Team Update #18

[Ben Piecuch]

Team Update #18 (http://www2.usfirst.org/2007comp/Updates/2007%20Team%20Update%2018.pdf) is posted.

(Sorry Wildstang...)

BEN

[Karthik]

(Sorry Wildstang...)

There go our big plans. Once again Raul and Wildstang were one step ahead, and we were one step behind. It's too bad, I really liked the pre-stack strategy, it opened up some interesting possibilities.

[Jonathan Norris]

Aww they just had to ruin our fun :p

[Frinkahedron]

Too bad, it'd have been nice to see a few more teams pull that off.

[Alex Cormier]

Another thing for Copioli?;)

[Kevin Sevcik]

That seems like a pretty big change pretty late in the season. I realize 99% of the teams probably weren't actually planning on this during build season, but it's entirely possible someone was and is now caught out. I could understand changing the safety rules to require those robots to be disabled, but completely outlawing it with 3/5ths of the competitions gone seems odd. I do understand the logic, it just seems like a pretty big change.

[Rob]

Would it work to have a ringer between the two stacked robots? The rule says you can't touch other robots but the ringer would be between. It would be fun to see the head ref try to remove the ringer at the end of autonomous.

RAZ

[Joel J]

Would it work to have a ringer between the two stacked robots? The rule says you can't touch other robots but the ringer would be between. It would be fun to see the head ref try to remove the ringer at the end of autonomous.

RAZ
ahahahaha.

[Kevin Kolodziej]

I don't like that the ruling has been changed now, after the strategy was actually used, when the very question was asked in the Q/A forum back in January and it was given the go-ahead.

I'm fine with not allowing it...but don't allow it from the start next time!

[GBIT]

Something makes me think they might have a small problem with that! Just Maybe.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

I find it unfortunate that they made this rule, as now robots that have drivetrain problems cannot help their alliance. With out this rule, even a dead 'bot could have been useful to their alliance. Now they won't even bother to bring a dead 'bot to the field :(

[AdamHeard]

Would it work to have a ringer between the two stacked robots? The rule says you can't touch other robots but the ringer would be between. It would be fun to see the head ref try to remove the ringer at the end of autonomous.

RAZ

If we have the change, I WILL try this. Hopefully to win, but if not atleast in protest of the constant rule changes.

After the made up rules that could've cost us a match, and these random team updates, I'm bringing the rules out on the field with me.

[Corey Balint]

There go our big plans. Once again Raul and Wildstang were one step ahead, and we were one step behind. It's too bad, I really liked the pre-stack strategy, it opened up some interesting possibilities.

Pardon my ignorance, what did Stang actually do?
I mean I think I know, but I am unsure.

[Richard Wallace]

I don't like that the ruling has been changed now, after the strategy was actually used, when the very question was asked in the Q/A forum back in January and it was given the go-ahead. You mean this Q&A response (http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=1280)?01-11-2007, 05:21 PM FRC1618

Starting Conditions

Section 7.3.3.1 dictates the starting conditions of the robot, but one question remains: Can a robot start on top of another robot, provided that both fit within their respective size restrictions?

01-14-2007, 10:37 AM GDC

Re: Starting Conditions

There is no rule that would prohibit this.

[meatmanek]

Huh.
meatmanek@yggdrasil /tmp $ xpdf 2007\ Team\ Update\ 18.pdf
Error: Document has not the mandatory ending %EOF


It's been a long time since I've gotten a corrupt file through HTTP. Re-downloading worked fine.

[Cody Carey]

If we have the change, I WILL try this. Hopefully to win, but if not atleast in protest of the constant rule changes.

After the made up rules that could've cost us a match, and these random team updates, I'm bringing the rules out on the field with me.

That wouldn't be a very smart Idea. A robot that is supported by a ringer at the end of the match is worth no points.

[Joel J]

Pardon my ignorance, what did Stang actually do?
I mean I think I know, but I am unsure.
At least one of their alliance partners were dead in a match. They (wildstang) placed the dead alliance partner on top of the third robot in the alliance. Wildstang went out and tried to score, etc, and the other two robots stayed in the end zone for a 30 point bonus.

[Kevin Sevcik]

I don't like that the ruling has been changed now, after the strategy was actually used, when the very question was asked in the Q/A forum back in January and it was given the go-ahead.

I'm fine with not allowing it...but don't allow it from the start next time!
I revise my earlier opinion. A complete reversal when the question was asked a week after kickoff and given the go ahead and a team was obviously thinking about it is just plain wrong. The Zone Zeal tape measure decision was bad enough with allowing previously illegal mechanisms after build season. But outlawing a strategy after build? That you'd already been asked about? I think the GDC made a pretty large slip-up here.

[TheOtherGuy]

It's good entertainment watching everyone's pre-game strategies go to waste! :p

[Justin]

Why do I have a disturbing feeling that we are heading for another Update 16 debacle. It seems interesting to me that FIRST wouldn't have learned their less on that one. Also I say props to WildStang for thinking of this one haven't seen anyone else try this in any of the last 3 regionals I've been at/watched I guess because of the size restriction issue. Once again the action of FIRST reversing it's decision mid-season seems far worse than the decision itself. Although this used to be the norm and it may make things more interesting sometimes. I guess FIRST should put a disclaimer in the manual "rules are subject to change until the last match has been played on Einstein in Atlanta."

-Justin

[AdamHeard]

That wouldn't be a very smart Idea. A robot that is supported by a ringer at the end of the match is worth no points.

Well, at about half the regionals the refs are removing keepers regardless of position. So, they either remove the keeper and you get the 30 points, or they leave it there and you are no worse off than before (you would only use this strategy with 2 nonfunctional robots).

[TVan]

I would very disappoined If the #1 seed was picking teams by how they stacked :ahh: Just pile up some junk in the cornner and throw for ringers :confused: Im glad they made the change. :)

[Richard Wallace]

I would very disappoined If the #1 seed was picking teams by how they stacked :ahh: Just pile up some junk in the cornner and throw for ringers :confused: Im glad they made the change. :)Well, not junk exactly. Your junk-bot would have to pass inspection before you could pile it in the corner. ;)

Seriously, I can see both sides of this one. If the rule hadn't been changed, there would have likely been some teams put in the position TVan describes above, and what kind of inspiration is that?

But I can also see the side that says you don't change the rules in the middle of the game. (Jump in any time, Tristan.)

[Dave Flowerday]

At least one of their alliance partners were dead in a match.
Actually, both robots were non-functional at the time. Our alliance would not have done it otherwise (who would choose to go 1-on-3 on purpose?). And despite what others have posted on here, the refs did not disable either robot. The teams in the stack chose to E-Stop themselves right after autonomous just to make sure nothing moved and caused the top one to fall.

[Nuttyman54]

190 actually considered making a robot which would start like this, with a partner on top. Their wheels would be on some sort of rollers/tracks which would control the drivetrain below. The intent was the have them driving our base, and ensure the 30 points. Logistics and other things kept us from doing it, but it was a legit strategy that was considered. If any teams that have not competed decided to do this, they've just been shafted.

[BobC]

Would it work to have a ringer between the two stacked robots? The rule says you can't touch other robots but the ringer would be between. It would be fun to see the head ref try to remove the ringer at the end of autonomous.

RAZ
But doesn't it say you can only be in contact with one tube at a time. So if you had a tube between robots niether one can put a tube on rack.

[Nuttyman54]

But doesn't it say you can only be in contact with one tube at a time. So if you had a tube between robots niether one can put a tube on rack.

The point of this setup is that both robots are non-operational, and thus would otherwise be of no use to the alliance. In the scenario at Midwest, one incapacitated robot was placed on top of the other incapacitated robot, thus contributing 30 points to their alliance.

[Cory]

2002 all over again...

at least this time it's not as big a deal as it was before. :rolleyes:

[KathieK]

Well, I'm not taking sides on the Update issue but I applaud the "thinking outside the box" strategy. Creativity and thinking outside the box are skills that are still valued by some companies, aren't they?

[ChuckDickerson]

Interesting. I think I am starting to see a pattern here:

drill presses = OK (at kickoff)
drill presses = NOT OK (middle of competition season)
(everyone raises a stink)
drill presses = OK (again)

stacking robots at the start of the match = OK (at kickoff)
stacking robots at the start of the match = NOT OK (middle of competition season)
(everyone raises a stink)
stacking robots at the start of the match = ????????

