistency, clarity of meaning, and freedom from misinterpretation.

[Aren_Hill]

/sarcasm/

Guys, I don't think its in the spirit of the game to shoot balls, they should outlaw that by saying you can't pick up balls, then that means you can't shoot.

G12:Robots may not damage any part of the Arena, including Basketballs.
this means you could damage the balls whenever they're shot, so you shouldn't
/sarcasm

(this is what some of you sound like)

[Aren Siekmeier]

/sarcasm/
... they should outlaw that by saying you can't pick up balls, then that means you can't shoot.

Who says you need to pick up balls to shoot?

[45Auto]

Seems pretty obvious to me.

The GDC didn't intend for the lexan to be considered part of the bridge for scoring purposes. They're human, they do a good job trying to communicate their intent through the rules but they're not perfect. They'll fix it with a rules update (commonly known in the engineering world as a "change order", happens all the time, get used to it if you really want to be an engineer!).

Anyone who risked building a robot to take advantage of the GDC's oversite without clarifying the GDC's intent first will most likely whine and cry and suffer the consequences.

However, they may get lucky and the GDC will let the current definition stand!

To paraphrase a famous quote, those who live by lawyering the rules sometimes die by lawyering the rules! ;)

[nickwroyer]

From the Q&A, it seems that the GDC has repeatedly addressed the definition of "the bridge" and has had multiple opportunities to define it so as to exclude the Lexan sheet, but they haven't. I think the fact that the robot wouldn't really be able to have an effective shooter would mean that a "trollbot" wouldn't be a really competitive strategy, and the GDC recognizes it. Personally, I have a hard time envisioning how a trollbot would be able to score balls effectively.

[Brian C]

Especially when they aren't the only ones that are able to do it. I distinctly remember hearing that other teams could do it, but Beatty beat them out for the Championship.

Team 308 from Walled Lake Michigan used the same strategy and it almost worked to win the Championship. They lost 2 out of 3 in the finals.

How do I know, our team (311) was #1 seed and they were our 1st pick................

[efoote868]

I don't see anything stopping a team from building a troll-bot, other than common sense.

[Chris Hibner]

Team 308 from Walled Lake Michigan used the same strategy and it almost worked to win the Championship. They lost 2 out of 3 in the finals.

How do I know, our team (311) was #1 seed and they were our 1st pick................

You had to bring that up :(

I was the drive coach for 308 back then. We shredded the gearbox on the left side of our drivetrain during the first match of the finals. It still haunts me.

311 was a great partner (as was SPAM). That was a great time.

[Wayne TenBrink]

A single troll bot could be an advantage during eliminations. Two troll bots on opposing alliances would likely cancel each other out. Since the basic concept is relatively simple, they could be adapted from existing chassis' during the course of the season. The more there are, the less the advantage they offer. If teams develop successful conventional methods for balancing 3 bots (quite likely in my opinion), the troll bots will be left on the dust heap of FRC history like last week's minibot.

[Mr. Van]

One of the great things about this game is that it is so easy to explain to "non-FIRSTers: "We're shooting hoops and balancing a teeter-totter bridge."

It would be absurd to see a "troll" bot drive under a bridge at the end of a match and then have the ref/emcee explain to the audience that this bot is "balanced" on the bridge because it is "fully supported by the bridge" and "this panel under here is part of the bridge".

The examples of "game-breaking" bots in the past are all jaw-dropping robots that made the audience (and other teams) you say "WOW!" and "We thought of that, but we didn't think it was possible!" and "Brilliant!"

I don't think this is what the audience would say about "troll" bots.

Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

- Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox

[Ian Curtis]

2 high goal auton shots + 3 high goal teleop shots. Dead reckon autonomous and have a preset delay so the shots don't interfere with partners. It's very doable.

FRC games are usually easy on paper, but as Bill Parcells said, "You are what your record says you are." Not your team in particular, but FRC as a whole. FRC as a whole has a fantastic track record of inspiration, but not a great one at scoring points.

I don't have access to unpenalized scoring data from before 2010, but looking at that does not paint a great picture of high scoring robots. In 2010 the mean robot scored 1.5 points per qualifying match (http://ewcp.org/blog/2011/12/08/average-and-what-it-means-to-your-team/). I think we can agree that the objectives that year were quite simple, if the details made them more challenging (the slope before the goal, and the fact that the goal did not extend all the way to the corner of the field).

Of course I can't find my files for 2011, but I believe the unpenalized score per robot per match was something on the order of 14 points. Hard to categorize this thanks to the minibot, but on average probably less than 2 "actions" for the mean robot.

Using a chart I made for Week 1 (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1101742&postcount=28), we see the mean score for 2006 qualifying matches was somewhere around 30. Again, penalties and the ramp make it hard to judge, but assuming the effects of penalties and the ramp balance each other out (this is a SWAG), then the average robot scored 3 and change balls. I'm not sure how you want to define an "action" for 2006, but this says if you got in position and shot all 10 starting balls, you still missed a two thirds of them! On a dump, you probably got all of them.

To underline this whole discussion, take a look at Jim Zondag's OPR distribution for 2011. The distribution is right skewed, meaning the mean robot scores more robots than the median robot. The median robot is more interesting to us, as it defines the 50% of the field, and at most events the 50% percentile is what gets you playing into Saturday. If you add up the percentages in Jim's graph, the median robot in 2011 scored between 0 and 5 points after penalties! Furthermore, since OPR is calculated using the sum of the alliance scores, it is likely that the real distribution is even more skewed than the OPR distribution.

http://i.imgur.com/AEXt2.jpg

When Woodie called FIRST "the hardest fun you'll ever have," he wasn't kidding. FRC is hard, really hard.

I think I got a little off topic, but back to to your original point. I think if you get two good robots on an alliance you can score those extra points, but I don't think the odds of drawing two good robots are that great. It would be interesting to do some further analysis of what score differentials have looked like in the past...

[EricLeifermann]

The ball ramp is no longer considered part of the bridge. This strategy is now out.

What physical parts make up the bridge by definition? Essentially, where does the bridge begin and end? For example, does the welded structure under the bridge that the top connects to count as the bridge? Does the lateral bar that rotates with the bridge that count as the bridge? FRC2826 2012-01-17
A. The Bridge is defined as all components depicted in GE-12017, with the exception of the Bridge Base (GE-12022) and the Ball Ramps (GE-12064). Updated per Team Update 2012-02-14.

[Cory]

The ball ramp is no longer considered part of the bridge. This strategy is now out.

Q. What physical parts make up the bridge by definition? Essentially, where does the bridge begin and end? For example, does the welded structure under the bridge that the top connects to count as the bridge? Does the lateral bar that rotates with the bridge that count as the bridge?
A. The Bridge is defined as all components depicted in GE-12017, with the exception of the Bridge Base (GE-12022) and the Ball Ramps (GE-12064). Updated per Team Update 2012-02-14. The Bridge consists of all components included in the Bridge Assembly drawing, GE-12017.

[Joe Ross]

I figured that a troll robot would likely go as a late first round pick or an early second round pick at most regionals and not have a lot of impact.

However, a box on wheels picked in the late second round that could turn into a troll robot by removing super structure could have been a game changer. +20 points for the 2nd or 3rd seed alliance could swing a regional.

[bam-bam]

Was I the only one that finds the name "troll-bot" appropriate since it was trolling everyone?

[Aren_Hill]

I'm obviously irked, but they may as well fix the answer to the 2nd QandA stating the definition of the bridge:

Q. Are the non-movable parts of a bridge considered part of the bridge for purposes of physical contact for rule G28?
A. The Bridge consists of all components included in the Bridge Assembly drawing, GE-12017.

[Madison]

Q. What physical parts make up the bridge by definition? Essentially, where does the bridge begin and end? For example, does the welded structure under the bridge that the top connects to count as the bridge? Does the lateral bar that rotates with the bridge that count as the bridge?
A. The Bridge is defined as all components depicted in GE-12017, with the exception of the Bridge Base (GE-12022) and the Ball Ramps (GE-12064). Updated per Team Update 2012-02-14. The Bridge consists of all components included in the Bridge Assembly drawing, GE-12017.

What use is there in the Q&A as an official source of information if they can change their answers at will?

[JesseK]

FRC games are usually easy on paper, but as Bill Parcells said, "You are what your record says you are." Not your team in particular, but FRC as a whole. FRC as a whole has a fantastic track record of inspiration, but not a great one at scoring points.

I should have put my post in the context of elims. You're right, the average robot can't do much in quals, but elims remove at least the (theoretical) bottom 50% of robots to begin with. I also suppose I have knowledge paradox in that I don't remember what it's like without a mostly decent autonomous mode. To me a scoring auton is just a given for my team. There's also a very large difference between this year and 2010: the top of the key. I expect scores (adjusted for penalties and goal values) to be at least slightly higher this year.

Personally, if I am against a pure troll bot I already know how to gain a very convincing point advantage by the end of autonomous alone without any fancy movements (our bot is setup for it, but most bots I've seen thus far cannot be the bot we can be in auton). If we assume that teleop penalties and scoring are roughly equal, then it simply comes down to one robot making sure it's full on balls before endgame. Then it goes unabated to the basket to score -- unabated because the entire opposing alliance is trying to balance. 12 points in auton + 3 balls during endgame > 20 points from the troll. So then the elims picking becomes "who fits our autonomous strategy", "who has the highest accuracy" and/or "who can deliver balls across the field" rather than "who scores the most". If the pick lists run dry and a 1st seed must pick a box on wheels, then perhaps I'd pick a troll bot. I'll hold that call for Weeks 1-2 though.

A match with 2 trolls during quals would be an amazing resource to a high-caliber team, however. So it's not like they won't have their place -- but they're more like pawns rather than game breakers. I'm simply being blunt by putting it that way.

edit -- hypothetically speaking as if troll bots were still valid --

[Swampdude]

trollin... (http://youtu.be/IDamHYpX7Zk)

[Daniel_LaFleur]

What use is there in the Q&A as an official source of information if they can change their answers at will?

At least its not after week 1

[efoote868]

What use is there in the Q&A as an official source of information if they can change their answers at will?

You lawyer the rules, they'll close the loopholes.

[Madison]

You lawyer the rules, they'll close the loopholes.

!

It isn't anywhere near lawyering the rules when you ask a specific question of the GDC and get a specific answer -- only to have them change their mind later.

It isn't as if we were all sitting around with our fingers crossed that nobody would realize this daft plan we'd come up with. Teams asked them for a specific definition and the GDC provided it! I don't know how much farther from lawyering you can possibly get than that, really.

[frasnow]

trollin... (http://youtu.be/IDamHYpX7Zk)

Hilarious! Another great video from a great robot.

[efoote868]

!

It isn't anywhere near lawyering the rules when you ask a specific question of the GDC and get a specific answer -- only to have them change their mind later.

It isn't as if we were all sitting around with our fingers crossed that nobody would realize this daft plan we'd come up with. Teams asked them for a specific definition and the GDC provided it! I don't know how much farther from lawyering you can possibly get than that, really.

The original question had no context of balancing the bridge.

If the question was, "Since the ball ramp is considered part of the bridge assembly, will a robot sitting under the bridge on the ball ramp count as balanced?" The obvious answer is "No, stop lawyering the rules."

[cgmv123]

It isn't anywhere near lawyering the rules when you ask a specific question of the GDC and get a specific answer -- only to have them change their mind later.

If the GDC had known that teams were thinking about driving under the bridge (which I don't think they were, this only came out a few days ago), they would have given a different answer. They made a mistake, but they also can't see into the future. They had no idea what kind of ramifications their answer had. They can't anticipate every single possibility.

[jason701802]

trollin... (http://youtu.be/IDamHYpX7Zk)

It's got its own troll face at the 12 sec mark

[Chris is me]

If the GDC had known that teams were thinking about driving under the bridge (which I don't think they were, this only came out a few days ago), they would have given a different answer.

That's stupid. If that's what the GDC was actually thinking, then they're defining the game based on their guess of what teams would do when they read the manual rather than creating a set of specifications and allowing actual creativity and risk taking.

How can anyone blame a team for taking two Q&A answers and using that as design criteria?

