Suggestions for resolving stuck balls

[jvriezen]

In Team Update #1, the GDC has indicated they are working on how to deal with stuck balls. Let's crowd source some ideas for how to resolve it.

My idea is that if the (head) ref deems that a robot is holding a ball and is not actively making meaningful progress in playing the game (passing for assist, truss toss, scoring attempt) after a reasonable amount of time (5 seconds?), the ref can declare that ball 'dead' and a new ball can be introduced. The original ball is now just field debris and any scoring done by it will be manually deducted. Any ball coming to rest on the truss is also declared dead immediately.

This would cover the cases of dead/disabled bot, stuck ejector as well as the hopefully unlikely 'throwing the match' scenarios.

If a ball is stuck in a bot and the ball declared dead, that bot can then still 'herd' or even carry a new ball (however unlikely) without penalty in order to gain assists.

[jee7s]

Any ball coming to rest on the truss is also declared dead immediately.


That's potentially problematic. Say this scenario occurs and the new ball is introduced. But, at a later time the ball on the truss then experiences an outside force (another ball, a vibration, a strong breeze) and ceases to be at rest. Then the ball falls onto the floor and there are two balls of that color in play. How do you know which is the legal ball?

I'd say a nice beveled or round plastic cover for the truss that prevents the ball from being at rest on it is a safer bet. It removes the possibility of the second ball being introduced, it's cheap, and it's easy to design.

IMHO, any scenario that results in a second ball being introduced to the field without the existing ball being removed or obviously non-functional (deflated, etc) places too much of a burden on the field personnel and alliance members for tracking which ball is live.

[Nuttyman54]

I think the robot needs to be e-stopped or disabled by the field in order for the ball to be declared dead, since a radio or cRIO reset could result in the robot becoming active at a later point if not expressly disabled. This doesn't address if the ball comes loose after the disable (eg a mechanism sags, or a forceful hit on the ball later).

The issue is not just how to determine when a ball is "dead" but also deal with what happens if the ball returns to play, since the game is only designed to track one ball at a time in teleop.

I think with how rarely a ball will get stuck on top of the truss, the best recourse is to declare a field fault, similar to jammed nets in 2012.

[Bob Steele]

I think the best solution would be to allow the team with the stuck ball to E-stop their robot. Then the ball would be field debris.

I think that there should be some kind of penalty on the robot that has a ball stick... not necessarily a point penalty but a playing penalty.

If the rules are left as they are the offending alliance effectively has the "death" penalty of not being able to score any cycle balls. This is pretty harsh.

By only allowing a team with the stuck ball to e-stop, the penalty is not being able to do a triple assist and the loss of a robot during play.
This would be similar to results in previous game to the loss of a robot.

It is also similar to the results of having a robot that does not have a ball stuck but still cannot function on the field.

The Alliance can still go on and function as a two robot alliance and try to overcome that deficit.

The other issue is a ball stuck on the TRUSS.
While this would be a relatively rare situation, it does need to be covered in the rules. A ball stuck on the TRUSS is more a chance act than a robot getting stuck with a ball and should not necessarily entail any kind of penalty.

The only issue is that the ball could easily become dislodged during play AFTER it was considered field debris. This could complicate things on the field .
Considering that this should be a very rare occurrence. I would recommend a 10 second count and then some kind of signal from the head referee that would restart the team with a new cycle ball. This would be the same signal given for a standard deflated ball. If there were still other autonomous balls on the field. The pedestal would not light up.

NOTE:
I do think Evan's suggestion of declaring a field fault might be a better answer to the ball stuck on a TRUSS issue. That would be clean and would not result in the kind of confusion that that ball coming back into the field would cause. The other option would be to declare a field fault WHEN the ball falls off the truss. This situation could be strategic though because if a team were losing they could INTENTIONALLY try to knock the ball off. I think the cleanest solution is an immediate FIELD FAULT.... I don't think this would be a common event.