I personally think that this strategy would be used so very rarely because of the risk involved that why in the world should it have even been a blip on FIRST’s radar. Does FIRST think that this strategy is such a problem that it in effect deserves it’s own team update? Good grief. Why can’t we just get a clear set of rules in the beginning and just stick with them the whole season. Doesn’t FIRST have enough to worry about as it is without making a “new” rule for something that has, as far as I know, only happened once? And even then, wouldn’t have made a difference in the outcome of the match because the score reflected that they would have won anyway (1 on 3 BTW). Most people got a good laugh and thought, “Now that was a cool idea, we should have thought of that!” Now that someone was creative but within the rules, FIRST has to go and make an example out of them I guess. I really have to wonder what is the big deal. I suppose FIRST doesn’t really like creativity after all. FIRST wrote the rules, the question was asked in the Q&A to make sure it was legal, and now FIRST doesn’t like it. Can’t FIRST just roll with it like everyone else and say “That was a good one, you got us.”

[ChrisMcK2186]

Wow, this is getting rather heated. While I disagree with the changing of rules after half the game is over, I believe FIRST does have a good point in making this rule. Chew on this:

Your drive train is not operational on one match, so you stack ontop of another dead bot. The bottom bot's team forgot to remove autonomous mode, and your multi-thousand dollar investment crashes to the ground in a blaze of flying extrusion and sparks.

First does not want that to happen, so they put a rule up prohibiting the action that might destroy your bot. They made the right call but at the wrong time.

Chris

[The Lucas]

2002 all over again...

at least this time it's not as big a deal as it was before. :rolleyes:

Are you comparing this to the infamous "tape measure rule"?:ahh:

It definitely fits the mold of FIRST reversing a ruling after seeing it play out in the game. Lets add it to the list.

EDIT: I don't think it is nearly as big a deal as the tape measures (allowing a expressly prohibited item mid season). There was no rule against it initially and the Q&A stated that. Now there is a rule against it. If you think about it, that happens with many rule changes/clarifications, just not usually this direct and high profile since this strategy was recently used for the first time. Nothing really to get upset about. It wasn't a major strategy (and shouldn't be since we build robots, not stacking boxes). It was just one you could occasionally pull out of your bag of tricks when circumstances dictate (if you and your partners can't fix their bot in time).

[KTorak]

I seem to remember the Anti HOT Team flop bot rule imposed on 2006....maybe this is another trend to make it harder for veteran teams?

[ChuckDickerson]

I seem to remember the Anti HOT Team flop bot rule imposed on 2006....maybe this is another trend to make it harder for veteran teams?


I actually see this as more of an anti-rookie team rule if anything. I would bet that the chances are higher that 2 rookie teams on an alliance are non-fuctional than 2 veteran teams. After all, this year FIRST is making it as difficult as possible for two veteran teams to even be on the same alliance during qualification matches where this is more than likely going to happen. If you are in an elimination match and have a non-functioning partner you are probably going to call for a replacement bot.

[Dan Petrovic]

I seem to remember the Anti HOT Team flop bot rule imposed on 2006....maybe this is another trend to make it harder for veteran teams?

How about limiting one regional win a year? That would really suck.

Seriously. I agree with the new rule. I didn't like the idea of starting the match with a robot on top of another to get 30 points.

[ScoutingNerd175]

I seem to remember the Anti HOT Team flop bot rule imposed on 2006....maybe this is another trend to make it harder for veteran teams?

This is sarcasm, right?

If not, it's not like this is a part of Wildstang's robot design. It was a creative solution to an unfortunate problem. In fact, the strategy didn't even involve them. I fail to see how this is "another trend to make it harder for veteran teams" unless you think that veteran teams are more likely to have nonfunctional robots that need to be stacked on top of eachother.

That being said, it seems odd to me to have an entire rule update about this. Somethint which has only happened once, and is really unlikely to happen all that often.

[JaneYoung]

this is one of my thoughts regarding #18
- I don't see this as making it harder for veterans - I see it as safeguarding potential situations involving rookie teams and teams with less experience.

We just read in a post that a lot of thought went into this. Careful planning went into this on the part of all 3 teams involved in the alliance, lead by WildStang.

Lone Star Regional has a lot of rookie teams coming to our regional. I would rather have Update #18 in place now and deal with the uproar that it is causing than have anything happen during the competition. I'm thinking along the lines of safety and precaution.
Jane

PS - I realize that I celebrated with a little 'YaY' in the other thread after Dave Flowerday made a post clarifying the situation. I doubt I would have posted if he had not clarified.

[Cory]

Seriously. I agree with the new rule. I didn't like the idea of starting the match with a robot on top of another to get 30 points.

It's got nothing to do with whether or not you agree with the substance of the rule.

The issue here is that for the second time in two weeks, FIRST says one thing, and then turns around and says something else, when the time for rule changes is long past.

[JBotAlan]

That wouldn't be a very smart Idea. A robot that is supported by a ringer at the end of the match is worth no points.

That's why you start off with the *keeper* between the two, get it in a "precarious" position, and the ref will remove it for you! Now, get back to the home zone in the next 2 minutes--take your time--and you're golden!

But seriously, I think that this stacking idea was great, and quite dangerous, and I'm jealous that I didn't think of it, but I totally understand why FIRST issued this update, and I am not frustrated at all with this call. It should not be blown up into a big deal like the past few updates have been.

Changing the rules is okay when it is a safety issue, as it appears to be in this situation. Is "okay" even a word? Firefox keeps saying it's not... Think about this: FIRST leaves a loophole in the rules saying that teams may use a, for instance, radio jamming device. They are not aware of the hole. Now, a team exploits that. FIRST becomes aware that *on one occasion, a loophole was used to create a safety hazard*. Sound familiar? FIRST has every right to make safety-related rule changes, IMHO. It makes no difference if it was an innovative idea or not. If it's unsafe, FIRST should, and will, shut it down.

Please, please, please, don't turn this into another FIRST-bashing thread.

JBot

[Tristan Lall]

The sad part is, 30 points wins most matches. (Consider the Great Lakes Regional: the mean losers' score was 11.3, and the median was 5.) And the incentive created by this fact could prompt teams to stack their robots; teams would be weighing the obvious advantages of sitting around and doing nothing, versus being the cause of the obviously boring match that would result. Strangely enough, if teams had consistently good ramps, and drivetrains consistently capable of climbing these ramps, everybody would be getting these points, and still keeping the other 2:00 of the match relatively interesting.

If I were to guess, that's the problem that the GDC has with it. He who perches his robot precariously upon something ought to be well aware of the risks of that strategy (note that there was previously no rule against interlocking robots—big zip ties might have been a very useful thing, were it not for the update). But autonomous mode is generally tragic to watch; if something moves, the crowd cheers. The prospect of whole matches like that probably isn't quite what FIRST bargained for, when they pitched the competition to their sponsors. It sounds to me like FIRST wanted to guarantee that there would be substantial robot activity during every match, rather than making a substantial number of matches into 1 vs. 1 competition, with a stationary tower at either end.

I have to say, though; it's better than the tape measure rule. At least they issued an update this time. (I am aware that that was five years ago, and I am mostly over it.)

[Spider-Man]

I believe that a large part of this is a safety issue and another part is a fairness issue.

Safety-wise:
Unless a team purposefully has a robot that is the minimal parts to be inspected covered in bubble wrap with a flag holder and access to change battery and so on to be placed on or in another robot, we are talking about robots designed for participation in this year's game. This strategy can be tempting to certain alliances to guarantee points at the end of the match; however matches are a dynamic experience with many things changing. A robot could leave autonomous on and do something before an e-stop is pressed, or an attempt to throw a ringer onto the rack could disturb something in the stack. More likely an issue is defense of such a strategy, which expands the number of robots at risk.

Fairness-wise:
I remember our team discussing the possibility of placing one robot on another at the beginning of the game, but the more I think about it, it does not seem very fair. An interesting strategy would be to deploy a ramp and have a partner drive up it in autonomous, which would be kinda neat and similar to what we are talking about, yet the difference here I think is vast: the scoring is done based on the merits of the robot in its entirety of hardware and software. Stacking a robot is also unfair to the competing alliance, which depending on the makeup of the other alliance, may encourage them to do the same. I don't think we want to see a three robot stack versus a three robot stack in a match for a 60-60 tie, nor do we want to see one-on-one matches with 30 guaranteed like this.

Furthermore, as the season has progressed, we have seen teams defending the bonus point lifts before the endgame, which I believe should continue to be legal if done within the spirit of the rules. How would one defend a pre-match stack? I would want to just push them outside of the home zone, but how safe is that? Is it fair to have an indefensible 30-60 points sitting on the opposite side of the field?

Rule-Changing:
As far as FIRST changing these rules after build and even during the competition season, I sincerely hope no one was betting on interfacing with another robot to this extent. Competition has shown that it was hard enough to interface robots for getting bonus points let alone for piggybacking. The GDC probably weighed the fairness and safety of the issue with a pretty good example to show that this would probably not fall within the guidelines of Safety, the Spirit of the Rules and GP when it comes to the opposing alliance.