If the question was, "Since the ball ramp is considered part of the bridge assembly, will a robot sitting under the bridge on the ball ramp count as balanced?" The obvious answer is "No, stop lawyering the rules."

"Obvious" is an imprecise term.

[IndySam]

How can anyone blame a team for taking two Q&A answers and using that as design criteria?



Because the obvious point was to be balanced on the bridge. Not search for a easy way to get around the problem.

In real would engineering relying strictly on customer specifications and not listening to their desired intent will get you in to big trouble every time.

[Katie_UPS]

Not search for a easy way to get around the problem.


Try designing a robot that can effectively play the game and be 7 inches tall. Its not easy.

[cgmv123]

That's stupid. If that's what the GDC was actually thinking, then they're defining the game based on their guess of what teams would do when they read the manual rather than creating a set of specifications and allowing actual creativity and risk taking.

It's impossible for the GDC to interpret every single scenario. That's why we have Team Updates. They gave the best possible answer at the time, based on the information they had, while keeping it concise due to the nature of Q&A.

In real would engineering relying strictly on customer specifications and not listening to their desired intent will get you in to big trouble every time.

Couldn't agree more. The intent was to have 2-3 robots cramming themselves on the top of the bridge, not under it. The answer they gave is consistent with the GDC's vision for the season.

[Madison]

If the GDC had known that teams were thinking about driving under the bridge (which I don't think they were, this only came out a few days ago), they would have given a different answer. They made a mistake, but they also can't see into the future. They had no idea what kind of ramifications their answer had. They can't anticipate every single possibility.

The subject of this thread isn't exactly far-fetched. We talked about this possibility as soon as the Q&A response was given and I am absolutely certain that we are not alone. If Jared's post here is the first you're thinking of this possibility, it's not because we lawyered the rules, it's because you didn't explore all ways of playing this game.

If the GDC cannot write a rule set that is comprehensive and clear and if figuring out ways to circumvent, break or otherwise take advantage of edge cases is not part of reviewing the rule set, they should be willing to accept the ramifications of their oversight and learn to do a better job in the future.
Anyone that pretends to have ANY insight into what the GDC intended is deluding themselves and, frankly, I don't care at all what they intended for me to do. They gave me rules and I'm going to follow them. I am not, however, going to make up arbitrary new restrictions so everyone else can feel better about failing to achieve a unique, viable strategy.


FRC rules have become increasingly focused on dictating how things should be done on the field instead of defining a solid set of criteria and letting teams flex their muscle.

[waialua359]

The subject of this thread isn't exactly far-fetched. We talked about this possibility as soon as the Q&A response was given and I am absolutely certain that we are not alone. If Jared's post here is the first you're thinking of this possibility, it's not because we lawyered the rules, it's because you didn't explore all ways of playing this game.

If the GDC cannot write a rule set that is comprehensive and clear and if figuring out ways to circumvent, break or otherwise take advantage of edge cases is not part of reviewing the rule set, they should be willing to accept the ramifications of their oversight and learn to do a better job in the future.
Anyone that pretends to have ANY insight into what the GDC intended is deluding themselves and, frankly, I don't care at all what they intended for me to do. They gave me rules and I'm going to follow them. I am not, however, going to make up arbitrary new restrictions so everyone else can feel better about failing to achieve a unique, viable strategy.


FRC rules have become increasingly focused on dictating how things should be done on the field instead of defining a solid set of criteria and letting teams flex their muscle.
I see truth to both of your points in one sentence.
Perhaps the GDC is trying to do the latter, but in the process, team(s) find ways of doing certain things they could not forsee, and in the end making a change which in reality achieves the former.

I would hate to be on the GDC if given the chance for the following reason:
Seeing THE most frustrating part for teams building towards one solution and having to do a 360, because of updates whether its good/bad.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Because the obvious point was to be balanced on the bridge. Not search for a easy way to get around the problem.

In real would engineering relying strictly on customer specifications and not listening to their desired intent will get you in to big trouble every time.

No, the point should ALWAYS be to find the easiest way to achieve the goal at hand. If I do something because I think it was the "customer's intent" at work instead of doing it the most efficient way possible I am wasting my time.

No, in real world engineering the customer specifications are either their intent or you don't agree to the project until you get them to be their intent because otherwise you can't tell them how much it costs. Developing off spec is a terrible idea, engineers aren't mind readers and most customers are unclear about what they want. If you let them keep changing their mind as you build you will end up over budget REAL quick.

[staplemonx]

The subject of this thread isn't exactly far-fetched. We talked about this possibility as soon as the Q&A response was given and I am absolutely certain that we are not alone. If Jared's post here is the first you're thinking of this possibility, it's not because we lawyered the rules, it's because you didn't explore all ways of playing this game.

FRC rules have become increasingly focused on dictating how things should be done on the field instead of defining a solid set of criteria and letting teams flex their muscle.

Agreed. The amount of prescriptive rules this year sort of makes the game no fun. They pretty much wanted a shooter that can go over at least the bridge. The rules need to allow more than a single design going forward.

Also the GDC should retract the answer making this strategy illegal. It is to late for the teams that have designed to this option to change.

[Akash Rastogi]

Because the obvious point was to be balanced on the bridge. Not search for a easy way to get around the problem.

In real would engineering relying strictly on customer specifications and not listening to their desired intent will get you in to big trouble every time.

Desired intent should not have to be extrapolated especially after two Q&As.

I don't see anything stopping a team from building a troll-bot, other than common sense.


Would the both of you also say the same things to 469 (2010) or 71 (2002)?

[efoote868]

"I don't see anything stopping a team from building a troll-bot, other than common sense."
Would the both of you also say the same things to 469 (2010) or 71 (2002)?
A robot that scores 10 or 20 points each match this year is not the same caliber as 469 in 2010 or 71 in 2002. While the strategy might be "creative," the implementation isn't much of a challenge.

Also, I'm not sure what that type of robot has to offer a team, especially if the bridge values are tweaked.

[IndySam]

No, the point should ALWAYS be to find the easiest way to achieve the goal at hand. If I do something because I think it was the "customer's intent" at work instead of doing it the most efficient way possible I am wasting my time.



Not if the easy way accomplishes the task set out in the specs but in know way does what the customer intended.

The GDC intended robots to be balanced on top of the bridge. Sitting on a piece of structure that is solely designed to help prevent problem with the balls getting stuck is obviously not what they wanted.

This update could have been seen coming from miles away.

[wireties]

The GDC intended robots to be balanced on top of the bridge. Sitting on a piece of structure that is solely designed to help prevent problem with the balls getting stuck is obviously not what they wanted.

This update could have been seen coming from miles away.

Teams that proceeded to build a troll bot were taking a calculated risk. It was theirs to take. IndySam (and myself) thought the risk was very high, others in this thread thought the risk acceptable. It turns out that the risk (this year) was too high.

Identifying and mitigating technical risk is a classic engineering exercise. The older (and hopefully wiser) one gets, the more careful one gets (hopefully). I love to undertake risky novel design approaches but I NEVER do so w/o crystal clear guidance from my customer (which usually comes after a informed, precise query) and a contractual promise (more money and time) my efforts will not doom the project. The goal (professionally) is to deliver on time, under budget AND to get the customer to come back with more work.

[JesseK]

FRC rules have become increasingly focused on dictating how things should be done on the field instead of defining a solid set of criteria and letting teams flex their muscle.

I was with you Madison until this sentence. The GDC has made it apparent in both the manual and external public literature (websites, promos, the animation, etc) that the point of this game is to shoot hoops and balance on top of the bridge. The GDC appears to simply have brought their definitions back in line with those two key points. The GDC still doesn't tell us how to balance on the bridge with this update except by some thin ipso facto arguments made by disappointed teams.

Though I do agree that the criteria this year aren't nearly as explicitly defined as they were in previous years.

[pfreivald]

IndySam (and myself) thought the risk was very high

You can add me to that list, too. Indeed, I'll go further and say that I would have been shocked had trollbots ultimately been allowed.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Not if the easy way accomplishes the task set out in the specs but in know way does what the customer intended.

The GDC intended robots to be balanced on top of the bridge. Sitting on a piece of structure that is solely designed to help prevent problem with the balls getting stuck is obviously not what they wanted.

This update could have been seen coming from miles away.

A Bridge will count as Balanced if it is within 5° of horizontal and all Robots touching it are fully supported by it.

You know what the problem with obvious is? When the rules say SUPPORTED by the bridge my first question should be "what is the bridge and where can I touch it so I'm supported yet out of the way". Nowhere does it say on. If the GDC intended the word ON to be in there they should have put it in there. As it stood, the wording was ambiguous and their intent was not clearly articulated.

[Aren_Hill]

"I don't see anything stopping a team from building a troll-bot, other than common sense."

A robot that scores 10 or 20 points each match this year is not the same caliber as 469 in 2010 or 71 in 2002. While the strategy might be "creative," the implementation isn't much of a challenge. (it's possible btw)

Also, I'm not sure what that type of robot has to offer a team, especially if the bridge values are tweaked.

You try putting a robot that completes all aspects if the game mostly under 7" and tell me the implementation isn't a challenge.

If they wanted people on top only of the bridge they have had many places/opportunities to say just that, and should've done it when the manual was released. I judge the intent by the manual put jn front of me, not the animation (which is always declared unnofficial in terms of rules).The fact the gdc said twice in two official answers what the bridge was, then changed it weeks later is bad form and I expected more from them.

This essentially means all QandA answers are not fully official as they can go back on them at any time, just imagine how much they could change, maybe they could make one of your strategies illegal and I can pretend it was obvious in an ignorant fact ignoring way.

[wireties]

You know what the problem with obvious is? When the rules say SUPPORTED by the bridge my first question should be "what is the bridge and where can I touch it so I'm supported yet out of the way". Nowhere does it say on. If the GDC intended the word ON to be in there they should have put it in there. As it stood, the wording was ambiguous and their intent was not clearly articulated.

We have to supplement the rules with some common sense. it is not possible for the GDC (or anyone else) to be perfectly clear. The same is true in the real world, there is no such thing as a perfect contract. At some point both parties have to be reasonable. When the rules say SUPPORTED by the bridge (further reinforced by the points awarded by BALANCING), teams should start with the assumption that the robot is on top of the bridge. Any other interpretation is NOT common sense, carries considerable risk (doesn't mean its wrong) and should NOT be the basis for a design (especially with only 6 weeks) w/o crystal clear clarification from the GDC.

[Bill_B]

Does anyone else see the similarity between the "bridge problem" and the use of the term "vertices" for the frame? Some of the first words from my team members upon hearing the vertex-8-inch rule was "what if the robot is oval?" (having no vertices). Forget about how you might go about making 3/4" plywood bend around an oval, they were simply exploring what was meant by the given terms. The GDC has always been able to make their intention clear by specific wording to the desired effect. It is becoming apparent that the attempt to turn the rule book into some sort of street sign (word starvation) is doomed to failure. Particularly in a high-school context in which members are ALWAYS and constantly looking for imprecise statements and the way around rules. There's no furor about the vertex thing because no one is making a round or oval robot. Or are they? :yikes:

[Aren_Hill]

We have to supplement the rules with some common sense. it is not possible for the GDC (or anyone else) to be perfectly clear. The same is true in the real world, there is no such thing as a perfect contract. At some point both parties have to be reasonable. When the rules say SUPPORTED by the bridge, teams should start with the assumption that the robot is on top of the bridge. Any other interpretation is NOT common sense, carries considerable risk (doesn't mean its wrong) and should NOT be the basis for a design (especially with only 6 weeks) w/o crystal clear clarification from the GDC.

They gave a crystal clear definition of the bridge. Twice

[efoote868]

You try putting a robot that completes all aspects if the game mostly under 7" and tell me the implementation isn't a challenge.

From my experience, you can't be the best at every aspect of the game. In fact, the best robots in the past specifically ignored parts of the game to focus on others.
469 in 2010 couldn't hang. 71 in 2002 couldn't put balls into goals. 233 in 2006 couldn't load from the top, 25 couldn't pick up from the field.

When discussing a strategy like this, I assume that's the only thing the robot will be good at.


If they wanted people on top only of the bridge they have had many places/opportunities to say just that, and should've done it when the manual was released.