[themccannman]

That's potentially problematic. Say this scenario occurs and the new ball is introduced. But, at a later time the ball on the truss then experiences an outside force (another ball, a vibration, a strong breeze) and ceases to be at rest. Then the ball falls onto the floor and there are two balls of that color in play. How do you know which is the legal ball?

I'd say a nice beveled or round plastic cover for the truss that prevents the ball from being at rest on it is a safer bet. It removes the possibility of the second ball being introduced, it's cheap, and it's easy to design.

IMHO, any scenario that results in a second ball being introduced to the field without the existing ball being removed or obviously non-functional (deflated, etc) places too much of a burden on the field personnel and alliance members for tracking which ball is live.

I like this idea for the truss issue.

My suggestion for stalled/disabled/non-functional robots:

If there is a disabled robot on the field that controls their alliance's only ball that team may attempt to reconnect to their robot or dislodge the ball for a certain amount of time (e.g. 10-20 seconds). If the time expires and the robot is still non-funcitonal the refs will hit the e-stop on that robot and declare the ball as field debris at which point a new ball may be entered in to play.

If the ball later becomes dislodged from the robot I would just restart the game at that point. I doubt it would be a very common occurrence that a robot would get disabled with an alliance ball in possession, their teammates were unable to dislodge the ball, and then they later drop the ball during the match.

[billbo911]

I think the robot needs to be e-stopped or disabled by the field in order for the ball to be declared dead, since a radio or cRIO reset could result in the robot becoming active at a later point if not expressly disabled. This doesn't address if the ball comes loose after the disable (eg a mechanism sags, or a forceful hit on the ball later).

The issue is not just how to determine when a ball is "dead" but also deal with what happens if the ball returns to play, since the game is only designed to track one ball at a time in teleop.

I think with how rarely a ball will get stuck on top of the truss, the best recourse is to declare a field fault, similar to jammed nets in 2012.

+1 on every point.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

I'm not so sure the rules need to be changed.

As far as a ball stuck in a robot: I believe that this is a robot design issue, and that robots can be designed to release a ball if disabled, loses power, loses comms, etc... and that those that are not designed to do so should be less desirable as a partner.

As for the Truss: This is a chance you take for the ability to get an extra 10 (or 20) points. Design you robot to ensure you clear the truss easily and practice, practice, practice (so as to not shoot when you are not in a good position).

JMHO

[AndyBare]

My suggestion would just say any ball that cannot be put back into play is "dead." No ball will replace it. This will increase downtime between cycles as an alliance lose their balls to "death" by getting them stuck, etc. It will make teams sure that they do not want to be the problem. This will encourage teams to make sure batteries are charged, autonomous works, etc, without blindly putting a robot onto a field where there is a chance of something going wrong.

[AndyBare]

To elaborate, we know each team has 3 balls that cycle in and out of the field. while 1 is in play, 1 is waiting on the pedestal, and 1 is beside it. As the field ball is scored, the next is brought in and the positions switch. A dead ball will be replaced by the next in line on the pedestal, but no ball will replace it as a third "live" ball. The alliance would then only have 2.

[Jon Stratis]

For a ball stuck in a robot...

If the robot is still functional and driving around, then I think it's really just too bad for the alliance. Yes, it sucks and you might lose the match because of it, but it was the alliance's decision to use that robot as part of the cycle. There's no way for the refs to be able to tell if a ball is permanently stuck, or if the robot will manage to eject it later in the game. Personally, I really don't want to force the refs to make a judgement call in this situation. If it does come down to a judgement call, there will be plenty of times where the team's judgement is different from the refs and people won't be happy. Can't you see the complaining now? "Why didn't you declare the ball dead 30 seconds earlier? We would have won the match!" "Why did you declare the ball dead? We just weren't quite lined up perfectly to shoot yet!"