[Lil' Lavery]

This strategy was used ONCE in more than 1500 matches played so far this year. Once. It obviously is not a integral part of the game, and in 99% of the matches is really an illogical thing to do (why play 1 vs. 3?). Instead of stacking two dead bots on each other for 30 points, why not help them getting running so they can grant a bigger reward for your alliance?
And the e-stop button only makes it partially more safe, by preventing those 2 teams from causing the "Stack" to tip. There are still 4 other robots and 6 human players introducing energy to the field that could potentially cause a robot to fall from the other one or the whole "stack" to fall over, even if not intended.

[d.courtney]

After seeing the brilliance of Wildstang, et al, in this strategy, we considered this if we had a non functional robot on our alliance during eliminations, as to give them more time to fix it between matches before just automatically pulling up a replacement bot. We thought that since something was seen in that robot, mid as well make it score points and buy time for them to solve the problem.

I do understand the safety concern, but if the rule was that they had to be e-stopped, it would be better then this outcome.

I really believe this has been a blunderous year for FIRST (then again who doesn't), yes they went a few steps forward as far as scoring system and other parts, but went twice as many back with random seeding, banebots, Update 16, batteries (it seems people have forgotten about this due to everything else, and rightly so), and now this. I hope this streak can turn around now for FIRST (or at least end).

David

[Steve Kaneb]

I agree with Cory that there are enough things going on that changing rules in the middle of the season doesn't help your position.

Legitimately, it can be considered a safety issue, but I'm pretty sure Wildstang and their partners figured out "oh, maybe we should turn off the autonomous and disable the robots as soon as possible."

The fact is that a team update was pretty much entirely about outlawing something that happened once and likely won't happen again, despite the fact that there are quite a few rules that need clarifying. Wouldn't it have been time better spent doing something about the issue of ringers around flags?

[ChuckDickerson]

Why is it inherently unsafe? Shouldn’t it be a decision between the three teams of the alliance if they think they can pull it off safely not someone in NH that isn’t even there? If the refs feel that a robot is precariously placed or otherwise unsafe before a match begins then they should call the team(s) out to fix it whether they are stacked or not. I fail to see why this is a safety issue at all. Again, this year FIRST is forcing a veteran team on each alliance so they should be able lead the younger teams as to whether a stack is a good idea or not. The reason this is such a brilliant play is that there is HUGE risk involved and weighing whether it is a safe play or not is part of the game. If the scheduling algorithm was like in the past and you had 3 rookie teams on an alliance unsafely trying to pull of a stack without any one telling them that it is a bad idea then I might understand but that is and impossibility this year and the refs are always there as a backup plan anyway to keep us all safe with the big red buttons.

[Eldarion]

And the e-stop button only makes it partially more safe, by preventing those 2 teams from causing the "Stack" to tip. There are still 4 other robots and 6 human players introducing energy to the field that could potentially cause a robot to fall from the other one or the whole "stack" to fall over, even if not intended.

I must ask, how is this different from a robot deciding to go up another's ramps before the match is over (if an arm broke or someone's ramps deployed early, etc.)?

[MikeDubreuil]

Can someone provide a video or a lengthy description of what happened during the Wildstang match?

My personal feeling is that this is quite an unbelievable rule change. On one hand I think it is insane that the legality of the strategy could be deemed legal on January 14th and then made illegal 2.5 months later. On the other hand I can understand why the rule changed. A veteran team could pressure a rookie team to just sit on a ramp for the entire match because, "you can't score points anyway."

As Lil'Lavery said, if 1 out of 1500 matches happened this way was it really necessary to make the change? From what I understand it would have basically been 3 on 1 without this strategy resulting in a predicted defeat for Wildstang.

[JackN]

Everyone is saying that this is like 2002, but it reminds me more of 2005 when they banned capping incorrectly and preventing the other tetras from counting. This was an unused strategy to my knowledge and the stacking of robots is a only used once strategy. This gameplan is not even remotely viable. Who wants to play a match only having one robot driving on the field. I get that it could be a safety hazard but it feels like the GDC is saying that if you come up with an inventive and indefensible strategy, you can't use it.

[Spider-Man]

I must ask, how is this different from a robot deciding to go up another's ramps before the match is over (if an arm broke or someone's ramps deployed early, etc.)?

At least one robot, a lifter or liftee, must move in the match. As Lil' Lavery was suggesting, this should be the goal, not a stack.

[Eldarion]

At least one robot, a lifter or liftee, must move in the match. As Lil' Lavery was suggesting, this should be the goal, not a stack.

I agree with you, but I was asking this question from a safety point of view. :)

[jgannon]

Think about this: FIRST leaves a loophole in the rules saying that teams may use a, for instance, radio jamming device. They are not aware of the hole. Now, a team exploits that. FIRST becomes aware that *on one occasion, a loophole was used to create a safety hazard*. Sound familiar?
Unfortunately, this doesn't really sound familiar at all. The GDC was aware of this potential gameplay strategy since at least January 14th, when they posted a Q&A that validated this as legitimate. It was certainly no surprise to the GDC when Wildstang successfully pulled this off. To describe these events using words like "loophole" and "exploits" is just plain wrong. The GDC explicitly allowed it very early in the build season. This wasn't a goofy answer like the questions about slip rings or tube inflation... it was perhaps the most straight-forward answer I've seen on the Q&A all year. They knew what was up, they allowed it, now they don't like the outcome, and they're changing their minds midstream. This is the source of frustration for many posters in this thread.

(On a side note, trying to paint this as a safety hazard is also specious at best. There is absolutely nothing inherently less safe about being on top of a robot at the start of a match as there is about being on top of a robot in the middle of a match.)

[Spider-Man]

I agree with you, but I was asking this question from a safety point of view. :)

Ah, I see. For safety, wouldn't hitting the e-stops prevent the teams from affecting anything for the rest of the match, leaving the robots in what should be an undesigned-for, precarious position? Teams deciding to lift can assess what is happening in the match and how to handle defense. If a robot defends a lift before the end-game, the other robots are not usually voluntarily disabled in advance. :)

[Stu Bloom]

... I get that it could be a safety hazard but it feels like the GDC is saying that if you come up with an inventive and indefensible strategy, you can't use it.THIS is not an indefensible strategy ...

The opposing alliance might easily determine that it is worthwhile to get that stack out of the home zone to eliminate the 30 bonus points. If you allow the stack to be created you certainly cannot prohibit the opponents from trying to "defend" against this strategy. Is that a safe situation?

Also, please don't forget ... the Q&A answer (http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=1280)ONLY stated that there was nothing in the rules that prohibited this strategy. I guess now that oversight has been "fixed". :p

[Brandon Holley]

Does anyone remember the stretchers from 2001??? This strategy to me is like having a stretcher handy.

For those who are unfamiliar...if your robot was down for a match, you could place it (or any part of it) on this wooden cart with casters on teh bottom. Your teammates could then drag you around to score points.

If you have a dead robot on your alliance, than why not go for that 30 pts by just placing it on top of a willing partner.

Major kudos to wildstang for this one....


and P.S...bring back the stretchers!

[Eldarion]

Ah, I see. For safety, wouldn't hitting the e-stops prevent the teams from affecting anything for the rest of the match, leaving the robots in what should be an undesigned-for, precarious position? Teams deciding to lift can assess what is happening in the match and how to handle defense. If a robot defends a lift before the end-game, the other robots are not usually voluntarily disabled in advance. :)

Good point, thanks.

[Tim Delles]

It's got nothing to do with whether or not you agree with the substance of the rule.

The issue here is that for the second time in two weeks, FIRST says one thing, and then turns around and says something else, when the time for rule changes is long past.

For everyone who keeps debating whether or not this should be done. Cory simply answers it all with this.

The issue here is not if it is right or wrong, the issue is that the GDC needs to give us rules that are solid throughout the 5 weeks of competition.

[Lil' Lavery]

To expand upon the difference in a safety perspective:
this (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/27756)
vs.
this (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/27772)

You make the call on which is safer.

[Arefin Bari]

I don't look at the rule as anti-veteran or anti-rookie. We never had a game in the past where one robot had to climb on top of another, hence as always the rule stated that the robot must start behind the line in the homezone (not pointing out how exactly it should start). The GDC most likely assumed that we already know that we are going to start behind the line in the beginning of the match (and not on top of each other). One thing they have missed was the fact that we have a Raul in FIRST who comes up with a crazy strategy to win a match with two robots that isn't capable of moving. No one has used this strategy (to my knowledge) in the past. Maybe, the GDC didn't think that it will ever happen, but it did. Next thing you know, we get a rule update.