Sure, the GDC could've said that all robots supported by the bridge had to be above the plane of the top surface of the bridge, but then they'd void 179's style of hanging.

[Aren_Hill]

Sure, the GDC could've said that all robots supported by the bridge had to be above the plane of the top surface of the bridge, but then they'd void 179's style of hanging.

But they didn't.....

[Chris is me]

Because the obvious point was to be balanced on the bridge.

The bridge was repeatedly defined as to include the Lexan. Are people just supposed to ignore definitions when they don't seem right?

[Andrew Schreiber]

We have to supplement the rules with some common sense. it is not possible for the GDC (or anyone else) to be perfectly clear. The same is true in the real world, there is no such thing as a perfect contract. At some point both parties have to be reasonable. When the rules say SUPPORTED by the bridge (further reinforced by the points awarded by BALANCING), teams should start with the assumption that the robot is on top of the bridge. Any other interpretation is NOT common sense, carries considerable risk (doesn't mean its wrong) and should NOT be the basis for a design (especially with only 6 weeks) w/o crystal clear clarification from the GDC.

They were perfectly clear. Twice. The bridge was defined as everything in a certain drawing. The rule says supported. To me balanced and supported do not mean on top of. As an engineer my job is to be clear in unambiguous in the language I use.

[Siri]

They gave a crystal clear definition of the bridge. TwiceOnce, I might add, in exactly that context.

G40: When the final score is assessed per [G37], a Balanced Alliance Bridge will earn points based on the number of Alliance Robots completely supported by the Bridge, per Section 2.2.5, as follows[...]

The Q&A Question, asked under G40 was:
A: What physical parts make up the bridge by definition? Essentially, where does the bridge begin and end? For example, does the welded structure under the bridge that the top connects to count as the bridge? Does the lateral bar that rotates with the bridge that count as the bridge?
The answer, as we all know:
The Bridge consists of all components included in the Bridge Assembly drawing, GE-12017.

I agree they didn't mention every non-top-of-bridge surface directly, but where is the ambiguity in the direction of that question? G40 is about balance and complete bridge support, the question asks 'what parts make up the bridge?', and the GDC answered 'all of them'. In all seriousness, what did they think the question was about, if not balancing on parts other than the one the GDC apparently intended?


Disclaimer: I have to say I view the FIRST challenges more as sports than engineering assignments in this regard. This is probably because I in no way see the GDC as my client--that place is reserved for my students with the GDC as mere facilitators. I really don't care about the GDC's intent after they give a ruling, but I understand that apparently leaves me in the minority. (I am in no way implying that anyone who disagrees with my sentiments doesn't view the students as their goal/client/whathaveyou. Most of the guys on the other end are absolutely excellent mentors and engineers. I'd venture they probably don't view the GDC as just facilitators, though.)

[The Lucas]

Looks like GDC just broke this game breaker with an answer to Jared's question:
Q. In a Q&A response from 01-17, you said that the Bridge consists of all components included in GE-12017. These drawings include the ball ramp. Between [G40] and Section 2.2.5, it is possible for a robot to be "fully support" simply by driving onto this ramp. Is this this intended interpretation? FRC0341 2012-02-09
A. Our mistake and our apologies. The former response will be corrected. No, that was not the intended interpretation.
I see now that this Q&A answer was already referenced in this thread but I am leaving it here so that future people who search the thread rather than read every post (like I did) can find it. I wish they would timestamp Q&A answers again
Nice strategy, Jared. Way to look through the field construction docs, I read that answer and moved onto next Q. However, just like most game breaking strategies it is not what the GDC intended (some they leave legal anyway). I had a great deal of fun going for the game breaker in '02 (grab 3 goals), and tried to go the 469 route in '10. I understand the that if a strategy is dominating a game, it is natural to want to level the playing field (or lower the pitcher's mound). Unfortunately, the risk of the strategy becoming illegal (190 in '08) outweighs the reward for all but the most daring teams when considering game breaker strategies.

I personally didn't like that form of bridge manipulation (jam ball ramp), but I love what Swampthing is doing. While I see strategic value in a class of small 3rd bots (cRIO in wheels) for balancing 3 during, I don't think it will be very fun to watch them during quals (since 3 bot balancing is worthless).

[MrForbes]

The bridge was repeatedly defined as to include the Lexan. Are people just supposed to ignore definitions when they don't seem right?

If you can ignore the definition of the word "balance" also....

[wireties]

To me balanced and supported do not mean on top of.

I don't know what to say Andrew, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

For all of the future engineers reading this thread - you give me an answer like that quoted above in an interview and I will NOT hire you. Time is money and I will assume you are likely to waste both.

[Aren_Hill]

I don't know what to say Andrew, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

For all of the future engineers reading this thread - you give me an answer like that quoted above in an interview and I will NOT hire you. Time is money and I will assume you are likely to waste both.

If you assume random constraints that aren't stated you'll waste even more when a cleaner more elegant solution to solving a problem is possible.

[Andrew Schreiber]

I don't know what to say Andrew, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

For all of the future engineers reading this thread - you give me an answer like that quoted above in an interview and I will NOT hire you. Time is money and I will assume you are likely to waste both.

Then it is a good thing I don't intend on interviewing at a place that clearly has very bad and narrow definitions of words and doesn't evaluate all options for how to solve their clients needs.

[Andrew Lawrence]

They were perfectly clear. Twice. The bridge was defined as everything in a certain drawing. The rule says supported. To me balanced and supported do not mean on top of. As an engineer my job is to be clear in unambiguous in the language I use.

I don't know what to say Andrew, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

For all of the future engineers reading this thread - you give me an answer like that quoted above in an interview and I will NOT hire you. Time is money and I will assume you are likely to waste both.

Honestly, I don't think it really matters. It is clear that you're supposed to be ON the bridge, not under it. I understand the rules are open for this sort of manipulation, however do you really think that the GDC would allow a game strategy not intended for use that breaks rules? I think a robot between the lexan and the bridge can "assist in balancing", which is illegal.

Furthermore, for those arguing it takes away "innovativeness", look at 179's robot. Perfectly legal, and is one of the most innovative robots I've seen in my life. I'm not saying you shouldn't go innovative and stick to the plain rules, but going as far as to say it's unfair you can't drive onto the lexan and call it balancing is just going too far.

Don't get me wrong, I want to make an innovative design and robot as much as the next guy, and like everyone else I spend my time reading through the rules, trying to find any possible loophole that will be viable for my team's advantage. However, one does not simply drive onto lexan and call it balanced.

These are just my views, and I understand others have their own views on these things, and I respect that.

-Andrew

[wireties]

Then it is a good thing I don't intend on interviewing at a place that clearly has very bad and narrow definitions of words and doesn't evaluate all options for how to solve their clients needs.


I always evaluate all the options. I just don't take the risk of building something I might not get paid for. I make SURE the customer will accept and pay for my solution (the equivalent here is the GDC and the inspectors). And if the customer is not wise enough to know it will not work, I still will NOT build it because I want the customer to return.

We focus a lot on the mentor to student relationships in FIRST, rightfully so. But there are also older mentor to younger mentor relationships, both within teams and between teams. In that context (I'm an older successful engineer/manager/scientist/inventor) I'm advising younger mentors that troll-ish ideas (in FIRST and in the real world) do not merit a lot of consideration (notice I do not say zero) and certainly do not merit a lot of complaining when the GDC (or your boss someday) cuts one off. There are exceptions, some people get paid to entertain off-the-wall ideas and that is a great gig - but not most of us.

[wireties]

Then it is a good thing I don't intend on interviewing at a place that clearly has very bad and narrow definitions of words and doesn't evaluate all options for how to solve their clients needs.


If you needed a job, (with all due respect) does it matter what you think or intend?

[johnr]

I don't have access to official bridge or mathematical skills to figure it out, but is that ball ramp 5 degrees or less? If it is 6 degrees it wouldn't count. Just wondering.

[XaulZan11]

We focus a lot on the mentor to student relationships in FIRST, rightfully so. But there are also older mentor to younger mentor relationships, both within teams and between teams. In that context (I'm an older successful engineer/manager/scientist/inventor) I'm advising younger mentors that troll-ish ideas (in FIRST and in the real world) do not merit a lot of consideration (notice I do not say zero) and certainly do not merit a lot of complaining when the GDC (or your boss someday) cuts one off. There are exceptions, some people get paid to entertain off-the-wall ideas and that is a great gig - but not most of us.

With all due respect, while Aren and Andrew are younger in age, both have a vast experienced within FIRST. Through listening to Andrew on the EWCP podcast and personal conversations with Aren, I can tell you they know their stuff. Both know what it takes to have a really sucessful robot and team. I think they could mentor the majority of mentors, young or old.

[Andrew Schreiber]

I always evaluate all the options. I just don't take the risk of building something I might not get paid for. I make SURE the customer will accept and pay for my solution (the equivalent here is the GDC and the inspectors). And if the customer is not wise enough to know it will not work, I still will NOT build it because I want the customer to return.

You mean... like asking in Q&A what the definition of bridge is? Seems to me that was a pretty clear "is this a legitimate solution?". You see, unlike the real world the GDC refuses to answer questions about particular solutions. So I could not ask "Will a robot that is capable of going under the bridge and being fully supported by the plate underneath it be considered supported by the bridge?" We would have gotten back that they don't answer questions about specific designs.

My biggest question is, why on earth do we keep having Q&A answers and Team Updates being at odds with each other? Why not merely answer in the Q&A that the bridge is defined as the parts X,Y,Z from the drawing 123 and then follow that up with updating the manual to state that? I guess that is what I'm most angry about.


That being said, I am in the industry of getting paid to find the interesting solutions to problems. It is my job to think of different ways of doing things.

[wireties]

With all due respect, while Aren and Andrew are younger in age, both have a vast experienced within FIRST. Through listening to Andrew on the EWCP podcast and personal conversations with Aren, I can tell you they know their stuff. Both know what it takes to have a really sucessful robot and team. I think they could mentor the majority of mentors, young or old.

I don't know either Aren or Andrew, I'll take you at your word. I certainly applaud and admire their dedication to FIRST. But it makes comments in this thread hard to reconcile - some people have to learn the hard way I reckon.

[wireties]

My biggest question is, why on earth do we keep having Q&A answers and Team Updates being at odds with each other? Why not merely answer in the Q&A that the bridge is defined as the parts X,Y,Z from the drawing 123 and then follow that up with updating the manual to state that? I guess that is what I'm most angry about.


Well, we can agree on this.


That being said, I am in the industry of getting paid to find the interesting solutions to problems. It is my job to think of different ways of doing things.
If somebody will pay you for that, that is great. But most of us have to engineer solutions within time and money budgets that can pass acceptance criteria of some sort. Thinking outside the box is great as long as the box has finite volume.

Good luck this year!

[Andrew Schreiber]

I don't know either Aren or Andrew, I'll take you at your word. I certainly applaud and admire their dedication to FIRST. But it makes comments in this thread hard to reconcile - some people have to learn the hard way I reckon.

If I build to the spec and don't get paid my lawyer gets involved. I don't work without my specs and my pay written out.

[Akash Rastogi]

I don't know either Aren or Andrew, I'll take you at your word. I certainly applaud and admire their dedication to FIRST. But it makes comments in this thread hard to reconcile - some people have to learn the hard way I reckon.

I think you are still basing your comments off the opinion that FRC is supposed to be a microcosm of the real world of engineering - I heartily disagree. I have a different opinion about what FRC allows students to learn before they may or may not have their creativity crushed by the corporate machine.

I'd rather learn about creativity and thinking outside the box in an environment that has little repercussions towards the safety or livelihood of another human (FRC) than come up with plain and safe solutions to problems or clients' needs in the real world where I have less opportunities to screw something up and possibly endanger a life (eg: Boeing engineer).

Not all of us think the same way you might about how to handle an FRC design because we think that this competition is probably one of the last times before entering the "real world" of engineering that we can take risks that won't really affect anyone but our own teams.

Hope you understand what I mean by that.

[Madison]

We've decided to rebuild our robot to better reflect the GDC's intent. Since my team doesn't have any telepathic mentors -- at least, none that can read minds on the east coast -- our only insight into what they wanted us to build is the animation.