If a robot is e-stopped with a ball, then it's easy for the ref's to call the ball dead. We don't want to encourage teams to perform full-speed ramming actions on a dead robot in order to try to eject the ball! A dead robot is probably dead for a reason, and that type of abuse won't help. I think the e-stop solution is the best one. It gives the alliance the option (in the case of a momentary loss of connection, like a cRIO reboot or a radio reset) to keep the ball in play or lose the robot for the rest of the match to get a new ball.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

To elaborate, we know each team has 3 balls that cycle in and out of the field. while 1 is in play, 1 is waiting on the pedestal, and 1 is beside it. As the field ball is scored, the next is brought in and the positions switch. A dead ball will be replaced by the next in line on the pedestal, but no ball will replace it as a third "live" ball. The alliance would then only have 2.

Please state the rule that shows that there is ONLY 3 balls that cycle.

I do believe you are in error there.

[ToddF]

I liked the aspect of the game that required teams to come up with a technical solution to the ball-in-a-dead-robot problem. But, since they are considering changing the rules, I'll make some suggestions.

Balls stuck on trusses are a field fault.

Change autonomous mode to be 15 seconds long. For the first 5 seconds, neither goal is hot. For the next ten seconds, the goals function as before, randomly becoming hot. This allows time for floor loading of balls, and robots do not need to be preloaded. It also makes it clear which teams respect their partners enough to floor load rather than preloading their robots for auto.

During teleop, if a team feels their robot is dead, they may hit the estop. If the ball is released from the robot within 10 seconds, no other action is necessary, and their only penalty results from potential loss of alliance points. If the ball remains stuck after 10 seconds, that ball is considered dead, and the pedestal light is lit, allowing a replacement to be introduced. That team is issued a yellow card.

[ATannahill]

I think with how rarely a ball will get stuck on top of the truss, the best recourse is to declare a field fault, similar to jammed nets in 2012.

I disagree.

In 2012, the net and following lexan were responsible for moving the balls out of play quickly and allowing more balls to be scored. If the net was jammed, then the field was not functioning properly.

The truss is responsible for sitting there and being a truss. If it stops sitting there or being a truss and it affects the match, a field fault should be called.

If a ball gets stuck on the truss because the truss sat there and stayed a truss, it is not a field fault.

[notmattlythgoe]

I think the E-Stop option for ball's stuck in the robot are the best option. Once the robot is E-Stopped another ball is place into play and the assist points are reset. If somehow the first ball makes its way back into play the first ball in play earns any assist points that were currently collected. Until the next ball is scored, truss and assist points are not available but the ball can score goal points. This should make it simpler on the referees in the unlikely case that a second ball comes into play later in the game.

[AndyBare]

Please state the rule that shows that there is ONLY 3 balls that cycle.

I do believe you are in error there.

3.1.2 MATCH Logistics
Although an ALLIANCE may start a MATCH with up to three (3) BALLS, the PEDESTAL will only be illuminated when the last BALL that started the MATCH is SCORED, effectively reducing the number of BALLS in play per ALLIANCE to one (1).

[notmattlythgoe]

3.1.2 MATCH Logistics
Although an ALLIANCE may start a MATCH with up to three (3) BALLS, the PEDESTAL will only be illuminated when the last BALL that started the MATCH is SCORED, effectively reducing the number of BALLS in play per ALLIANCE to one (1).

I believe that just means on the field at the start of the match, that does not necessarily mean that there are only 3 balls available and those 3 balls are in a rotation of any sort.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

3.1.2 MATCH Logistics
Although an ALLIANCE may start a MATCH with up to three (3) BALLS, the PEDESTAL will only be illuminated when the last BALL that started the MATCH is SCORED, effectively reducing the number of BALLS in play per ALLIANCE to one (1).

All that states is that there are 3 balls that start in play (during autonomous) not that there are only 3 balls of a specific color that are cycled.

[Aaron.Graeve]

When I read 3.1.2, It seemed to me that the rule is only refering to balls in play on the field or with the human player (bearing in mind my interpretation is far from official). I trust that the field crew would have more than 3 balls per alliance. If one were to go flat in an irreparable way, that would adversely affect high powered alliances that intended to use all of their balls in auto later in the tournament.