Rules are rules. Let's play by them. It's given that not all of us will be happy with the same thing since we all think very differently. Please scroll up and read all the posts in this thread and you will realize how different everyone thinks. Some are okay with the rule, some aren't, some don't care. I can go on and on about what happened at the Florida regional but that is not going to get me anywhere. What counts the most is the kids worked together for 6 straight weeks, came up with a beautiful machine, went out there on the field and had fun.

... thats my opinion.

[jgannon]

Maybe, the GDC didn't think that it will ever happen
To everybody who keeps insisting this, please stop spreading misinformation. The GDC very clearly considered this as a possibility on January 14th, and saw no fault in it.

For those who missed it, here's the link again (thanks Richard):
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=1280
Rules are rules. Let's play by them.
Agreed. Let's pick one set of rules at kickoff, fix them in the first week of build, and then play by them. Let's not play by different rules every single week.

[Steve W]

As I have said many times, " make the rules before kickoff and DON'T change them for that season". First is the only place I know (except if I make the rules) that the rules change as you go along. This has got to stop.

I would also like to know from the "unsafe" crowd, how placing a robot on top of another is 1: unsafe and 2: who is going to get hurt? If you are worried about the robots look at the number of robots that have over shot the top of the robot or fallen from the sides of the ramp.

BTW there was an instance in Detroit were 1 team wanted to stack on another and the Ref said no.

[Rich Ross]

The GDC has made their stance clear, and for us to say that its a good rule or bad rule doesnt much matter to them. Unless they are genuinely convinced, by important people or decreased inspiration, they will hold firm. I think that stacking robots was a valid and valuable strategy, now it is not. I think that FIRST said that it wasn't against the rules, and now it is. Whether or not it hurts teams, i really dont know. I posted earlier saying that it was a strike against Wildstang. I now realize that its not a strike, its just FIRST being FIRST (if you want my take on FIRST, PM. Its not bad.). I really think that we need to stop the B&M on CD and take our concerns straight to FIRST instead of riling people up here and not doing anything real.

Let's do something that makes a difference. Update 18 is just another obstacle for us to deal with. Lets do just that, deal with it.

[Vikesrock]

To expand upon the difference in a safety perspective:
this (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/27756)
vs.
this (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/27772)

You make the call on which is safer.

I disagree with this example.

How about
this (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/27812)
Or
this (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/27510)
Or
this (http://www.team1065.com/ruckus/1902%20Faliure.wmv)
Or the many other times this has happened with no defense.

VS.

this (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/27756)

For the record I think as a last ditch effort this is not a bad idea, but it should be just that, a last ditch effort.

I also happen to disagree with FIRST changing the rules this late into the season.

I don't think that this would have become a widespread strategy with, or without the update.

[David Brinza]

Do you think that stacking one robot (or more) on top of another and sitting there for an entire match is consistent with the spirit of the game or, for that matter, FIRST?

I don't. Teams that wish to adopt this strategy are putting winning ahead of competing (yes, there is a difference - winning at all cost is not GP).

I'm not slamming Wildstang here; their alliance partners were basically non-functional and this strategy gave their alliance the possibility of winning that match. I doubt that any competitive teams would consider doing this with functioning partners. It's just too much fun to drive your robot and earn a victory!

Maybe Update #18 falls in the category of "legislating morality", but I don't think we want to see a lot of matches with an alliance just parked in their home zone for 2+ minutes. The lack of autonomous action is dull enough for me...let's PLAY the game!!!

[Danny Diaz]

How about limiting one regional win a year? That would really suck.

I disagree. They do this for FIRST LEGO League - if you attend multiple competitions, you are only allowed to win an award at the very first competition you go to. Is it fair if someone is able to go to multiple regionals and take the banner at each one? At that point, why call it regionals - clearly the best bot in the region isn't necessarily going to win, it'll probably be someone from out of town - the regional players are then just fodder.

If you still disagree with me, let's put it a different way. What if the 9 best teams in the nation were able to all attend multiple regionals, and they all decided upon the exact same regionals every year. Also assume that somehow the schedule was transitioned so that it equated to 25% of the total regionals played (so they could somehow attend 9 regionals or whatever it came to). Now, say you weren't one of the 9 best teams in the nation - would you still want to attend the regionals they are at knowing that there is such a high likelihood that they will take home every stinking award?

I wasn't around when FIRST decided to allow teams to compete in multiple regionals, but I bet the arguments were heated. If they were not, then maybe somebody needs to rethink the situation now. I could understand if there was a lack of teams in some regions, and so allowing teams to go to multiple regionals to fill in some of those gaps were a good idea. But I dunno about that any more...

But that's just me.

-Danny

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Do you think that stacking one robot (or more) on top of another and sitting there for an entire match is consistent with the spirit of the game or, for that matter, FIRST?


Actually I do think it is consistant with FIRST.

Teams that are overcoming adversity is exactly what FIRST is about. Both robots were (from my understanding) broken and would not have been able to do anything. So what do they do, they stack and help their alliance to a win.

Thats teamwork. Thats overcoming adversity. Thats innovative thinking. Thats FIRST.

[GaryVoshol]

To expand upon the difference in a safety perspective:
this (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/27756)
vs.
this (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/27772)

You make the call on which is safer.

Versus this: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55601

No where did the GDC say it was a safety issue. They simply closed a loophole that had been left open from the beginning of Build, without giving any reason. They have the right to change the rule. The question is, why wait until now, when they were questioned about it weeks ago?

[Kevin Sevcik]

Do you think that stacking one robot (or more) on top of another and sitting there for an entire match is consistent with the spirit of the game or, for that matter, FIRST?I think that's completely beside the point people here are trying to make. Many people arguing against this call see perfectly clearly the logic and reasoning behind it and don't have all that big a problem with that logic. The issue we have is with the complete and utter arbitrariness that FIRST and the GDC have been exhibiting this year. This very issue was asked in the Q&A just one week into the build season. The answer then was that it was ok, so presumably the GDC had no problems with it then. Then, after 3 weeks of competition have gone by and they've seen it happen just once, they suddenly decide they don't like it anymore and arbitrarily rescind their approval. They don't even attempt to smooth over their change of mind with any of their own reasoning along the lines of all these arguments we're having about safety and the spirit of the game. It's frankly getting a rather lot like something out of "Through the Looking Glass" trying to guess which way the wind is blowing each week. The Q&A question is particularly weird. The original question and answer came just before Update #3. And the GDC's followup suggests you consult Update #18 to discern their latest state of mind.

We don't mind picky rules, weird rules, somewhat unfair seeming rules, so long as the rules actually stand still for most of the season. Aiming at a target that's still moving long after build season is over asks far too much of teams.

[lenergyrlah]

Versus this: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55601

But since most robots aren't designed to be that short while in starting configuration the liftees would be a lot higher. At least those fallen robots were still in 1 piece -- i'd hate to see that happen to a robot perched four feet off the ground.

[65_Xero_Huskie]

I disagree. They do this for FIRST LEGO League - if you attend multiple competitions, you are only allowed to win an award at the very first competition you go to. Is it fair if someone is able to go to multiple regionals and take the banner at each one? At that point, why call it regionals - clearly the best bot in the region isn't necessarily going to win, it'll probably be someone from out of town - the regional players are then just fodder.

If you still disagree with me, let's put it a different way. What if the 9 best teams in the nation were able to all attend multiple regionals, and they all decided upon the exact same regionals every year. Also assume that somehow the schedule was transitioned so that it equated to 25% of the total regionals played (so they could somehow attend 9 regionals or whatever it came to). Now, say you weren't one of the 9 best teams in the nation - would you still want to attend the regionals they are at knowing that there is such a high likelihood that they will take home every stinking award?

I wasn't around when FIRST decided to allow teams to compete in multiple regionals, but I bet the arguments were heated. If they were not, then maybe somebody needs to rethink the situation now. I could understand if there was a lack of teams in some regions, and so allowing teams to go to multiple regionals to fill in some of those gaps were a good idea. But I dunno about that any more...

But that's just me.

-Danny


Did you see 1114 and 1503 last year?

And the situation with the stacking of robots, i dont think it is safe and it is just a freebee for those who dont have a working robot. Why should you get the 30 points for just standing there and the other team has to work for it?

[cire]

I think this is a good update, it takes away the temptation from teams with not so functional robots. I am sure many more teams would have done this so far if they had thought about it. I dont think it was how the game was meant to be played (not like that ever happens anyways though). The only thing to blame FIRST for is that they said it was ok on the question forums. They just made a mistake.