At this late stage, would anyone be willing to share what size boot your team is using to kick balls? Normally, we'd prototype this and try to find the very best boot for the job, but we have no time left and want to make sure we get it right this time.

Do members of the GDC prefer Doc Marten's or Red Wings?

http://i41.tinypic.com/1zzgzh1.jpg

[staplemonx]

I don't know what to say Andrew, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

For all of the future engineers reading this thread - you give me an answer like that quoted above in an interview and I will NOT hire you. Time is money and I will assume you are likely to waste both.

Really? I like the the kids with attitude to out maneuver the competition. i would hire a driven and innovative engineer in a hot second.

[staplemonx]

We've decided to rebuild our robot to better reflect the GDC's intent. Since my team doesn't have any telepathic mentors -- at least, none that can read minds on the east coast -- our only insight into what they wanted us to build is the animation.

At this late stage, would anyone be willing to share what size boot your team is using to kick balls? Normally, we'd prototype this and try to find the very best boot for the job, but we have no time left and want to make sure we get it right this time.

Do members of the GDC prefer Doc Marten's or Red Wings?

http://i41.tinypic.com/1zzgzh1.jpg

Bazinga

[sdcantrell56]

Really? I like the the kids with attitude to out maneuver the competition. i would hire a driven and innovative engineer in a hot second.

Totally agree JJ. That said, why would anyone even want to work at such a company. Maybe if more companies were focused on innovation and thinking outside the box this country wouldn't be so quickly moving towards being a second place finisher to so many other countries in innovation and invention.

[MrForbes]

As usual, if you're designing your robot to take advantage of a single definition that's not even in the rules, and you have to ignore the common sense meaning of several aspects of the rules to do it, then you're setting your team up for a high risk of a big disappointment.

Most robots are designed to balance on top of the bridge.

179 designed a robot to balance under the bridge. They thought outside the box, but within the stated intent of the rules.

The trollbot does not balance on or under the bridge.

I guess that's a subtle difference? It's very obvious to me.

[Taylor]

Bazinga

If only the maker of the animation were on the GDC ...

[thefro526]

As usual, if you're designing your robot to take advantage of a single definition that's not even in the rules, and you have to ignore the common sense meaning of several aspects of the rules to do it, then you're setting your team up for a high risk of a big disappointment.



The issue here is that the 'Troll Bot' Strategy was based on two questions posted to the Q&A in week 1 or 2. (don't remember dates of the top of my head)

Seeing that the same answer was given twice, one would think that it's a safe bet to bank that the answer will hold true - but this isn't the case, since the GDC has once again gone back on one of it's answers in the Q&A with a team update. Can we really even trust the GDC anymore?

In any case, we might just be beating a dead horse. The troll bot that I've seen should still be quite competitive even with a traditional balancing strategy.

Oh, and something to lighten the mood a bit. Stumbled across it in my internet travels: http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/364ww4/

[wireties]

If I build to the spec and don't get paid my lawyer gets involved. I don't work without my specs and my pay written out.


You can kiss that customer goodbye though - ;o)

[wireties]

Really? I like the the kids with attitude to out maneuver the competition. i would hire a driven and innovative engineer in a hot second.

So would I if they mix that attitude with a little common sense, otherwise you end up with nothing to deliver.

[wireties]

Totally agree JJ. That said, why would anyone even want to work at such a company. Maybe if more companies were focused on innovation and thinking outside the box this country wouldn't be so quickly moving towards being a second place finisher to so many other countries in innovation and invention.

I work a lot with engineers from other countries. The USA is the most innovative in the world - in fact innovation (and a mastery of logistics and productivity) is what American engineers are know for!

[wireties]

I think you are still basing your comments off the opinion that FRC is supposed to be a microcosm of the real world of engineering - I heartily disagree. I have a different opinion about what FRC allows students to learn before they may or may not have their creativity crushed by the corporate machine.

I'd rather learn about creativity and thinking outside the box in an environment that has little repercussions towards the safety or livelihood of another human (FRC) than come up with plain and safe solutions to problems or clients' needs in the real world where I have less opportunities to screw something up and possibly endanger a life (eg: Boeing engineer).

Not all of us think the same way you might about how to handle an FRC design because we think that this competition is probably one of the last times before entering the "real world" of engineering that we can take risks that won't really affect anyone but our own teams.

Hope you understand what I mean by that.

I do understand and I enjoy FIRST just as you do. I'm not an old stodgy manager. In my spare time I am trying to build an (industrial volume) ultrasonic desalination machine (talk about thinking way outside the box).

But I think you are missing (some of) the point of FIRST. They do not give us 6 months to try all kinds of cool ideas (which I would like). Why is the build season only 6 weeks? - to put the design teams under "quick turn" pressure like that seen in a "real-world" environment. They impose serious design constraints and rules/requirements - again like the real world. So (though I love to tinker and try wild new stuff also) I do not frustrate the students by advising such an approach given a 6-week window.

[Clinton Bolinger]

We've decided to rebuild our robot to better reflect the GDC's intent. Since my team doesn't have any telepathic mentors -- at least, none that can read minds on the east coast -- our only insight into what they wanted us to build is the animation.

At this late stage, would anyone be willing to share what size boot your team is using to kick balls? Normally, we'd prototype this and try to find the very best boot for the job, but we have no time left and want to make sure we get it right this time.

Do members of the GDC prefer Doc Marten's or Red Wings?

http://i41.tinypic.com/1zzgzh1.jpg

Size Bullet Bill!

[2008 - EngiNERDs - Team 2337]
http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/FIRSTchampbot9.jpg

-Clinton-

[lemiant]

Hey guys I want to add two things to this discussion.

1. If you want to use common sense thinking instead of the rules 179 is clearly not "balanced" like most people expected at the start of build season. The only difference between their out of the box thinking and "troll-bot" out of the box thinking is that troll-bots would aggravate the game design (and lots of teams that didn't think of them) by having a really sweet ROI. Whereas swamp thing is different, but not particularly better, than other designs.

2. Here's one more thing to think about. If there were teams that built troll-bots, the GDC just bilked them out of $5000. This isn't just fun, they payed to be able to play the game they were given.

[Akash Rastogi]

I do not frustrate the students by advising such an approach given a 6-week window.

See what I think you missed here from my opinion is that I'm saying THIS IS the time to let kids take chances and make mistakes. Let these 6 weeks be challenging - if you fail or come short of expectations- so what? Its just robotics.

I guess we too can agree to disagree.

[wireties]

See what I think you missed here from my opinion is that I'm saying THIS IS the time to let kids take chances and make mistakes. Let these 6 weeks be challenging - if you fail or come short of expectations- so what? Its just robotics.

I guess we too can agree to disagree.

I see what you mean. There are multiple ways to run teams and multiple valid and instructive philosophies.

Good luck this year!

[SM987]

We can argue, agree to disagree, split hairs, compare philosophies, but what's done is done (unless it is undone once again...). We don't have to be happy (or sad, depending on your design) about it, but all this enthusiasm and energy could be powerful. I want to know what the new "gamebreaker" is. Or, if I designed and built a trollbot what suggestions the community might have with only 6 days left?

My suggestions would be to try and decrease my footprint as much as I could, or perhaps devise a 179 inspired method of getting on the bridge, or have a ramp appendage. As many have said, many teams planning on building trollbots may lose little if any value to their alliance even with the changes.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

The trollbot does not balance on or under the bridge.



The robot does not need to be balanced. Its the bridge that needs to be balanced, and the score of said balanced bridge was according to the number of robots fully supported by said bridge.

I wonder ... now that the ball shield isn't part of the bridge ... can I somehow use that area to keep my opponents off of thier bridge?

[artdutra04]

This entire thread (minus the side discussions) boils down to one simple question:

Should we build robots based upon the intent of the GDC or should we build robots based only upon the rules written by the GDC?

While the latter is easy to determine/judge legality of a design if the rules are written clearly, the former is much more difficult. What is the actual intent of the GDC?

Unless you're on the GDC, it's nearly impossible to know for sure. We can take educated guesses, but different people will likely think the GDC had a different intent when reading the same rule (As evidenced this year with this team update). If the GDC decided to add another set of footnites to the manual, such as a green "Intent Box", I'd be concerned that all teams could follow the intent and come up with very similar robots and strategies.

[jason701802]

Should we build robots based upon the intent of the GDC or should we build robots based only upon the rules written by the GDC?

Or do we build robots upon what we think are the GDCs intended rules. It's a small distinction, but a significant one.
Although there is no way to say for sure what the GDCs intent is, one could argue that 179's bot goes against the GDCs intent of the game because the robot is not on top of the bridge when it is balanced. Following the intent of the rules would seem to allow 179's bot because it is fully supported by the top of the bridge, but wouldn't allow a troll 'bot, whereas following the rules exactly (before the update) would allow a troll 'bot. Hopefully this is a good enough example to show the distinction between following the GDCs intent for the game, their intent for the rules, and the rules as they are written.

To me, the first option is kind of boring because it limits some of the greatest ideas (179 this year, 469 in 2010...), and the last option is only going to make the teams who didn't notice a loophole jealous of the teams who did.

[Duke461]

I wonder ... now that the ball shield isn't part of the bridge ... can I somehow use that area to keep my opponents off of thier bridge?

G25

Robots may not contact or otherwise interfere with the opposing Alliance Bridge.
Violation: Technical-Foul. If the act of Balancing is interfered with, also a Red Card and the Bridge will be counted as Balanced with the maximum number of Robots possible for that Match.

[Brandon_L]

In my unimportant honest opinion:

Whoever built a trollbot: You took a risk knowing that the rule could get overturned by the GDC at pretty much any time. Obviously you would hope it wouldn't, but it has, and you took that risk. Its quite obvious what they intended you to do with the bridges. Deal with it, just as you would have to in the real world.

To the GDC: Next time, don't wait until week 6 to pull something like this. It clears up what you intended the bridges to be used for/as, but this should have happened at maybe week 3 at the latest.

To both: The Q&A is a unspecific mess, thanks to the "We wont comment on exact robot design" rule that I heard somewhere from the GDC. Sometimes, you have to see an example to see where the poster is coming from. This probably would not have helped much in this case, as only a "What makes up the bridge?" question was asked, but if the question was more specific they most likely would have flat out given you a "No, you can't do that" on the spot. As long as the poster doesn't supply detailed drawings and such, it really should be allowed.

My 2c

[Tristan Lall]

They were perfectly clear. Twice. The bridge was defined as everything in a certain drawing. The rule says supported. To me balanced and supported do not mean on top of. As an engineer my job is to be clear in unambiguous in the language I use.
For all of the future engineers reading this thread - you give me an answer like that quoted above in an interview and I will NOT hire you. Time is money and I will assume you are likely to waste both.
Then it is a good thing I don't intend on interviewing at a place that clearly has very bad and narrow definitions of words and doesn't evaluate all options for how to solve their clients needs.
If you needed a job, (with all due respect) does it matter what you think or intend?
So (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=102882) this side conversation confuses me.

If one needed to hire some engineers, doesn't it make sense to hire at least one who is willing to point out when the spec might be ambiguous, or when the customer's expectations might not correspond with the contract language? By arguing the point, that's exactly what Andrew is expressing to you.

Is it cheaper to hire him now (and waste a little time/money now and then), or to wait, and hire a lawyer later?

[Bill_B]

I can forsee a new adjunct activity for FIRSTers that maybe goes along with Fantasy FIRST (FF) or maybe it will be a sidebar in that popular game. It involves assigning a probability to each and every rule in the 2013 manuals concerning whether it will be changed during the season by team update or Q&A. Tiebreaker points for those guessing the update or distance into the season at which the rule is altered. Nolo contendere applies for obvious spelling errors.

Of course, there will have to be a point in week 1 when the parimutuel window closes but I think there's a good chance it will have the effect of EVERYONE taking a good hard look at the rule book before much metal gets cut or even before too many CAD electrons are spun into fruitless webs. I made a post (somewhere) about my observation of teenagers' reaction to hearing about rules they hadn't read well enough to know if they could be ignored. I will find it again when I click on my name in this post. ;) :D

[EricH]

I can forsee a new adjunct activity for FIRSTers that maybe goes along with Fantasy FIRST (FF) or maybe it will be a sidebar in that popular game. It involves assigning a probability to each and every rule in the 2013 manuals concerning whether it will be changed during the season by team update or Q&A. Tiebreaker points for those guessing the update or distance into the season at which the rule is altered. Nolo contendere applies for obvious spelling errors.