I would compare this to the number of discs at competitions last year. Events had disks to spare on off chance that one was destroyed or damaged beyond reasonable use, even though the game manual only specified a particular number of game pieces to be in-game. I think (again in no official capacity) that there would be more that three balls "in cycle" at any given time but only one of them would be in-play. I have seen nothing indicating that the pedestal would be empty and lit at the same time (the condition if a there was a shortage of balls) and the field tour videos seem to indicate there would always be a ball waiting.

This is just my unofficial opinion.

[AndyBare]

Oh. Thanks. The way I read it, it was unclear. I do believe you are right though. More than 3 cycle. Apologies.

[GaryVoshol]

A ROBOT is carrying a BALL and commits an offense that results in the ROBOT being DISABLED. I don't want to seem heartless, but really, why should the alliance get another ball in play? They should have encouraged their partner to play correctly and not get DISABLED.

A ROBOT is built to carry a BALL, but sometimes the BALL gets stuck in the ROBOT. Again, tough luck. That's the way you designed it.

A ROBOT unexpectedly stops running while carrying a BALL. Unless it can be shown to be a field fault (comms) and the match replayed, then it's another case of "too bad".

A BALL gets stuck on the TRUSS - I'd rather see the TRUSS redesigned so that a ball can't get stuck, but that raises the height of the top of the TRUSS. So I could see a "semi-field-fault" called here, with a unique remedy of introducing a new BALL. The one on the TRUSS is declared debris. It will make it a little harder for the refs to track the POSSESSIONS, but that's why we get the big bucks. :rolleyes:

So we're left with E-stopping. I am wary that if a ROBOT is acting sluggish (low battery maybe?) the team will E-stop. That's not what it's for. In the past, there were even rules for a red card for E-stopping when it's not an emergency. For a true emergency, I can see introducing a new BALL or declaring a replay of the match. But I don't want to be deciding if the E-stop was required or not. And I don't want to tempt teams that are having less than desired performance to push the red button. If the GDC can figure out that problem, then they can decide what the remedy will be for an E-stopped ROBOT.

[AndyBare]

A BALL gets stuck on the TRUSS - I'd rather see the TRUSS redesigned so that a ball can't get stuck, but that raises the height of the top of the TRUSS. So I could see a "semi-field-fault" called here, with a unique remedy of introducing a new BALL. The one on the TRUSS is declared debris. It will make it a little harder for the refs to track the POSSESSIONS, but that's why we get the big bucks. :rolleyes:

What happens when the team uses the newly entered ball to knock the "debris" one off the truss. Then there are two balls on the field.

[Grim Tuesday]

A ROBOT is carrying a BALL and commits an offense that results in the ROBOT being DISABLED. I don't want to seem heartless, but really, why should the alliance get another ball in play? They should have encouraged their partner to play correctly and not get DISABLED.

A ROBOT is built to carry a BALL, but sometimes the BALL gets stuck in the ROBOT. Again, tough luck. That's the way you designed it.

A ROBOT unexpectedly stops running while carrying a BALL. Unless it can be shown to be a field fault (comms) and the match replayed, then it's another case of "too bad".

A BALL gets stuck on the TRUSS - I'd rather see the TRUSS redesigned so that a ball can't get stuck, but that raises the height of the top of the TRUSS. So I could see a "semi-field-fault" called here, with a unique remedy of introducing a new BALL. The one on the TRUSS is declared debris. It will make it a little harder for the refs to track the POSSESSIONS, but that's why we get the big bucks. :rolleyes:

So we're left with E-stopping. I am wary that if a ROBOT is acting sluggish (low battery maybe?) the team will E-stop. That's not what it's for. In the past, there were even rules for a red card for E-stopping when it's not an emergency. For a true emergency, I can see introducing a new BALL or declaring a replay of the match. But I don't want to be deciding if the E-stop was required or not. And I don't want to tempt teams that are having less than desired performance to push the red button. If the GDC can figure out that problem, then they can decide what the remedy will be for an E-stopped ROBOT.


I understand the sentiment of "too bad" as a design challenge but I think it is unfair to punish so harshly teams in qualification rounds for the design failures of their randomly selected partners.