[Dave Scheck]

This was back on page 3 and I felt compelled to respond.Instead of stacking two dead bots on each other for 30 points, why not help them getting running so they can grant a bigger reward for your alliance?This is exactly what we tried to do. 10 minutes before the match we had people in both pits frantically trying to help get these robots back up and running. I don't know the exact details, but one of them had a drive motor that had fallen off, and the other had drive chain problems. Once we determined they weren't going to be able to be fixed before the match, we suggested the stacking plan, both teams agreed, and the rest is history. After the match, we helped both teams get operational again.

While we had this strategy in our heads earlier in the season, we had no intention of ever using it if at least two robots were functional. While it may have won a lot of matches, this strategy doesn't allow teams to go out there, play the game and show what they can do. Nobody wants to work for six weeks just to sit in a corner (unless that's what you designed it to do :) ).

[flightofone]

Great, spur of the moment thinking!. I'm sure First didn't have this in mind when they responded to the Q&A, they were probably thinking only a rampbot would be used. Now that they've seen the inspired out-of-the-box thinking, it makes sense to limit precariously perched bots for safety. Since it is an exception case that doesn't really impact the game, we should accept the change and move on.

[Jeremiah Johnson]

This was back on page 3 and I felt compelled to respond.This is exactly what we tried to do. 10 minutes before the match we had people in both pits frantically trying to help get these robots back up and running. I don't know the exact details, but one of them had a drive motor that had fallen off, and the other had drive chain problems. Once we determined they weren't going to be able to be fixed before the match, we suggested the stacking plan, both teams agreed, and the rest is history. After the match, we helped both teams get operational again.

While we had this strategy in our heads earlier in the season, we had no intention of ever using it if at least two robots were functional. While it may have won a lot of matches, this strategy doesn't allow teams to go out there, play the game and show what they can do. Nobody wants to work for six weeks just to sit in a corner (unless that's what you designed it to do :) ).

I can back up this post... Wildstang was in every pit that there was no running robot. I thank them for getting 1755 back up and running because we had them the rest of the day.

I commend those who thought up this strategy, but also disagree with those that are complaining because FIRST changed their minds. Without a doubt, many teams would have done this same thing from here on out. Many alliances would have gone onto the feild with this strategy in mind, even with working robots. It's only fair to the competition that now everyone has to earn the bonus points.

[Steve_Alaniz]

As a PURELY HYPOTHETICAL question....
IF two non working robots were stacked in the end zone AND the opposing alliance KNEW it could not score 30 points... WOULD it be legal under the rules for the opposing team robots to BUMP (totally legal under the rules) the bottom robot and if the top robot happened to fall off there would be jubilation in the opposition camp for having made a great and possibly legal play?
LEGALLY speaking bumping is allowed but do the opposing team have to consider the consequences of the action? Would they just be yellow carded if at all? (which they might take since the other side has made winning everything)
(Which has not been used enough in my opinion... several rounds at the NY regional looked like Robot Wars)
That action is not intended to damage the top robot but rather to de-score and FIRST does urge a "Robust" design.

Just curious

Steve Alaniz

[ALIBI]

Common sense would indicate that most rampbots or liftobots would ramp or lift just over 12 inches, a few that use teetertotter mechanisms may get one side up to 24 inches or so for a brief period of time until gravity takes over. My impression of the orginal Q & A was that if an alliance had a rampbot that had a platform 12 inches above the ground in it's starting position that a dead robot could be placed on it before the match started. I could even see the rampbot moving around the field playing offense or defense if able to. Or a robot with a functioning drivetrain moving around a robot with a functioning arm who's drivetrain was not working. Talk about teamwork! It did raise questions about exceeding the weight limits and how much energy a 290 moving plie of two robots (2 @ 120lbs, 2 batteries and 2 sets of bumpers) could use to impact a much lighter robot on the field. Having the rule open ended could result in a robot sitting six feet off the ground. I don't think anyone wants to see the results of a robot falling from that high up, in or outside the playing field. The alliance station wall is only 6 feet 6 inches high. Maybe the GDC should have simply stated that at no time during a match can a robot be elevated more than 24 inches (or whatever) above the playing field.

[jarowe]

I've been following this thread, and I think it's taken an interesting turn.

I'm not sure that safety is the reason for this decision. No person would be injured by stacking these robots, no matter how precariously they are arranged. Robots falling over and breaking is part of the game. It's a risk to put the robot on the field in any match-- you don't know what could happen. Any team that attempts to use the stacking strategy is obviously well aware of the risks involved. I trust that the members of FIRST teams are smart enough to disable autonomous modes and hit the E-Stop buttons.

I've wanted to see some changes to this game since the first weekend of regionals. I'd like to see the ramp bonuses worth fewer points so rack scoring actually means something and there are less of the 30-2 matches. I also wish that autonomous mode was more meaningful, especially since most teams aren't doing very much with it which makes for a very boring 15 seconds. However, I'd also be pretty angry if those changes came through after the game has progressed as far as it has.

My personal opinion of this game is that it's either incredibly exciting to watch, or mind-numbingly boring. It truly depends on the alliance structure. However, the stacking method adds to the mind-numbingly boring category. With two robots sitting there for two minutes, it's not fun to watch. It also cheapens the efforts of the other alliance, which is trying to score some points, but the efforts become meaningless because of the 30 points that are due to the other team. Now, after seeing what happened with teams 1755 and 1850, I considered this as a viable strategy that our team might employ in the same situation-- two NON FUNCTIONAL robots, with no other way of scoring points. I applaud this alliance for their attempt to compete to the best of their capability. If it were still legal, we might use this strategy if it were our only option.

That said, I'm glad its no longer legal. The game should not reward us for having non functional robots. We should be rewarded for our efforts to design elegant machines and effective, complex strategy. FIRST is trying to do that.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

A few of the other members of Wildstang have spoken earlier but I want to make a few things clear. When faced with both alliance partners dead and with their permission, the team decided to fallback on a Q&A answered by the GDC in January. Wildstang reads all documents issued by FIRST, as all teams should. As others have posted in other forums, Wildstang was not the first to attempt this strategy this season, just the most discussed. The refs discussed this before the match (for several minutes) was allowed to start and as the Q&A pointed out, they came to the conclusion that there was no rule against it. Had they ruled against it we were perfectly ready to accept the decision of the refs, as we always do, and play 1 vs. 3 with no starting score. I would like to also point out that until TU #18 there was no rule that robots could not start touching each other or stacking. Something that no one has pointed out yet is that we prevailed in this match even without the stacking as the final score would have been 18-10.
BTW, pulling the robots out of the end zone (even just little) would have been a legal defensive strategy that would have negated the stacking bonus.

[GaryVoshol]

Hmm, add a FLL-like rule (for NEXT YEAR, please!):

No robot can score points until it moves completely outside the home zone.

Of course, that rule would be viable only for some types of games. It wouldn't have worked for Triple Play.

[David Brinza]

Originally Posted by David Brinza:

Do you think that stacking one robot (or more) on top of another and sitting there for an entire match is consistent with the spirit of the game or, for that matter, FIRST?
I think that's completely beside the point people here are trying to make. Many people arguing against this call see perfectly clearly the logic and reasoning behind it and don't have all that big a problem with that logic. The issue we have is with the complete and utter arbitrariness that FIRST and the GDC have been exhibiting this year. This very issue was asked in the Q&A just one week into the build season. The answer then was that it was ok, so presumably the GDC had no problems with it then. Then, after 3 weeks of competition have gone by and they've seen it happen just once, they suddenly decide they don't like it anymore and arbitrarily rescind their approval. They don't even attempt to smooth over their change of mind with any of their own reasoning along the lines of all these arguments we're having about safety and the spirit of the game. It's frankly getting a rather lot like something out of "Through the Looking Glass" trying to guess which way the wind is blowing each week. The Q&A question is particularly weird. The original question and answer came just before Update #3. And the GDC's followup suggests you consult Update #18 to discern their latest state of mind.

We don't mind picky rules, weird rules, somewhat unfair seeming rules, so long as the rules actually stand still for most of the season. Aiming at a target that's still moving long after build season is over asks far too much of teams.So, your issue is with FIRST GDC flip-flopping on rules interpretation, and perhaps that's a valid concern. However, I think that as the season plays out, events will occur that the GDC didn't anticipate. I don't think the FIRST community has the expectation that the GDC has all identified ALL of the potential game scenarios by kickoff or even before the first week of competition. I suspect that the "stacked robots at start" scenario, when witnessed in competition, was deemed by the GDC to not be a good thing for the competitions. I would not like to see this as a widespread practice in matches. If I saw robots stacked at the start of a match, the temptation to "destack" them would be great - if a 10-pt penalty were incurred, it's a 20-pt net win to knock down the stack. To avoid alliances from trying to score an "easy" 30 points and to avoid the risk to robots from executing the obvious defensive action against this ploy, I suspect the GDC felt it necessary to close this "loophole".