Rules Rumble. FF (or, to be more exact, Season Long FF) is pretty busy, and often ignored by those not involved. Plus, in a normal year, we're already done drafting when Kickoff rolls around (other than MSC, MAR, and CMP) and we're going through the adds/drops right about now. This year, we've got one more draft to do...

I think it could be done. But I'd do more of a pick-em style, where you could choose whether or not to make predictions on a rule. Such as: # of Q&As, # of posts on CD discussing the rule, if there would be a change (and if so, when), and whether the change would be made by Q&A or Update. :D Points awarded by accuracy (0 for fail, 2 for full accuracy on any one prediction (within reason), 1 for being "in the ballpark, but you're in the stands part of the ballpark"). Bonus points for predicting what change will be made. No making exactly the same prediction as someone else on a given rule.

[Tristan Lall]

Disclaimer: I have to say I view the FIRST challenges more as sports than engineering assignments in this regard. This is probably because I in no way see the GDC as my client--that place is reserved for my students with the GDC as mere facilitators. I really don't care about the GDC's intent after they give a ruling, but I understand that apparently leaves me in the minority. (I am in no way implying that anyone who disagrees with my sentiments doesn't view the students as their goal/client/whathaveyou. Most of the guys on the other end are absolutely excellent mentors and engineers. I'd venture they probably don't view the GDC as just facilitators, though.)
Not if the easy way accomplishes the task set out in the specs but in know way does what the customer intended.

The GDC intended robots to be balanced on top of the bridge. Sitting on a piece of structure that is solely designed to help prevent problem with the balls getting stuck is obviously not what they wanted.

This update could have been seen coming from miles away.
Teams that proceeded to build a troll bot were taking a calculated risk. It was theirs to take. IndySam (and myself) thought the risk was very high, others in this thread thought the risk acceptable. It turns out that the risk (this year) was too high.

Identifying and mitigating technical risk is a classic engineering exercise. The older (and hopefully wiser) one gets, the more careful one gets (hopefully). I love to undertake risky novel design approaches but I NEVER do so w/o crystal clear guidance from my customer (which usually comes after a informed, precise query) and a contractual promise (more money and time) my efforts will not doom the project. The goal (professionally) is to deliver on time, under budget AND to get the customer to come back with more work.
I'm in full agreement that the risks teams take have to be weighed against a tolerance for risk, and a set of incomplete information—and I've got more to say in that regard later. But I also wanted to highlight Keith's statement about the nature and perils of risk in engineering. That's a great summary of that constraint, as it applies to a contractual relationship between engineer and client. The trouble is, like Siri noted, I don't think this is the relationship that exists in FRC.

Fundamentally, we're not being asked 'build a robot that confirms our expectations about how robots can complete certain tasks'. The fundamental intent and the fundamental constraint is merely 'here are the rules, go play and maybe learn something about the value of engineering'. That encourages creativity and allows teams to try things that would never fly in a conventionally risk-averse engineering environment. That sandbox mentality is a big part of why it's fun. (And let's be perfectly honest: if this was a real engineering task, there are all sorts of things you'd rarely do—like spending time teaching the least capable members of the team new skills, or humouring bad ideas for educational value.)

I say that because FRC is unusual, even among competitions: the game rules are freshly written every year, and there's little weight in precedent or unwritten convention. By choosing to create a new game every year, the GDC has both the enviable opportunity and the significant responsibility of creating an internally-consistent set of documents that describe all of the critical parameters of the challenge.

Worse, when they resort to cop-outs like 'sorry, that's not what we intended', or 'use engineering common sense', they're betraying the essence of any competition—that the competitors are treated equitably so that any difference between them comes down to skill, preparation and the luck of the draw. Taking the role of the capricious god who strikes down his loyal subjects is no way to administer a competition.

FRC is not about a relationship between equals like the engineer and client, both of whom are equally able to negotiate a contract on mutually agreeable terms. Instead, it's like a contract between entities of disproportionate power—like you and the government, for example. In those cases, the more powerful party bears an additional equitable burden to ensure that they are treating those who have no recourse in a reasonable way. In FRC, that means setting expectations and sticking with them, unless there's a compelling reason to do otherwise—and only then, with due consideration of the impact on the weaker parties.

This situation violates that equitable expectation, because teams should have been able to rely on FIRST's past explicit statements. I of course realize that FIRST probably made an innocent mistake—and that has mitigating value. But FIRST missed other opportunities to mitigate the damage. They could have written the rule more clearly in advance, or labelled the diagram better. They could have explained that they surveyed all the teams, and if none were using this strategy, then the issue would be moot. They could have explained that the GDC had considered all of the issues, but upon reflection, decided that this was the best course of action.

Indeed, I think it's that last one that's annoying people. Probably for eminently practical reasons, the GDC is like a machine where questions go in, and dicta come out. There's rarely any indication of what's going on inside. Did the GDC actually understand the question, but deemed it unreasonable? Did they misunderstand the question? Did they spend more than 30 s discussing what a team feels is a crucial and complex issue that doesn't easily lend itself to a fair resolution? Occasionally, we even hear that the GDC has rather heated arguments over points of principle—is the ruling the result of level-headed conversation, or a shouting match? Knowing these things isn't crucial, but it is beneficial, because it establishes a frame of reference for the team that was just told their robot is pretty much useless. It also dampens criticism, because the explanation crowds out alternative theories like incompetence or ulterior motives—theories that can spread unchecked when the only response amounts to 'it's week 6: now the rule means this'.

The other factor feeding this discontent is the fact that the GDC had three perfect opportunities to get the definition right: once when they wrote the rules, and twice when teams asked for clarification. All three times it was an (understandable) oversight, but that doesn't change the fact that teams would desperately like to believe they can trust what the GDC has to say.

And that brings me to risk. Having been involved with this competition for a very long time, in many capacities, I know a lot about how the organization operates, and how GDC decisions are implemented in the field. There's a substantial amount of variability (most of which is undesirable), and this makes for a lot of risk, when it comes to non-mainstream designs. Will your inspector pass you or fail you, based on their understanding of the rules, and their willingness to tolerate equitable deviations from the rules under extenuating circumstances? The same goes for the referees. This has to figure into your risk estimates, if you're trying anything even remotely controversial.

Sometimes you make out well—like 190 in 2008, who managed to convince the officials (at one regional) that the rules referred to a robot-based co-ordinate system, rather than a field-based one. And sometimes you don't—like 1519 in 2008, who complied with all of the rules, but were dealt a mortal blow as a result of a dogmatic interpretation of the undefined term "robot".

Another aspect of risk is based on the likelihood that the GDC itself will change the meaning or interpretation of something that a team relied upon. Again, in my long experience, this happens all the time in FRC. The examples are too numerous to count, but sufficient to say, all too often they occur late in the build season or even during the competition season, when the impact on affected teams is most severe.

Now, I know about these aspects of risk, and because of that, I make contingency plans when I'm trying something controversial. I wasn't exactly surprised by this ruling. But the biggest problem with FIRST-induced risk isn't its effect on me, but rather its effect on less-well-prepared teams. If something isn't clear to a well-informed rookie (who has read the rules, but has no special insight into what the GDC is, much less today's definition of "engineering common sense"), it's not clear enough.


We have to supplement the rules with some common sense. it is not possible for the GDC (or anyone else) to be perfectly clear. The same is true in the real world, there is no such thing as a perfect contract. At some point both parties have to be reasonable. When the rules say SUPPORTED by the bridge (further reinforced by the points awarded by BALANCING), teams should start with the assumption that the robot is on top of the bridge. Any other interpretation is NOT common sense, carries considerable risk (doesn't mean its wrong) and should NOT be the basis for a design (especially with only 6 weeks) w/o crystal clear clarification from the GDC.
Does anyone else see the similarity between the "bridge problem" and the use of the term "vertices" for the frame? Some of the first words from my team members upon hearing the vertex-8-inch rule was "what if the robot is oval?" (having no vertices). Forget about how you might go about making 3/4" plywood bend around an oval, they were simply exploring what was meant by the given terms. The GDC has always been able to make their intention clear by specific wording to the desired effect. It is becoming apparent that the attempt to turn the rule book into some sort of street sign (word starvation) is doomed to failure. Particularly in a high-school context in which members are ALWAYS and constantly looking for imprecise statements and the way around rules. There's no furor about the vertex thing because no one is making a round or oval robot. Or are they? :yikes:
I'm no fan of "common sense" as a substitute for precision, where precision is beneficial.

We can say that it's common sense that driving under the bridge is not balancing it. But that presupposes a whole bunch of assumptions about what things are, and what terms mean. Since those terms are not all clearly and precisely defined in the rules (much less in common parlance), those assumptions are inherently open to debate. That doesn't make it not common sense—it merely demonstrates that nobody has a monopoly on common sense. If I disagree, based on my own self-consistent and reasonable interpretation, there isn't really much you can say to prove me wrong. We just disagree, because we have different worldviews.

For that matter, isn't it also common sense to observe that a robot can be round (ever see a Roomba)? If common sense is so important, why did the GDC fail to employ it in that case? Could it also be true that common sense is not always obvious, even to our esteemed rule-writers? If they can't get it straight all the time (and why would we expect that of them?), why should we? Holding every team to their brand of common sense is untenable—and apparently unreasonable if they can't manage it themselves. Actually, the history of the rounded robot question is even more sordid than that (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73262). In 2009 FIRST actually said that a curved bumper was composed of an infinite number of corners, and thus each needed to be protected individually. (Again, that's something that a rookie wouldn't know, and therefore couldn't easily rely upon to assess the likely actions of the GDC.)

They've said other nonsensical things, like plywood isn't plywood if you made it from plies of wood, or that the frame perimeter is necessarily a polygon (it's not: polygons are planar, the frame perimeter need not be). Give me a while, and I can go on and on—but the point is that I can say with some authority that many GDC interpretations do not reflect my understanding of common sense, and that they probably set off red flags for others as well. And as Bill noted, it should be pretty obvious that the average teenager has a different attitude toward common sense than people the age of their parents (like some GDC members). It's stuff like this that makes me adamantly opposed to the use of common sense as a crutch for bad specifications.

[wireties]

Is it cheaper to hire him now (and waste a little time/money now and then), or to wait, and hire a lawyer later?

It is cheaper to hire engineers who are both innovative and practical and who communicate effectively with the customer. These traits are not mutually exclusive. It does not matter (in the real world or in FIRST) if a novel design does not meet requirements, does not please the client, is over budget and/or is over schedule.

No doubt the teams that started a troll bot are pretty upset but it was a risky design decision. No amount of rule parsing, pre or post GDC, is going to change that. So how about we all learn from this and pose less obtuse questions to the GDC next year?

[wireties]

... the GDC has both the enviable opportunity and the significant responsibility of creating an internally-consistent set of documents that describe all of the critical parameters of the challenge.


This is where you miss the point. It is NOT strictly possible for the GDC to create a foolproof "set of documents". There will always be some wayward engineer asking what "is" is (or thinking you can balance a robot under a bridge) . Common sense is an essential component. This is how the real world works.


FRC is not about a relationship between equals like the engineer and client, both of whom are equally able to negotiate a contract on mutually agreeable terms. Instead, it's like a contract between entities of disproportionate power—like you and the government, for example.


The engineer and customer/client are not on equal footing. The party paying the bills has final say over all matters.

And FIRST is nothing like "you and the government". FIRST is voluntary, one is compelled to do nothing.


Did the GDC actually understand the question, but deemed it unreasonable? Did they misunderstand the question?


It is my understanding that a direct query was not made (in an effort not to reveal the strategy). If I am mistaken, I apologize. If a team posed a question like "Assume team XYZ makes a robot with a 7" profile and parks it on the lexan under the bridge, will it count in the same manner as a robot on the top of the bridge at the end of the game?" and the GDC said that is OK then I also would be pissed. But that did not happen, did it? Everyone was being a little too clever and got stung.