In most FRC games, having bad partners is part of the game: If someone doesn't move, they can't score points and your alliance can't reach it's maximum potential. However, if the combined power of your alliance's two robots is better than the three of the opposing alliance, you will still win. This is how it should be and leads to mostly accurate rankings.

In this years game, if your randomly selected alliance partner fails to move at all like so many excellent teams have done in the past, even on Einstein, none of the other alliance robots are allowed to play the game through no fault of their own.

This is not fair. Many teams only get 8 or 9 matches per season to play. How can you take one away from them due to the fault of another robot? Not only will they lose but they don't even get to play.

Now, in eliminations, I would argue that "you failed, too bad" as a design challenge is fair. You pick your partners and you shouldn't have picked someone who isn't reliable. That said, I don't think it is a good gameplay element. As we've seen in Einstein 2011, 2012, and 2013, robots very often become incapacitated before or during matches even at exceedingly high levels of play. For teams it is already discouraging enough to have an alliance partner not working, should we put the nail in their coffin by saying "sorry, you aren't allowed to score any more points by yourselves either"? And to spectators, it isn't fun to not watch one robot move but it's even fun to realize that an entire alliance is not allowed to score points anymore due to one failed robot.


My proposition:

Add a new button with a different connotation from E-Stop, call it E-Disable or something. When it is pushed, it disables the robot connected to it for the rest of the match and specifies that anything that the robot and anything it is possessing is considered field debris for the rest of the match. Restart the cycle by entering a new ball into play immediately as if a ball had just been scored. No penalty for using other than robot is disabled for the rest of the match.

Put a blue box underneath the rule specifying that this should be used in cases where teams believe they will be unable to restart their robot and wish to declare it dead in the water so their alliance may play on. Utilizing it in cases to gain a competitive advantage otherwise is prohibited. Violation: Red Card.


If "you failed, too bad" is the challenge the GDC was going for then don't allow the use of this button in eliminations. My personal opinion is they should allow it, because it makes it a more interesting game for everyone involved.

As for the truss, construct a very slight incline (maybe 1") with the same material used for the incline in the low goal so a ball rolls off. Don't make a new rule for what happens if the ball gets stuck because it won't.

[atucker4072]

I read the game manual and may have missed this but couldn't the robot drive to the hp and the hp take the ball out? Not sure if this is a safety issue or not.

[TheMadCADer]

I read the game manual and may have missed this but couldn't the robot drive to the hp and the hp take the ball out? Not sure if this is a safety issue or not.

Human Players are not allowed to contact a ball also in contact with a robot (G41).

[atucker4072]

Human Players are not allowed to contact a ball also in contact with a robot (G41).

Thank you. Wasn't sure on it.

[themccannman]

I read the game manual and may have missed this but couldn't the robot drive to the hp and the hp take the ball out? Not sure if this is a safety issue or not.

Human Players are not allowed to reach inside the field or touch a ball a robot is possessing. Also, more often than not the robot that is having trouble getting rid of the ball probably isn't functional at all and can't drive. Robots disconnect much more often than mechanisms jam.

[Hallry]

If that happens, just ram into a side of the truss and hopefully you will energize it enough to fall down and get back into the game. These are big robots, not those tiny VEX robots (Sorry VEXers. Even I am a VEXer). We have the momentum to get a ball unstuck from the truss.

And you plan on 'ramming' the truss...where and how exactly? ::rtm::

[RallyJeff]

That's potentially problematic. Say this scenario occurs and the new ball is introduced. But, at a later time the ball on the truss then experiences an outside force (another ball, a vibration, a strong breeze) and ceases to be at rest. Then the ball falls onto the floor and there are two balls of that color in play. How do you know which is the legal ball?
FYI - G35 already creates the potential for one "debris" ball and one "legal" ball of the same colour on the field at the same time:

G35
BALLS may only be retrieved from the PEDESTAL and only if the PEDESTAL is lit in the ALLIANCE’s color.