I'm not attacking you here (I'm directing this question to the broader CD community), but would you put your functional robot on top of a partner's robot and sit there the entire match in order to win? Would you intentionally make your robot appear non-functional (remove breakers, break your chain, etc.) in order to stack your robot if the rule was written such that only non-operational robots would be permitted to stack? I think these sorts of questions are pondered by the GDC in making/changing rules for the game. Please keep in mind that we see a new FIRST game every year and even in sports that have been around for a long time, the rules change season-to-season (and maybe even mid-season).

BTW, If you answer "yes" to either of the above, I guess that the GDC has really impacted your strategy. I, for one, feel that the rules should NOT allow this strategy. Even if the rules are written later rather than sooner.

[Warren Boudreau]

I don't understand what the big deal is. This strategy is so easy to defeat that it is laughable.

Simply push the diabled robots against the back wall where they pin the ringers against the wall.

The robots are then contacting field elements and the 30 points won't count.

[Rob]

If a team designed a "minimum robot" (a battery, RC, radio, yellow light, flag holder, etc.) and put them in a bag with their team numbers on it and a big velcro strap to attach to a partner, their strategy is no longer valid. That could have been a quick 30 points, all the "carrier" robot would have to do is rush back at the last second.

Not that I am suggesting we thought about a "minimum effort machine" (we did that back in 2001...)

I do, however, agree with those saying that this rule change is no big deal.

Good luck to everyone, and have fun.

RAZ

[Nawaid Ladak]

hmm... i want to hear what paul has to say about this one...

and where is dlavery's post on this???

can't wait, the real drama starts soon.

btw: i don't see a saftey problem where two robots are stacked on top of each other. and the teams use the E-STOP button. heck, what if the robots just forgot to be turned on, that would be safe wouldn't it,

robots tipping over is a part of the game, and if those robots are off, and someone did try to intentionally tip them, then they would be panelized, wouldn't they, (yellow card, red card perhaps?).

FIRST might as well cross the last part off of the following
This award celebrates creative design, use of a component, or a creative or unique strategy of
play.



we won't know now thanks to the GDC.

(im going to create a secrete thread where im going to rant on this and other things after the season is over.)

[Rich Ross]

What we call 'Progress' is the exchange of one nuisance for another nuisance.
Havelock Ellis (1859 - 1939)

If it isn't one thing its another.

Teams were awarded points for just sitting there in previous years (2002 i believe) and in 2005 only one robot had to move for you to win bonus points at the end. That being said, we can obviously understand why, i think that for many people, the issue is when. An issue that was already raised should be legal or not. Its silly to let some teams do it at one regional and not let other teams do it at other regionals.

Contact the high-ups around you if you really are concerned, like i said earlier. Tell it to people who can actually change it.

[Protronie]

okay... so all three robots must be inside their home zone... and can not be touching.

And the problem is? I just don't see why you would want your robot starting on top of, or making contact with another robot at the start.

[Brandon Holley]

okay... so all three robots must be inside their home zone... and can not be touching.

And the problem is? I just don't see why you would want your robot starting on top of, or making contact with another robot at the start.

Please go back and read the rest of this thread, before you post...to see what the controversy is about

[ChuckDickerson]

There is a lot of discussion here about non-functional robots. What if some so far unseen rookie robot at some regional yet to be played just couldn’t get together anything more than a wood box bot with 2 broken BaneBot gearboxes because they didn’t know about all the BaneBots problems and simply show up with little more than a box. Just a wood box with a flat top, no arm, no ramps. We have all seen them. We have all been proud to have them on our alliance and see the looks in their faces when we said “OK, what we need you to do is go play defense against team number X” and then we win the match together. But this year they can’t play defense because their drivetrain is so messed up they can’t get it going before those early matches. We all try to help them but it just can’t be done in time. Now wouldn’t it make them feel better if instead of thinking they are going to suck because they can’t even drive and help with defense but rather found themselves a good partner because they could guarantee 30 points if needed? For those of you that say this isn’t the way the game is supposed to be played I respectfully argue that indeed this IS the way it is supposed to be played, overcoming adversity using creative thinking. Yesterday that wood box was worth 30 points. Unfortunately, today it is just a wood box.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

okay... so all three robots must be inside their home zone... and can not be touching.

And the problem is? I just don't see why you would want your robot starting on top of, or making contact with another robot at the start.

I guess you missed the part where 2 non-functional robots were stacked to get the 30-point bonus?

[Brandon Holley]

Yesterday that wood box was worth 30 points. Unfortunately, today it is just a wood box.

What you stated right there is exactly what people are trying to say here.

This is not my opinion but here is what others are trying to get across..

You put 6 weeks into creating a magnificent robot that can score a few ringers and can lift 2 of your partners off the ground 4 inches.

You can score 30+ points every match...

This wooden box can now score 30 pts every match by doing NOTHING. Yes it is unfortunate that they were unable to secure enough help to make a more competitive machine, but they need to learn eventually.

What others are trying to express here is that this shouldnt be a strategy because it rewards teams that may not deserve it as much as others.

[Rich Ross]

I wouldn't want to be the one to say who deserves to win and who doesn't. Do you really want to?

We need to figure out a solution and adress the people who can change it. Otherwise, it will stay how it is

[Liz Smith]

I don't understand what the big deal is. This strategy is so easy to defeat that it is laughable.

Simply push the diabled robots against the back wall where they pin the ringers against the wall.

The robots are then contacting field elements and the 30 points won't count.

I believe, according to the rules, that they would still recieve 30 points if touching a ringer. They just can't be supported by that ringer.

As for my opinion? I think that this update is being stressed about way too much. I don't think many, if any robots were designed to hold other robots in their starting position (remember, all robots must start in a 28x38 box). No ones strategy for the whole competition is ruined. From what it seems like from what the members of 111 have been saying, it was a last minute strategy.

I also don't think this is really "flip flopping" on FIRST's part. The relevent Q&A response only pointed out that there was no rule against it. Now there is a rule against it.

[ChuckDickerson]

What you stated right there is exactly what people are trying to say here.

This is not my opinion but here is what others are trying to get across..

You put 6 weeks into creating a magnificent robot that can score a few ringers and can lift 2 of your partners off the ground 4 inches.

You can score 30+ points every match...

This wooden box can now score 30 pts every match by doing NOTHING. Yes it is unfortunate that they were unable to secure enough help to make a more competitive machine, but they need to learn eventually.

What others are trying to express here is that this shouldnt be a strategy because it rewards teams that may not deserve it as much as others.

Excellent point and I see both sides but I have to respectfully argue that everyone puts in 6 weeks of hard work and whether the result is "a magnificent robot that can score a few ringers and can lift 2 of your partners off the ground 4 inches" or a "wood box bot" often has less to do with how much time was spent on the robot and more to do with other resources the teams have at their disposal. Neither team is more or less deserving of the 30 points simply based on how their robot looks. Keep in mind that that wood box bot may be your opponent this match and then you both score 30 points or maybe you win by a few ringer points but you are better off because you have now increased your RP. However, they may be your partner in the next match and you are going up against a robot "that can score a few ringers and can lift 2 of your partners off the ground 12 inches" for 60+ points in every match so you may be glad to have that 30 point wood box bot rather than a wood box. ;)

[Kevin Sevcik]

I also don't think this is really "flip flopping" on FIRST's part. The relevent Q&A response only pointed out that there was no rule against it. Now there is a rule against it.
Liz,

There is currently no rule against using sprockets, gears, COTS transmissions, etc. Specifically in the Q&As, the GDC has said:
There is no rule limiting the number of spike relays (http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=2478&highlight=no+rule)
There is no rule against using IR LEDs on the OI (http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=3221&highlight=no+rule)

The set containing all rules for a given season is far, far smaller than the set of all rules not for a given season. Do you think it would be right for the GDC to then, in the middle of the competition season, declare a rule that outlaws sprockets, gears, or COTS transmissions? Limits the number of spikes you may use to 3? Outlaw your nifty IR OI system? Outlaws the use of black paint? Decrees that sans serif fonts are unacceptable for robot team numbers? Mandates that 2 wheel robots suck and won't pass inspection?

Just because there wasn't a rule against something shouldn't give the GDC license to make up a rule that could seriously impact a team's robot and strategy in the middle of the competition season 5+ weeks after a teams has finished building their robot.

[Lil' Lavery]

Yesterday that wood box was worth 30 points. Unfortunately, today it is just a wood box.