I have designed some innovative control systems in my career. I have to work hard at not straying so far outside the box that I can't see the box. And I can honestly say that I would not have derived the trolling strategy from the GDC queries. Even now I can't believe anyone would think this a valid strategy - what on earth were they thinking?


I'm no fan of "common sense" as a substitute for precision, where precision is beneficial.


Your mistake is thinking common sense and precise thinking are mutually exclusive.


We just disagree, because we have different worldviews.


Wrong - we disagree because we have lived it. We have made similar mistakes and learned from them. The mentors in the thread (who do not agree with you) are not expressing opinions but justified conclusions based on decades of experience. Is that to count for nothing?


And as Bill noted, it should be pretty obvious that the average teenager has a different attitude toward common sense than people the age of their parents (like some GDC members). It's stuff like this that makes me adamantly opposed to the use of common sense as a crutch for bad specifications.

This is not a dumbed-down game for high school students. It is for students who want to step up and do college level work and/or entry level professional work. The whole purpose of FIRST is to introduce extraordinary students to a real world-ish engineering exercise (mentored by practicing engineers) and prompt them to consider to study engineering, physics or computer science.

[Brandon_L]

I have designed some innovative control systems in my career. I have to work hard at not straying so far outside the box that I can't see the box. And I can honestly say that I would not have derived the trolling strategy from the GDC queries. Even now I can't believe anyone would think this a valid strategy - what on earth were they thinking?

This. I can't agree more.

The purpose of the bridge is pretty obvious. to balance. not to find loopholes to score more points. And I also completely agree, if someone flatout asked if it was legal, and they said yes, then overturned it, there would be a reason to be angry. But what is going on here is completely ridiculous. If you can figure out how to make a robot that small and still score 3 pointers you can suck it up and put a bridge manipulator on your robot.

[lemiant]

The purpose of the bridge is what the GDC said it was, nothing more, nothing less.
And of course they didn't post a clear Q&A. The public nature of the Q&A would make that require revealing their whole strategy. They had the GDC state regulations which made them perfectly legal according to the rules and that should have been enough.

[wireties]

The purpose of the bridge is what the GDC said it was, nothing more, nothing less.
And of course they didn't post a clear Q&A. The public nature of the Q&A would make that require revealing their whole strategy. They had the GDC state regulations which made them perfectly legal according to the rules and that should have been enough.

And how did that approach work out for "them"? Everyone makes mistakes, the real question is do we learn from it. Evidently you are not there yet.

My first boss had a saying - "don't make big mistakes and don't make little mistakes twice". Trolling-gate was a big mistake that hopefully will not get repeated.

[lemiant]

Spotlight took me to this:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18309
What would you have said?

[wireties]

Spotlight took me to this:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18309
What would you have said?

sorry - was before my time

[DjScribbles]

I haven't followed this whole thread (read the beginning), so forgive me for being a bit out of context but...

It seems to me there should be an alternative way of submitting these types of questions to the GDC when it involves a unique strategy that you don't want to share with the world if it's legal.

The reason the Q&A question was so ambiguous is likely because teams didn't want to tip their hands; but if they could ask the question and privately get approval that it is within the intent of the game, and if the strategy is denied then the private Q&A is made public so other teams are made aware of the ruling and subsequent clarification to the rules.

I don't think world class teams should be forced to gamble their success on whether or not something is legal. If you decide a strategy probably isn't really "the intended game design", but it turns out to be legal, you'll be kicking yourself when you get schooled by someone who took that risk and "got away with it".

To me it seems the only arguments for not having a privacy option to the Q&A would be to minimize the amount of work required and to protect the "not comment on a specific design" clause.

[Clinton Bolinger]

And of course they didn't post a clear Q&A. The public nature of the Q&A would make that require revealing their whole strategy. They had the GDC state regulations which made them perfectly legal according to the rules and that should have been enough.

Personal I think that the public nature of the Q&A is the root of the problem. Maybe next year FIRST should allow for Questions to be submitted privately or publicly (it is up to the team). If a question is deemed to be legal then the GDC will respond privately to the team. If it is considered illegal then the GDC post a clarification in the Game Manual, still keeping the original question and team private.

This would allow for teams to be honest and forth coming with the GDC, yet not show their hand to all of the other teams.

-Clinton-

[pfreivald]

Personal I think that the public nature of the Q&A is the root of the problem.

I'm all for 100% transparency on all GDC communications with teams. I can only imagine the rage that would be generated by some teams learning that something is legal while other teams do not. Given how badly people overreact to the GDC's every twitch now -- complete with assignation of less than pure motive on far, far too many occasions -- I foresee accusations of favoritism, cheating, elitism, and incompetence well beyond anything we've ever seen in the past if we went down this road.

So it's a great idea, except for the things that make it a terrible idea. (That's meant to be somewhat ironic without being abrasive. One of my favorite quotes of all time is, "It's a wonderful idea, but it doesn't work.")

[artdutra04]

Personal I think that the public nature of the Q&A is the root of the problem.If you thought the GDC was slow in answering questions this year, just wait until a hundred teams all ask the same exact question because all Q&A posts were private and they didn't know such a question was already answered.

[Clinton Bolinger]

I'm all for 100% transparency on all GDC communications with teams. I can only imagine the rage that would be generated by some teams learning that something is legal while other teams do not. Given how badly people overreact to the GDC's every twitch now -- complete with assignation of less than pure motive on far, far too many occasions -- I foresee accusations of favoritism, cheating, elitism, and incompetence well beyond anything we've ever seen in the past if we went down this road.

So it's a great idea, except for the things that make it a terrible idea. (That's meant to be somewhat ironic without being abrasive. One of my favorite quotes of all time is, "It's a wonderful idea, but it doesn't work.")

I can only see teams getting upset because they didn't think of that strategy or ask the right question. There are a lot of people to this day that still think diverting balls in 2010 is still "cheating" (if you are 469, otherwise it is ok).

Instead we have a system now that causes teams to be vague in their Q&A questions because they don't want to reveal their strategy. Then build a robot for 6 weeks that fits this strategy, only to be deemed illegal by the GDC because some one else figured out the same strategy six weeks later and asked the question that should have been asked at the beginning.

-Clinton-

[Taylor]

If you thought the GDC was slow in answering questions this year, just wait until a hundred teams all ask the same exact question because all Q&A posts were private and they didn't know such a question was already answered.

Not if the questions were answered in the form of the Team Updates, every Tuesday and Friday. That way team anonymity would be secure, everybody would get the answers simultaneously, and the system is already in place.

[pfreivald]

I can only see teams getting upset because they didn't think of that strategy or ask the right question.

I agree that this is the only reason that team members should get upset, but that doesn't mesh with reality and human nature as demonstrated on this forum and elsewhere on many different occasions.

[Jared Russell]

It seems to me there should be an alternative way of submitting these types of questions to the GDC when it involves a unique strategy that you don't want to share with the world if it's legal.

I do not like this idea at all. If you think the Q&A is inconsistent now, just wait until every team in FIRST reads a *unique* version of the Q&A.

In general, I am "okay" with the fact that a disruptive strategy or concept carries high risk with it. You can either keep it on the DL to minimize imitation and hope that your strategy stands, or you can risk the novelty by asking a direct question. If you let teams ask their questions in private, you remove almost all of the risk and turn strategizing into 2500 private interrogations of the GDC looking for cracks.

[Karthik]

I just read the last two days worth of posts in this thread, and I have to say I'm appalled by the arrogance and lack of respect shown by some of the posters in here.

For all those who "knew this was coming", congratulations. Do you want a cookie with that? Seriously, right now we have a rookie team who's robot has been rendered somewhat useless, and the potential that many other teams have suffered the same fate. Instead of offering constructive suggestions, we have a bunch of people piling on in two separate threads telling them about how dumb they were for not seeing this coming, how they should have used common sense, how they wouldn't hire someone who would think that way, and basically saying "I told you so". How is this helpful to anyone?

The approach taken by teams who decided to build these little wedge bots (I refuse to call them troll bots, it sounds ridiculous) is definitely not one I would have taken, and there are lessons to be learned from this situation by all teams (i.e. If you're going to take a design risk ask on the Q&A. Granted they might not answer since they're unable to comment on specific designs, but you have to try). However there's no need for anyone to be using this thread to state how amazing their common sense is, while demeaning others.

Finally, for anyone who feels need to discount Aren's abilities based on the decision his team made, I urge you to consider this:

https://my.usfirst.org/myarea/index.lasso?page=team_details&tpid=62757

He's been involved in the creation of some of the best robots in FIRST since 2006. He knows what he's doing, and frankly we could all learn a thing or two from him about robot design. (And now that I've said that, I'm never saying anything nice about him again)

[MrForbes]

The robot does not need to be balanced. Its the bridge that needs to be balanced, and the score of said balanced bridge was according to the number of robots fully supported by said bridge.

You're right, it's the bridge that needs to be balanced. But I don't understand how having the bridge supported from below, could be considered to be "balanced". That's not what the word means.

I'd like to offer some constructive suggestions, but I can't think of any....sorry.

[Racer26]

It is my understanding that a direct query was not made (in an effort not to reveal the strategy). If I am mistaken, I apologize. If a team posed a question like "Assume team XYZ makes a robot with a 7" profile and parks it on the lexan under the bridge, will it count in the same manner as a robot on the top of the bridge at the end of the game?" and the GDC said that is OK then I also would be pissed. But that did not happen, did it? Everyone was being a little too clever and got stung.


This is where you're wrong.

Direct queries like you suggest are not made to the GDC through Q&A, because the invariable response is along the lines of "The GDC will not comment on the legality of specific robot designs. Rephrase your question in a more general sense of its direct application to specific rules."

Since the GDC refuses to comment when asked directly, we are forced to ask obtuse, somewhat tangental questions that may or may not transmit the concept of exactly what we're hoping to achieve.

The GDC was asked what defined the bridge, for the purposes of its interaction with the specific rule, regarding supporting and balancing, and their response (to two different, similar questions) was that it included everything in that drawing. That drawing included the lexan anti-ball-jamming piece, and therefore, that piece was twice defined as part of the bridge, for the purposes of that rule.

People designed their robots around that definition, having come from the GDC, not their own assumptions (what else are we supposed to use as definitions, if we can't trust the GDC to mean what they say, when asked a direct question). Someone pointed out a specific case of what the GDC's definition meant, and the GDC realized that they hadn't intended to create that situation as a viable solution to their problem. Were it early in the build, say week 1 or week 2, when those original questions were asked, nobody would have had an issue with the definition changing like this. Changing it now, nearly at ship date, when several teams had designed their robot to take advantage of an out of the box, but much simpler solution to the GDC's posed problem of balancing 3 robots, according to the GDC's definition of supported and balanced, is wrong.

This doesn't affect me or any team I'm associated with or close with, but it irks me that the GDC has nixed a creative interpretation of a rule they clearly defined so close to ship.

[wireties]

This is where you're wrong.

Direct queries like you suggest are not made to the GDC through Q&A, because the invariable response is along the lines of "The GDC will not comment on the legality of specific robot designs. Rephrase your question in a more general sense of its direct application to specific rules."

Since the GDC refuses to comment when asked directly, we are forced to ask obtuse, somewhat tangental questions that may or may not transmit the concept of exactly what we're hoping to achieve.


You are correct, my assumption was wrong. Some of the posters took things personally that would not bother me but perhaps I was too strident. Some emotions are too difficult to convey in this type of forum I reckon. I "agreed to disagree" with each poster and wished them well, still some neg-repped me but 2X as many pos-repped me. I apologize again if I have offended anyone in this thread.

I read the beginning of this thread and was intrigued (like many of you) but advised our students not to jeopardize an entire season based on incomplete information. To a person who has suffered the consequences (of being too far outside of the box) in real-world engineering efforts, this was a no-brainer. And I don't expect "a cookie" for it ;o). I tried to convey wizened decision-making criteria and processes to students and to the younger (and awesome) mentors on this thread.

But I can see how it is frustrating that you can't get a direct answer from the GDC. Many posters in the last page or so had good ideas to correct this, maybe the GDC will listen. Good luck to the teams affected by this process, I hope your season turns out well.