Violation: TECHNICAL FOUL. If the BALL is entered into the FIELD, a second TECHNICAL FOUL and the BALL is considered FIELD debris.

[Whippet]

And you plan on 'ramming' the truss...where and how exactly? ::rtm::

With the opposing ALLIANCE's BALL as their ALLIANCE partners watch in shock as TECHNICAL FOULs rack up... :eek:

[Trez]

I say tough toe nails if a ball gets stuck in a robot. My team has had alliance mates hit our robot and disrupt shooting during Reboundrumble. A ball could get stuck after a score has been made. So unless the ball is stuck from the start it's not a hopeless problem.

[DampRobot]

During teleop, if a team feels their robot is dead, they may hit the estop. If the ball is released from the robot within 10 seconds, no other action is necessary, and their only penalty results from potential loss of alliance points. If the ball remains stuck after 10 seconds, that ball is considered dead, and the pedestal light is lit, allowing a replacement to be introduced. That team is issued a yellow card.

I like the yellow card idea. It's ok to use this once in a true emergency in quals (your code goes off the deep end, a major mechanical failure, etc.), but you'll learn your lesson after the first time. If it was the fault of your mechanism, you will learn not to pick up another ball or be DQed from the next match you try.

I'd also like alliance partners to be able to disable another robot to get the ball declared debris.

[Bob Steele]

I think that that is one of our least worries. Of all cases, the ball would rarely get stuck on the truss. If that happens, just ram into a side of the truss and hopefully you will energize it enough to fall down and get back into the game. These are big robots, not those tiny VEX robots (Sorry VEXers. Even I am a VEXer). We have the momentum to get a ball unstuck from the truss.


Other than that, how about we shut our mouths and stop giving suggestions? You all saw how they check CD and what their reaction to asking for game hints was! I think this time, let's just calm down and see how they react, because they want everything to be (at least seem like) a surprise!

Good luck and hopefully y'all get a functional robot up-and-running!

I might be wrong but when I read the update I thought they were asking for feedback from Chief volunteers. I could be wrong but I think they are looking for input.

After reading the comment below I guess I would retract this statement.
However, I do think that many of these volunteers read and honor the comments made on CD and welcome the input
I do believe that products and ideas developed by many minds working together are usually better than the work of a small number

I will respectfully continue to voice ideas through the medium of CD

[Hallry]

I might be wrong but when I read the update I thought they were asking for feedback from Chief volunteers. I could be wrong but I think they are looking for input.

I thought the same thing at first, but by 'Chief volunteers,' I believe they were referring to the actual position titles (http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/blog-new-chief-volunteer-position). :D

[Racer26]

My feelings on the matter?

1) BALLs on the TRUSS.

I think a BALL stuck on the TRUSS will be an exceedingly rare occurrence. It might happen one or two times through the entire season. I am OK with declaring it a FIELD FAULT purely because of this rarity. I agree it isn't technically a failure of the field, but this seems like the simplest remedy. The alternative in my mind, is if FMS can allow pausing a MATCH in progress so that a Field Volunteer (Ref, Field Resetter, Whomever) can remove the BALL from the TRUSS, and return it to play in the center field area, allow them to safely get off the FIELD, and resume play.

2) BALLs stuck in responsive-but-not-functioning ROBOTs.

If your ROBOT is still responding, and not dead (perhaps with low battery, or your manipulators are just not working as designed), then I'm inclined to say tough. You should have designed your ROBOT better, or been better prepared for your MATCH.

3) BALLs stuck in non-responsive ROBOTs.

If a ROBOT is completely dead, and FMS/Driver Station no longer has communications to it (ie. the Stack Lights at their ALLIANCE STATION are flashing), then I'm inclined to allow the TEAM to hit their E-Stop Button, ensuring their ROBOT cannot return to the MATCH later. At that point, any BALLs in that ROBOT's POSSESSION become field debris, and a new BALL to replace could be set at the ALLIANCE's PEDESTAL. If at some later point during the MATCH, the BALL which is field debris ceases to be in the POSSESSION of the E-Stopped ROBOT, then FIELD FAULT.