That's where you are mistaken. Given the right circumstances, it can still be worth 30 points. There is no rule that says an alliance partner can't push little 'ol boxy up another partners ramp. In fact, I've seen several teams help each other up ramps, I'm sure we all have. Why not set up boxy in the home zone next to where the ramps/platforms will be deployed so he can be pushed up before the end of a match? Sure, it'll take a few more seconds, but it'll be worth 30 points.
A somewhat similar display of teamwork can be found in this thread:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/27817

[EricH]

I believe, according to the rules, that they would still recieve 30 points if touching a ringer. They just can't be supported by that ringer.Definition of supported from the 2007 manual? There's a YMTC (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55742) about that one.

[Stu Bloom]

... Just because there wasn't a rule against something shouldn't give the GDC license to make up a rule that could seriously impact a team's robot and strategy in the middle of the competition season 5+ weeks after a teams has finished building their robot.C'mon Kevin ... There is NO WAY this rule has seriously impacted any team's strategy ...

It is clear that the intent of the game is for the bonus points to be scored by the action of the robots, not by humans stacking them before the match begins.

IMO this rule change is mostly benign, and only serves to preserve the "intent" of the game.

Most here are upset only because their feathers were first ruffled by the TU#16 fiasco. I would agree that was a serious mistake by FIRST which would have had a devastating impact on many teams ... but fortunately has now also been corrected.

We should all let this go, and MOVE ON ...

[Kevin Sevcik]

C'mon Kevin ... There is NO WAY this rule has seriously impacted any team's strategy ...

It is clear that the intent of the game is for the bonus points to be scored by the action of the robots, not by humans stacking them before the match begins.

IMO this rule change is mostly benign, and only serves to preserve the "intent" of the game.

Most here are upset only because their feathers were first ruffled by the TU#16 fiasco. I would agree that was a serious mistake by FIRST which would have had a devastating impact on many teams ... but fortunately has now also been corrected.

We should all let this go, and MOVE ON ...
190 said they were considering this and only passed on complication issues. I submit that there aren't 1000+ teams represented in this thread so we don't actually know if this has affected someone. However, this is beside the point. Saying it's okay for the GDC to change rules and make up rules mid competition to "preserve the intent of the game" invites bad things. What if the GDC hadn't outlawed tube herding and then decided that wasn't how they wanted the game to be played? I submit that it is NOT the GDC's perogative to define the way the game can be played during the build season and then change the way the game can be played after the build season. Teams at GLR were highly upset that a ref changed the way the game was played to "preserve the intent of the game". Why is it somehow okay for the GDC to do this? I'm honestly confused how one is significantly different from the other, except that this affects a much smaller, much much less represented portion of teams. I do understand that this is unlikely to affect more than a few teams, but I remain unconvinced that that makes it okay.

[Protronie]

IMO... if all you have is the "wooden box" then you need to rethink even coming to the field. Your pride in yourself should keep your dead bot off the field.
I agree with this rule change!
To the builders of the "wooden box" well think of it as a learning experience.

Just cause you drive a car don't mean your ready for NASCAR.

[Liz Smith]

Definition of supported from the 2007 manual? There's a YMTC (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55742) about that one.


Yeah, yeah... I've seen the YMTC. :rolleyes: Poor choice in phrasing on my part. What I meant to say was, just because it is in contact with a game piece, wouldn't necessarily negate the end game bonus.

[Madison]

IMO... if all you have is the "wooden box" then you need to rethink even coming to the field. Your pride in yourself should keep your dead bot off the field.
I agree with this rule change!
To the builders of the "wooden box" well think of it as a learning experience.

Just cause you drive a car don't mean your ready for NASCAR.

Sometimes, you need to swallow your pride and do what's best for your teammates.

Nothing frustrates me more than when a team has simply accepted that their robot is broken or doesn't work well and makes no more effort toward improving it. There are people at these events who're relying on you and have some expectation that you'll do everything that you can to field a robot -- and when you've done all that you can, you ought to go find someone else who can do more.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

I also don't think this is really "flip flopping" on FIRST's part. The relevent Q&A response only pointed out that there was no rule against it. Now there is a rule against it.

There is no rule against having tube manipulators either. So you are saying it would be OK for the GDC next week to outlaw those? And ramps the week after?

The GDC is setting a dangerous precident here by stating in the Q&A that there is no rule against it (therefore tacidly accepting the strategy) and then outlawing it 3 weeks into the competition AFTER a team successfully used the strategy.

Personally, I think Wildsatg and their alliance partners should share the Xerox creativity award for useing such a unorthodox strategy successfully.

But thats JMHO.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

IMO... if all you have is the "wooden box" then you need to rethink even coming to the field. Your pride in yourself should keep your dead bot off the field. ...
To the builders of the "wooden box" well think of it as a learning experience.


This should only be considered after all other options have been exhausted. There should never be any distinction based on robot design that should keep a robot from taking the field. Every team should make it one of their top priorities to make sure every team can play and have an enjoyable weekend. That goes double for rookies. An event should be a learning experience coupled with fun or this won't work. We must say to ourselves "leaving a robot in the pit is not an option".
One thing that the GDC has designed into the game is the ability for any robot design to have a function in this game. Whether it be purely defensive, purely offensive or a full up, does everything, robot. No robot can win alone for the majority of the matches. The GDC has made a good game for all robots and human players alike, and I think we have to applaud them on this account. Once the game is chosen, modifying it for all of these factors is the real challenge.

[BrianBSL]

Whats next?

Team Update # 19: No defense allowed. You must get out of anyone's way to let them score. The game isn't going how we wanted it, so we are changing things half way through so people will play the game the way we want.

Oh, wait, that almost happened in 2005.

[GaryVoshol]

C'mon Kevin ... There is NO WAY this rule has seriously impacted any team's strategy ...Most probably true.

It is clear that the intent of the game is for the bonus points to be scored by the action of the robots, not by humans stacking them before the match begins.

IMO this rule change is mostly benign, and only serves to preserve the "intent" of the game.Then why didn't they preserve this intent of the game back in January when the question was asked?

Most here are upset only because their feathers were first ruffled by the TU#16 fiasco. I would agree that was a serious mistake by FIRST which would have had a devastating impact on many teams ... but fortunately has now also been corrected.You're right. Without the uproar from a couple weeks ago, this would be only a small tempest in a teacup.

We should all let this go, and MOVE ON ...Unfortunately, if we just move on, it will be business as usual. Others have pointed out absurd rulings that the GDC could make at any time - and I don't believe they ever would make such rulings. The point is that they can, any time they want. And issue it without any explanation except, "Because I said so."

Rules can be tweaked to make them consistent with other rules. Updates can be issued for important issues - Banebots, IFI radio. Teams can be reminded of best-practice issues, such as how your ramp contacts the floor in Update 11, which didn't change a rule but amplified the existing rule. They can correct obvious misprints (parts lists) or unclear wording (ringer direction through the chute). Even in the first half of build season, I'd be accepting of a new rule that changes game strategy or robot build, due to an oversight that created a huge loophole.

The argument everyone is having is that FIRST is making these arbitrary decisions so late in the season. FIRST isn't big enough to be a bureaucracy - why do they act like one?

[Stu Bloom]

C'mon Kevin ... There is NO WAY this rule has seriously impacted any team's strategy ...Most probably true.

It is clear that the intent of the game is for the bonus points to be scored by the action of the robots, not by humans stacking them before the match begins.

IMO this rule change is mostly benign, and only serves to preserve the "intent" of the game.

Then why didn't they preserve this intent of the game back in January when the question was asked?
I can't argue with that logic, however I feel that was the mistake ... TU#18 is how it was fixed.

Remember, it is explicitly stated that the Q&A is NOT official. I will concede there is a problem with that since all answers are signed "GDC". I fully agree with those who would ask what good the Q&A system is if the teams can't rely on the GDC answers. But that is a completely separate issue.


Most here are upset only because their feathers were first ruffled by the TU#16 fiasco. I would agree that was a serious mistake by FIRST which would have had a devastating impact on many teams ... but fortunately has now also been corrected.

You're right. Without the uproar from a couple weeks ago, this would be only a small tempest in a teacup.

We should all let this go, and MOVE ON ...

Unfortunately, if we just move on, it will be business as usual. Others have pointed out absurd rulings that the GDC could make at any time - and I don't believe they ever would make such rulings. The point is that they can, any time they want. And issue it without any explanation except, "Because I said so."

Rules can be tweaked to make them consistent with other rules. Updates can be issued for important issues - Banebots, IFI radio. Teams can be reminded of best-practice issues, such as how your ramp contacts the floor in Update 11, which didn't change a rule but amplified the existing rule. They can correct obvious misprints (parts lists) or unclear wording (ringer direction through the chute). Even in the first half of build season, I'd be accepting of a new rule that changes game strategy or robot build, due to an oversight that created a huge loophole.