[Racer26]

In real-world engineering, you would have the ability to go to the client and ask "does this solution meet all of your requirements? as far as we can tell, from the specification given, it does. are we missing something? did you perhaps accidentally omit some other specification?" and get a straight answer.

Since the GDC won't do that, we are left in a hard place as engineers and designers.

[wireties]

In real-world engineering, you would have the ability to go to the client and ask "does this solution meet all of your requirements? as far as we can tell, from the specification given, it does. are we missing something? did you perhaps accidentally omit some other specification?" and get a straight answer.

Since the GDC won't do that, we are left in a hard place as engineers and designers.

Agreed, based on the lack of data we decided to be conservative and not get near the "hard place".

How does one explain the traditional decision versus a decision to build a trolling bot? It is not that I don't want to build kewl things - I have built some really wild systems in the "real world". I guess we thought the sponsor money, student time, teacher time and mentor time was too much too risk. My company put up the $$$ to go to a regional - I put in a lot of money and many hundreds of hours - the teachers and students put in huge amounts of time (more than the mentors) - it just seemed too much to risk. Is that so hard to understand?

I tell you one thing - try starting a business (with your money) based on a product you develop. One learns to be (a lot more) prudent quickly and it is a good thing.

[Racer26]

...I have started a business, with my own money, AND made it profitable in less than 6 months.

Teams take risks in their design, going for something radical. Sometimes it pays off, see: 148 in 2008. Other times it doesn't, see: 1519 in 2008.

My team, the first time we tried swerve, it was atrocious, didn't work well, and broke frequently. In 2004, 2007, and 2008, my team built multi-position pneumatics. In 2009, 2010, 2011, and now 2012, we've built swerves. They've gotten consistently better than that first attempt in 2006.

In 2010, we were the first team to ever (so far as we know anyway), build a fully invertable swerve driven robot. It turned out to be unnecessary, as we thought flipping on the bump would prove to be a much bigger problem than it turned out to be.

I don't think its fair to chastise a team for taking a calculated risk, no matter what it is.

[Aren_Hill]

I don't think its fair to chastise a team for taking a calculated risk, no matter what it is.

And with enough effort, we "risked" very little, hence why my initial disgruntledness with the GDC is much smaller than how angry I am with the ignorance of some CD members.

Wireties,

We did know it was possible that this would be made illegal, as I've been around long enough to see other inane GDC rulings. But trying to defend them with what you view as "common sense" and calling me naive does not make you or them correct in how they handled it.

I base my level of risk by the task at hand, am I starting my own company? Nope, am I building something for a customer? Nope, I'm competing in FRC, and happen to know some amazing things are capable of being accomplished if you merely take the leap.

[wireties]

I don't think its fair to chastise a team for taking a calculated risk, no matter what it is.

I totally agree and that is a good point. But can I ask you - how did you calculate the risk? What was the risk factor (in percentage for example)? I apologize if that seems like a leading question but I'm a math guy, I really am looking for a number. That was our dilemma, the risk (absent good data) seemed unknowable - could be nothing or infinite.

[wireties]

And with enough effort, we "risked" very little, hence why my initial disgruntledness with the GDC is much smaller than how angry I am with the ignorance of some CD members.


I've no doubt you had a good backup plan, your reputation as a great robot designer is well-deserved.

But trying to defend them with what you view as "common sense" and calling me naive does not make you or them correct in how they handled it.

If I used the word "naive", I apologize. I did not meant to and certainly should not have used that tone.

Nope, I'm competing in FRC, and happen to know some amazing things are capable of being accomplished if you merely take the leap.

I generally stay out of the student decision making process - purposefully. I beg the team not to use the "head mentor" label and i never coach the drive teams. I just labor in the pits. But I do place huge value on the contributions of our sponsors money and the volunteered time. Perhaps I am too zealous in this regard, making sure everyone sees "something for their money/time". I will take your comments to heart and endeavor to be more understanding on CD and elsewhere.

[Tetraman]

As one of the many non-engineers that don't think in engineering terms...

I find the loophole (when it was) of a wedgebot to be genius and worthwhile for a team to attempt. If the team I'm in suggested it, I would side against it simply for the sake of being scared the loophole would get closed, but I don't deny I was and still am incredibly jealous of a team with the bravery to spend their season working on a robot that utilized the rules advantage.

My question would be...what if the GDC wasn't given that question? What if week one a wedgebot team walks into their regional and at the end of the match slides under a bridge. What would the referees do? Given everything inside the manual, its a perfectly logical case that the wedgebot would count. Then, would the GDC continue to allow that loophole to exist? Or would they retroactively end the season of many other robots that attempted such a wedgebot? Or what if the ref would deny the team the points because it's not "balancing on the bridge" even though it was, technically, in the rules as legal?

[Lil' Lavery]

While it hasn't been brought up in a few pages, I think there's a very important distinction between a "gamebreaker" and a "chokehold strategy." They are not the same thing, though not mutually exclusive, either.

Team Hammond in 2002 exploited a chokehold strategy. When their strategy worked, there was no possible way for them to lose a match. 469 in 2010 was as close to a chokehold strategy as we've seen since then, but didn't truly have a chokehold strategy.

"Troll-bots" are decidedly not a chokehold strategy. For as good and influential as the strategy may be, especially in terms of ROI, in does not provide an advantage that cannot be overcome by the opposing alliance. They are "gamebreaking" in the respect that they "break the game" by exploiting a loophole in the rules. This is also not the first time the GDC has closed those loopholes (or clarified and enforced ambiguous rules). See 68 in 2003 and 190 in 2008 for other examples.



Unrelated to above, I have a question to ask. I mean no disrespect or criticism by it. In fact, I aim to learn from your response to better understand how some of the designers I greatly respect think. But, to the experienced and capable teams that opted for this strategy (and I'm counting 3928 as an experienced team given their mentors), why did you chose this route? Aren, for one, has stated himself that 3928 acknowledged that the GDC could potentially rule out this strategy. Why did you chose the "risky" road to facilitating the ramp bonus points, rather than a different strategy? 179 has shown one viable alternative, and there are numerous other possibilities that exist and I'm willing to bet that some were discussed. I'm curious as to the logic that led these teams to pursue this design choice.

[wireties]

My question would be...what if the GDC wasn't given that question? What if week one a wedgebot team walks into their regional and at the end of the match slides under a bridge. What would the referees do? Given everything inside the manual, its a perfectly logical case that the wedgebot would count. Then, would the GDC continue to allow that loophole to exist? Or would they retroactively end the season of many other robots that attempted such a wedgebot? Or what if the ref would deny the team the points because it's not "balancing on the bridge" even though it was, technically, in the rules as legal?

Who knows? - and that, in essence, is the point. Several mentors have defined this as a "calculated" risk. I don't outright disagree but my trouble is exactly how does one calculate the risk? It can be mitigated (up to ship time - by building a second conventional design) but how does one calculate the risk?

[Nate Laverdure]

...how does one calculate the risk?
Risk = probability * consequence

[SteveGPage]

Risk = probability * consequence

Along these lines, I do a "Risk Matrix"

Probability (Sliding scale 1 to 3, so you can have things like 1.5)
1. Low
2. Med
3. High

Impact
1. No Impact
2. Moderate
3. Severe

Risk Factor is Probability * Impact
If the Risk Factor is 1 - 3 (Green), I just watch it to see if it changes
If the Risk Factor is 4 - 6 (Yellow), I develop contingency plans
If the Risk Factor is 7 - 9 (Red), I avoid

So if the probability was Med High (2.5), and the impact was Severe (3) - that would be a risk factor of 7.5. I would avoid that risk, and make alternate decisions. Those decisions could just be a modification, so that that the impact, for example, was reduced.
If the Probably was High, and the impact low/moderate (3 * 1.5), which would be a risk factor of 4.5, I would want to have contingency plans in place prior to pursuing that action.

[Joe Ross]

Who knows? - and that, in essence, is the point. Several mentors have defined this as a "calculated" risk. I don't outright disagree but my trouble is exactly how does one calculate the risk? It can be mitigated (up to ship time - by building a second conventional design) but how does one calculate the risk?

Socratic questioning works better in a closed environment where the answers come from a defined set of people, rather then a thread like this where people pop in and out at random.

[Bill_B]

Bravo, Steve. Now couple that with my semi-serious suggestion that the 2013 rules be rated by the probability we think they will change. A risk factor for depending on "iffy" rules may just emerge.

[wireties]

Along these lines, I do a "Risk Matrix"
.

Excellent and thanks - I was hoping for a hard answer and wasn't posing a socratic query (though I can see how it could be taken that way).

[gurellia53]

Unrelated to above, I have a question to ask. I mean no disrespect or criticism by it. In fact, I aim to learn from your response to better understand how some of the designers I greatly respect think. But, to the experienced and capable teams that opted for this strategy (and I'm counting 3928 as an experienced team given their mentors), why did you chose this route? Aren, for one, has stated himself that 3928 acknowledged that the GDC could potentially rule out this strategy. Why did you chose the "risky" road to facilitating the ramp bonus points, rather than a different strategy? 179 has shown one viable alternative, and there are numerous other possibilities that exist and I'm willing to bet that some were discussed. I'm curious as to the logic that led these teams to pursue this design choice.


We believed that we needed a way to get a 3rd robot on a bridge. It would make us better in eliminations. As you've mentioned, 179 accomplished this without trolling, but they were constrained size wise as well. Perhaps more than us. One of our earlier designs had us 10" tall and flipping up on end to make room for other robots on the ramp. With the GDC's straightforward definition of the bridge in the early Q&As we saw trolling as a more reliable and more efficient solution. We saw our early concepts similar to 179's as a potential issue with the unclear definition of grappling.

We're not trollin' just to troll. We believed it was the best strategy. Now it's bitten us in the rear and makes us do more mechanical work after the robot was wired.

[pfreivald]

Instead of offering constructive suggestions, we have a bunch of people piling on in two separate threads telling them about how dumb they were for not seeing this coming, how they should have used common sense, how they wouldn't hire someone who would think that way, and basically saying "I told you so". How is this helpful to anyone?

While I've seen some of that here, for the most part what I've seen are responses similar to mine: you take your risks, and you take your lumps if they don't pan out.

Speaking only for myself, I am in full cognizance that life does not have a rewind button, and that it is always better to take a situation for what it is rather than what we wish it was... It was with that spirit that I have said (in both threads) that going with the obvious spirit of the game is a safer and more reliable bet than trying to find a loophole or end-around.

An idea can be insightful, clever, smart, even brilliant -- but still be unwise. I don't think it's arrogant or mean to state that pursuing this strategy was unwise; as with all things without a rewind button, it should be filed away in the future as a lesson learned.

I don't think its fair to chastise a team for taking a calculated risk, no matter what it is.

I agree completely. Chastisement was not my intent, to be sure. If it was taken as such by anyone, I sincerely apologize.

[Tristan Lall]

This is where you miss the point. It is NOT strictly possible for the GDC to create a foolproof "set of documents". There will always be some wayward engineer asking what "is" is (or thinking you can balance a robot under a bridge) . Common sense is an essential component. This is how the real world works.
I don't expect the GDC to have complete success. Of course they won't. That does not relieve them from the expectation that they make a good-faith attempt. To me, a good-faith attempt includes learning from past mistakes, actively validating their current assumptions, and lobbying for the resources they need to complete the task effectively.

I actually have more detailed criticisms, but since the thread has moved on somewhat, I'll refrain from expressing them all—here's a summary instead.

The engineer and customer/client are not on equal footing. The party paying the bills has final say over all matters.
The relationship between equals is a concept from contract law. It means that, roughly speaking, each party can successfully represent its own interests in a contract negotiation. If you treat your clients too obsequiously, you're just doing yourself a disservice in the long run—especially because the law tends to see you as nearly equal, regardless.

Contrast this with the situation in FRC. By participating, teams agree to follow what the rules say—teams cannot negotiate. As such, there are implicit, though nebulous, expectations that the rules won't be overly capricious or incomprehensible at face value.

And FIRST is nothing like "you and the government". FIRST is voluntary, one is compelled to do nothing.
If you're interacting in American society, you're subject to American law. If you don't like that, visit Canada, maybe stay a while. If you're participating in FRC, you're subject to the FRC rules. If you don't like that, there's always VRC. In both cases, you're compelled to do certain things, and your principal recourse is to leave.