[notmattlythgoe]

I say tough toe nails if a ball gets stuck in a robot. My team has had alliance mates hit our robot and disrupt shooting during Reboundrumble. A ball could get stuck after a score has been made. So unless the ball is stuck from the start it's not a hopeless problem.

My only issue with this is you getting a ball stuck did not hinder the rest of your team from being able to score in the previous games like Rebound Rumble or Ultimate Ascent. When there is only one game piece in play and it gets stuck in a robot that effects the teams that you were randomly paired up with more than it would if there were other game pieces they could continue the game with. By placing another ball into play it will basically have the same effect on the game that it would have had if there were multiple balls in play, the team with the stuck ball becomes pretty useless but the other teams are not stuck with a pointless game for the rest of the match.

[KrazyCarl92]

My proposition:

Add a new button with a different connotation from E-Stop, call it E-Disable or something. When it is pushed, it disables the robot connected to it for the rest of the match and specifies that anything that the robot and anything it is possessing is considered field debris for the rest of the match. Restart the cycle by entering a new ball into play immediately as if a ball had just been scored. No penalty for using other than robot is disabled for the rest of the match.

Put a blue box underneath the rule specifying that this should be used in cases where teams believe they will be unable to restart their robot and wish to declare it dead in the water so their alliance may play on. Utilizing it in cases to gain a competitive advantage otherwise is prohibited. Violation: Red Card.


If "you failed, too bad" is the challenge the GDC was going for then don't allow the use of this button in eliminations. My personal opinion is they should allow it, because it makes it a more interesting game for everyone involved.

As for the truss, construct a very slight incline (maybe 1") with the same material used for the incline in the low goal so a ball rolls off. Don't make a new rule for what happens if the ball gets stuck because it won't.

This was my initial reaction to the game. Add a "my robot and everything in it is debris and disabled" button and the game is MUCH improved. It's still punishing for poor design: tough, you can't triple assist any more and you wasted time taking the ball and failing to do anything productive for your alliance. That's punishment enough but still allows the game to proceed for the other two alliance partners, just down a man.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

This was my initial reaction to the game. Add a "my robot and everything in it is debris and disabled" button and the game is MUCH improved. It's still punishing for poor design: tough, you can't triple assist any more and you wasted time taking the ball and failing to do anything productive for your alliance. That's punishment enough but still allows the game to proceed for the other two alliance partners, just down a man.

Right now, it is a 'death penalty' for a robot to get disabled with a ball inside of it.

So ...

Design you bot so that it will release the ball if disabled/loses comms/loses power. This is easily done with a single acting spring return valve.

Small design decisions make big differences.

[Alan Anderson]

Design you bot so that it will release the ball if disabled/loses comms/loses power. This is easily done with a single acting spring return valve.

Since the robot starts the match from a "disabled" state, your simple solution will prevent a ball from being held as the match begins.

I'll be suggesting a slightly more complex solution, with a plate or something on the side of the robot that releases the ball when pressed by another robot but which is mechanically inhibited whenever the robot is enabled.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Since the robot starts the match from a "disabled" state, your simple solution will prevent a ball from being held as the match begins.

I'll be suggesting a slightly more complex solution, with a plate or something on the side of the robot that releases the ball when pressed by another robot but which is mechanically inhibited whenever the robot is enabled.

You are correct that the ball could not start inside the robot with my suggestion above, but that does not mean that you cannot pick it up at the start of autonomous as the ball can start touching (but not inside) your robot.

[Chris is me]

This is very simple. Return the E-Stop rules to the pre-2011 configuration. No red cards for using the E-stop. That's absolute nonsense. No one should ever have to stop and think if it's a good idea to hit a button that is partly intended for emergencies. There may be occasional strategic advantages to an E-Stop, but I don't see the penalty in allowing them to exist.

With that rule out of the way, you just need to make a rule saying that any game piece in POSESSION of a disabled ROBOT is now field debris. Done. It's simple, no judgement calls. No tracking multiple balls. If the ball comes loose it's still field debris, but no one should be disabling robots when they have the option to let go of the ball anyway. What's the problem with this approach?

[Adam Freeman]

This is very simple. Return the E-Stop rules to the pre-2011 configuration. No red cards for using the E-stop. That's absolute nonsense. No one should ever have to stop and think if it's a good idea to hit a button that is partly intended for emergencies. There may be occasional strategic advantages to an E-Stop, but I don't see the penalty in allowing them to exist.

I agree with Chris's opinion on this one.

Every team from the very ELITE all the way too last years rookie teams have experienced some sort of "dead" robot at one point or another, either by their doing or the fields. To suggest that any robot that isn't designed such that the ball easily falls out of the robot when power/control is lost is a poorly designed robot is just ridiculous.

Almost any effective ball collector and ball security system worth it's weight is going to be designed such that it has a really good grip (#TouchItAndOwnIt). Not too mention really effective ball catchers, which would be designed to effectively contain the ball when it enters the robot.

It seems that the design your robot to "never be stuck with the ball" and the design your to be "effective at playing a sound strategy" are on opposite sides of the spectrum.

Pretty much losing a match for your alliance seems like a high penalty for designing a robot that is effective at playing this game.

We will do our best to ensure our design causes the least risk to our alliance for this rule, but not at the expense of effective strategy/design for the 99% of the time the robot is fully operational.

-Adam

[Caleb Sykes]

This is very simple. Return the E-Stop rules to the pre-2011 configuration. No red cards for using the E-stop. That's absolute nonsense. No one should ever have to stop and think if it's a good idea to hit a button that is partly intended for emergencies. There may be occasional strategic advantages to an E-Stop, but I don't see the penalty in allowing them to exist...

Absolutely.


I'd also like alliance partners to be able to disable another robot to get the ball declared debris.

Absolutely not.

[DjScribbles]

It seems to me that further penalizing a team with a stuck ball isn't really necessary (via forcing an E-Stop, foul points, etc).

If placing a new ball into play resets all assist points on a cycle, then that reset can be an effective penalty against the team. If the ball returns to play it must be cleared from the field, just as a left over autonomous ball would be, before a new cycle can resume.

Extra balls on the field are not a benefit in this game, as they only serve to disrupt an alliances rhythm, and present an obstacle to high-value objectives; if a ball gets stuck, reset the cycle, put a new one in play, and get on with the game.

Just my 0.02$

[notmattlythgoe]

It seems to me that further penalizing a team with a stuck ball isn't really necessary (via forcing an E-Stop, foul points, etc).

If placing a new ball into play resets all assist points on a cycle, then that reset can be an effective penalty against the team. If the ball returns to play it must be cleared from the field, just as a left over autonomous ball would be, before a new cycle can resume.

Extra balls on the field are not a benefit in this game, as they only serve to disrupt an alliances rhythm, and present an obstacle to high-value objectives; if a ball gets stuck, reset the cycle, put a new one in play, and get on with the game.

Just my 0.02$

This is my take on it too.

[Gregor]

It seems to me that further penalizing a team with a stuck ball isn't really necessary (via forcing an E-Stop, foul points, etc).

If placing a new ball into play resets all assist points on a cycle, then that reset can be an effective penalty against the team. If the ball returns to play it must be cleared from the field, just as a left over autonomous ball would be, before a new cycle can resume.

Extra balls on the field are not a benefit in this game, as they only serve to disrupt an alliances rhythm, and present an obstacle to high-value objectives; if a ball gets stuck, reset the cycle, put a new one in play, and get on with the game.

Just my 0.02$

Then you can have 3 teams running independant cycles on the same alliance, which could be advantagous in some cases, even giving up everything but goal points.

[AdamHeard]

The solution needs to be simple for refs and teams alike.

The proposal that an Estopped robot is declared a dead ball is a good one. It's a good balance of punishment and not being too severe.

[atucker4072]

The update of the manual states they are working on a solution if this kind of thing happens.