(Incidentally, jurisdiction was not the example I offered in the previous post; I was talking about contracting with the government, for which my analogy holds true as well, for other reasons.)

Your mistake is thinking common sense and precise thinking are mutually exclusive.
That's not consistent with what I wrote, and I do not hold that view. I asserted that one should not substitute common sense for precision, when precision is beneficial. If you can have both together, there's no need for an ill-advised substitution.1

Wrong - we disagree because we have lived it. We have made similar mistakes and learned from them. The mentors in the thread (who do not agree with you) are not expressing opinions but justified conclusions based on decades of experience. Is that to count for nothing?
The lessons that you've learned and others haven't are perfect examples of things that contribute to a "different worldview". And they count for something; I hardly implied otherwise. Equally, the decades of experience enjoyed by those who do agree with me count for something as well.

This is not a dumbed-down game for high school students. It is for students who want to step up and do college level work and/or entry level professional work. The whole purpose of FIRST is to introduce extraordinary students to a real world-ish engineering exercise (mentored by practicing engineers) and prompt them to consider to study engineering, physics or computer science.
It's arguable whether "dumbed-down" is an apt description (too pejorative for my liking), but it is inarguably a game for high school students, mentored by engineers and others. I wouldn't go so far as to say that's the "whole purpose"; it's broader and more nuanced than that.

I have designed some innovative control systems in my career. I have to work hard at not straying so far outside the box that I can't see the box. And I can honestly say that I would not have derived the trolling strategy from the GDC queries. Even now I can't believe anyone would think this a valid strategy - what on earth were they thinking?
There's the hidden ball trick (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_ball_trick) in baseball. Imagine an engineer trying to pull a stunt like that. It just makes no sense in the engineering paradigm. But it makes perfect sense in the context of a baseball game.

The trolling strategy is like the hidden ball trick. It's legal because it conforms to all of the rules, even if it was not envisioned by Abner Doubleday2 or the GDC.

Now imagine that someone changed the rules of baseball, the week before the playoffs: the hidden ball trick is now illegal. It doesn't matter to most teams, but that's not to say that to say that the rule change process met with their approval.

1 Strictly speaking, another factor could create that need, but I think my point is clear enough that further precision would not be helpful.
2 Not the inventor of baseball, but a useful proxy for same.

[nickwroyer]

But, to the experienced and capable teams that opted for this strategy (and I'm counting 3928 as an experienced team given their mentors), why did you chose this route?.
When people started suggesting "trolling," I was scared that the loophole might get closed, and now I'm a little disgruntled that the GDC, as I see it, screwed us over. However, I think that's a risk we took and one that we can bounce back from.

Still, I wouldn't say we're an "experienced" team by any shot; sure, we have superb mentors, but as the only programmer, I do not see that as being a vast advantage when I've been forced to learn everything about FRC programming (and Java, and C++) in scratch over the course of six weeks. I'm sensing a bit of an attitude that Aren controls 3928, but as a member of that team I feel the need to point out that, while he's useful, but every one of our eight or so students on the team are working our rears off making this robot competitive, and in no way is our team "the second coming of Aren Hill." We're a new team with an experienced mentor. That's all. Rant's over. :]

[pfreivald]

We're a new team with an experienced mentor. That's all.

In an ideal world, all new teams would have experienced mentors!

[Aren_Hill]

Still, I wouldn't say we're an "experienced" team by any shot; sure, we have superb mentors, but as the only programmer, I do not see that as being a vast advantage when I've been forced to learn everything about FRC programming (and Java, and C++) in scratch over the course of six weeks. I'm sensing a bit of an attitude that Aren controls 3928, but as a member of that team I feel the need to point out that, while he's useful, but every one of our eight or so students on the team are working our rears off making this robot competitive, and in no way is our team "the second coming of Aren Hill." We're a new team with an experienced mentor. That's all. Rant's over. :]

All these people know is we're a short robot, they have no idea what the team has accomplished.

The people speaking well of me were mainly doing so to backup the fact I usually have a clue about robot design, which as they have not seen this years robot they have to base on past history of robots I've been involved in.

I can push to be competitive all I want, but being surrounded by the right people to make it happen is a completely different matter. I've been lucky enough to have access to significant brain power on teams I've mentored/been a student on, that the group has turned out very competitive robots (usually).

I urge everyone in this thread to stop by the Neutrino pit at Midwest (and hopefully champs), and meet all the people who have put up with me for the last season

[thefro526]

I'm sensing a bit of an attitude that Aren controls 3928, but as a member of that team I feel the need to point out that, while he's useful, but every one of our eight or so students on the team are working our rears off making this robot competitive, and in no way is our team "the second coming of Aren Hill." We're a new team with an experienced mentor. That's all. Rant's over. :]

Nick,

Many people on here and elsewhere in FRC have the utmost respect for Aren and the teams he's involved with - and many of us like to mess with him because he comes up with crazy concepts and weird ideas. Not to mention he's got a bit of a fan club.

That being said, Aren is the first to tell people what he did and didn't do. He corrects me all the time when I give him credit for something he didn't do and or wasn't involved in. He speaks extremely highly of everyone involved with 3928 in private conversation.

3928 has built an incredible robot and it shows that there was definitely a solid team behind it. For a rookie team, you guys look like seasoned veterans from what I've seen and the fact that you were willing to Gamble on the Trolling Strategy just makes me respect you that much more. I hope you guys hand it to a few teams at Midwest, just to prove that you know what you're doing.

[Lil' Lavery]

When people started suggesting "trolling," I was scared that the loophole might get closed, and now I'm a little disgruntled that the GDC, as I see it, screwed us over. However, I think that's a risk we took and one that we can bounce back from.

Still, I wouldn't say we're an "experienced" team by any shot; sure, we have superb mentors, but as the only programmer, I do not see that as being a vast advantage when I've been forced to learn everything about FRC programming (and Java, and C++) in scratch over the course of six weeks. I'm sensing a bit of an attitude that Aren controls 3928, but as a member of that team I feel the need to point out that, while he's useful, but every one of our eight or so students on the team are working our rears off making this robot competitive, and in no way is our team "the second coming of Aren Hill." We're a new team with an experienced mentor. That's all. Rant's over. :]

I meant no offense to the rest of 3928, either. I did not mean to understate the work you have put in or the challenges you have faced being first time competitors in FRC. Simply was referring to the knowledge and experience that some of your mentors have, especially when it comes to fundamental game strategy and design decisions (more so than implementation).

[darkMatt3r]

In response to the topic that this thread was actually about, i believe that it's a worthwhile strategy to think about, but not something worth worrying about.

Loopholes like these are not fair in any way and in my mind shouldn't be exploited, because that ruins the fun of FRC. On top of that, 3 robots scoring vs. two will lead to a big lead in terms of points, and it isn't that hard to balance 3 robots on a bridge in the first place.

that being said props to whoever discovered this loophole on their own it is indeed brilliant but at the same time extremely unfair.

Just a word of advice to other teams, especially those having arguments on chief delphi. This is a forum, a place to collaborate with other teams, and keep up to date with everything FRC. If you have a problem with a member of your club, talk to them personally, not indirectly over a forum.

-Matt
FIRST Team 1378.

[Sean Raia]

I am rather bothered by the attitude displayed in some of these responses.

Ultimately, its FIRST's game, they can change things around as they see fit.
If you took the gamble on this (im going to deem it) sketchy design, then its expected that you have taken the risks into account.

Sorry it didn't work out for you guys who were sly in your rules analysis. Better luck next time.

[Tom Ore]

Sorry it didn't work out for you guys who were sly in your rules analysis. Better luck next time.

It depends on your point of view, of course. Aren's brother Kellen is on our team this year and Kellen pitched the trollbot idea to us even before we heard that 3928 was going to try it. We didn't pursue it because we decided that there was a high probability that the GDC would rule against the strategy. What I missed completely was the engineering challenge that would have been involved in packaging a fully functional robot in a space that small. I've heard a few details about their robot and I'm really impressed with what they've done. It really doesn't matter at all that the trollbot strategy itself didn't work out. What they built is way outside the box - or maybe way inside a very small box if you prefer.

[bduddy]

I am rather bothered by the attitude displayed in some of these responses.

Ultimately, its FIRST's game, they can change things around as they see fit.
If you took the gamble on this (im going to deem it) sketchy design, then its expected that you have taken the risks into account.

Sorry it didn't work out for you guys who were sly in your rules analysis. Better luck next time.Without the $6000/team or more coming from schools, sponsors, families and donors, there is no game and there is no FIRST. I'm far more bothered by those that don't take this into account.

[Aren_Hill]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/s720x720/395957_3391416021596_1155480053_33512166_527766593 _n.jpg

what it used to look like

[Michael Corsetto]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/s720x720/395957_3391416021596_1155480053_33512166_527766593 _n.jpg

what it used to look like

RIP Troll-bot. This looks so cool! Can you give us any other views on how the ball manipulator would have worked?

-Mike

[Mark Sheridan]

what it used to look like


Wait a sec, does that thing have swerve?!

[wireties]

what it used to look like

it was a work of art!

[gurellia53]

Wait a sec, does that thing have swerve?!

Oh, also this is a swerve teaser apparently ;)

[Andrew Schreiber]

it was a work of art!

The real thing was prettier :)

[nickwroyer]

The whole thing had a swerve drive (well, it still does) and we relied on appendages for ball manipulation.

[Brandon Holley]

I think saying "this thing has swerve" is the understatement of the century.

-Brando

[JesseK]

If I had to guess at a potential basket-scoring design, I'd surmise that there's some sort of external pickup that flips a ball into a low-lying catapult. Given the fact that balls need 2-3 seconds to clear a basket before the next ball comes in (or else risk a jam), even a 1-ball capacity could still be a powerful robot.

I guess my big question would be about the battery's placement outside the wheels on the left, which potentially reduces the traction that the opposite side's swerve module(s) have. But I suppose that's neither here nor there at this point since Aren's more recent posts imply a redesign.

[CoreyBrown]

I guess my big question would be about the battery's placement outside the wheels on the left, which potentially reduces the traction that the opposite side's swerve module(s) have. But I suppose that's neither here nor there at this point since Aren's more recent posts imply a redesign.

The weight of the battery was originally counterbalanced with the weight of the almost entirely steel manipulator in the front.

[Mark Sheridan]

I can't believe you fit all that engineering in such a small frame. To have all the essentials and to have swerve drive blew my mind. RIP troll-bot.

[Aren_Hill]

I can't believe you fit all that engineering in such a small frame. To have all the essentials and to have swerve drive blew my mind. RIP troll-bot.
I'll say it all fit, I won't say it all worked great :o

[Tom Ore]

A picture of the troll-bot may have made it onto our website from Saturday's scrimmage...

[Katie_UPS]

A picture of the troll-bot may have made it onto our website from Saturday's scrimmage...

For those too lazy to search, but interested enough to see:

Lil' Billy Goat Gruff (http://525swartdogs.org/Photos/2012/Scrimmage/)*

Its the only robot with blue bumpers. :)

*not its actual name

[Bill_B]

And the killer (as if one were needed) is that the ball-returns don't work all that well! :yikes: Having a 'bot that can get under there to fetch a ball or two out might actually have been useful.

[Aren_Hill]

RIP Troll-bot. This looks so cool! Can you give us any other views on how the ball manipulator would have worked?

-Mike

here ya go, this is now a "before" picture
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/s720x720/431439_3414309513919_1155480053_33527007_214688524 6_n.jpg

[RRLedford]

Gamebreaker loophole specific designed robots are so vulnerable to having their creative designs and build efforts instantly devoured when a GDC decision turns the loophole into a black hole that swallows up all the good work done.
Dancing too close to the legal/illegal event horizon of the rules does carry some very real risks.

We also opted to be a "third bot on the bridge", while still allowing room for two full size bots to go by us, by seriously overhanging the side of the bridge and balancing with only ~14" of our bots 33" width above the bridge. We can ride the rail without gripping it and tilt bridge down for our two partners to roll right past us and up to the middle. A tight fit but doable. Lots more tuning and practice needed though, so we are building a 2nd practice bot next week.

-Dick Ledford