The argument everyone is having is that FIRST is making these arbitrary decisions so late in the season. FIRST isn't big enough to be a bureaucracy - why do they act like one?Unfortunately, as with many situations in life, that is entirely true. The only real recourse we have is to pack up our toys and go home. I prefer to play ...

We can debate "principle" and offer "what-if's" all day long. I know that any decision to publish a rules change is NOT taken lightly by the GDC. These are NOT "arbitrary" changes ... Every imaginable scenario is discussed and hashed out in an attempt to understand the full impact of the proposed change. The problem is, as Dave has stated numerous times (paraphrased), it's 10 brains (defining the game) vs. 30,000 (dissecting it for "loopholes") ... and 30,000 will always win ...

I often think I would like to be part of the GDC ... but then something like this comes along and I see how ungrateful some people are. I believe most of us share a real passion for this program ... for the RIGHT REASONS. Let's keep the big picture in focus and not forget why we are all here.

[Liz Smith]

There is currently no rule against using sprockets, gears, COTS transmissions, etc. ...Just because there wasn't a rule against something shouldn't give the GDC license to make up a rule that could seriously impact a team's robot and strategy in the middle of the competition season 5+ weeks after a teams has finished building their robot.

There is no rule against having tube manipulators either. So you are saying it would be OK for the GDC next week to outlaw those? And ramps the week after?

The GDC is setting a dangerous precident here by stating in the Q&A that there is no rule against it (therefore tacidly accepting the strategy) and then outlawing it 3 weeks into the competition AFTER a team successfully used the strategy.

Personally, I think Wildsatg and their alliance partners should share the Xerox creativity award for useing such a unorthodox strategy successfully.

But thats JMHO.

Ok, in my opinion (emphasis on the opinion part... don't hurt me), I believe the main difference between these counter examples, and the issue at hand is that this update in all likeliness is not going to affect any team's main strategy. Outlawing manipulators? Over 1/2 the teams would be out of commission.. same goes for the other examples.

I understand that the timing of this update seems a little 'after the fact', but once again, I really don't think it will affect the game play very much. I'm pretty sure the GDC is not out to get you.. they just want to make sure the game is fair and interesting for you, the players and also the spectators.

I applaud Wildstang for their creativity, and any other team that attempted this strategy, but I do not thing that outlawing it will seriously impact any team's personal strategy. Hopefully they will not be stuck in a similar position again, and if they are, perhaps they will come up with an equally creative solution.

[Tim Delles]

Now i've kept up with most of what has been going on since this update was released. A lot of people are talking about it disrupting a teams strategy, however that is not the biggest concern here.

Everyone should be concerned with the GDC committee creating rules halfway through the season that affects teams that cannot compete in a certain match. I must once again bring up the issue of the Wildstang match. Both of their partners were 'broken' (i use that loosely because i do not know exactly what was wrong with them). However Wildstang and that alliance decided to place the 2 robots that could not operate onto the field in an orientation that would eventually give their alliance a 30 point bonus. Now this is not a garunteed bonus, because a robot may enter the opponents homezone at anytime before the last 15 seconds. Given that this team disabled themselves to make sure they would not move and cost them the 30 point bonus, one of the 3 teams could have easily driven over to the homezone and push them out, causing the 30 point bonus to disappear.

As far as i can see there should not be an issue of where or how a robot starts the match. FIRST is about inspiring, and if you spend one match just sitting on top of a robot and helping your alliance win just 1 match, that is more inspiring than sitting in the pits unable to fix the problems you are experienceing with your robot. (believe me i have seen it all in FIRST both as a mentor and as a high school student)

But come on, I must reitterate this once more. This is not about winning or losing, its about the GDC creating rules that a formal representative of theirs said in the FIRST Q&A did not exist. The rules need to be set up, and clarified within the first couple of weeks of the build to prevent issues such as this from happening. Rules should not be changed after Regional Competition starts.

And a note for those that think we should let this go.

We are the customer, it is our responsiblity to voice our concerns when we see something that we do not like.

[BiTurboS4]

This situation is nothing new to many of you folks who have been involved with FIRST for more then a few years. So why the "uproar" if you could even call it that? I could see much more of a legit gripe with Update 16 issues, but this just seems to be nit picking. Its an almost non-existent strategy that has seen use in less then 5 matches in the "1500" that have been played already this year. So why can't people seem to drop the whole discussion?

Also, their was only 1 known phone call made to FIRST about the previous update 16 issue. If it was such a hot button, why such a lackluster response from teams?

[ALIBI]

Please give some benefit of a doubt to the GDC in the Q and A. At least when I read the Q and A I assumed that a robot would be placed a reasonable distance above the ground. Say ...a little over 12 inches to get 30 points, wouldn't that be OK? What happens when a 6' high robot sits on top of a 6' high robot? If that combination was pushed to the side and the upper robot fell off, how far into the isles would it land? Judges table? TV camera operator? Ref? What if the upper robot were to fall over the 6'6" alliance station wall while a defending robot was trying to push 230lbs + out of the end zone? For me it comes down to basic safety. I applaud 111, 1755, 1850 for thinking outside the box. I also applaud the GDC for recognizing what could be a safety factor IMO and preventing it before something bad happens. Besides, how many teams out there said hey, we want to build a robot that sits on top of another robot for 30 points? No body is realistically going to be hurt (pun intended) by making this change.

[JaneYoung]

Also, their was only 1 known phone call made to FIRST about the previous update 16 issue. If it was such a hot button, why such a lackluster response from teams?

Chief Delphi is a wonderful place for discussions regarding topics pertaining to FIRST but it isn't FIRST. I would think that if folks want to voice complaints regarding updates, that they would contact FIRST directly.

[Koko Ed]

What we call 'Progress' is the exchange of one nuisance for another nuisance.
Havelock Ellis (1859 - 1939)

If it isn't one thing its another.

Teams were awarded points for just sitting there in previous years (2002 i believe) and in 2005 only one robot had to move for you to win bonus points at the end. That being said, we can obviously understand why, i think that for many people, the issue is when. An issue that was already raised should be legal or not. Its silly to let some teams do it at one regional and not let other teams do it at other regionals.

Contact the high-ups around you if you really are concerned, like i said earlier. Tell it to people who can actually change it.

There is nothing more depressing than finsihing below a team in the standings that never came out of the pits like what happened to us in 2002.
It was very clever to discover the loophole but it needed to be changed.Have a little pride and put some effort into your points.

[Rich Ross]

There is nothing more depressing than finsihing below a team in the standings that never came out of the pits like what happened to us in 2002.
It was very clever to discover the loophole but it needed to be changed.Have a little pride and put some effort into your points.

It may be depressing, but its part of the game. I know i wouldn't like finishing below nonfunctional teams, but obviously this wouldn't even be a factor. The thing is, if at this point another update came out saying that stacking is ok, then it should never be used. So many people on CD and amongst each other have discussed the fact that this strategy is RIDICULOUSLY EASY TO STOP. You slide them out. Or even better, you drag them across the full field into your home zone, thus incurring 60 points of penalties against the opposing alliance. That, in many matches, will guarantee you at least a tie, if not a win. It's not something to be legislated. its not required that teams have a drive train, but its something that people realize is fairly necessary. Teams will realize that stacking is not practical. It's a last ditch effort.

[ChuckDickerson]

That's where you are mistaken. Given the right circumstances, it can still be worth 30 points. There is no rule that says an alliance partner can't push little 'ol boxy up another partners ramp. In fact, I've seen several teams help each other up ramps, I'm sure we all have. Why not set up boxy in the home zone next to where the ramps/platforms will be deployed so he can be pushed up before the end of a match? Sure, it'll take a few more seconds, but it'll be worth 30 points.
A somewhat similar display of teamwork can be found in this thread:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/27817

Well of course, but the assumption I was making was that this was only a strategy that would have been used if an alliance had 2 dead robots and thus there would not be a third partner to push one dead robot onto a ramp/lift (assuming one of the robots had a ramp/lift).

[Goldeye]

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=1280

If this isn't the GDC changing the game midseason, I don't know what is. If it was a mistake in the rules they could have fixed it two months ago. If the GDC's repeated willingness to change the rules midseason isn't enough of a problem, the fact that they do it to prevent a situation that has happened so rarely and really hardly warrants prevention in any way....
If.

[David Brinza]

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=1280

If this isn't the GDC changing the game midseason, I don't know what is. If it was a mistake in the rules they could have fixed it two months ago. If the GDC's repeated willingness to change the rules midseason isn't enough of a problem, the fact that they do it to prevent a situation that has happened so rarely and really hardly warrants prevention in any way....
If.The fact that it happened so rarely isn't the issue here. The new rule was made by the GDC to avoid having stacked robots become common. I don't think that the GDC envisioned this as a game strategy - even after ship date. I think that getting 30 easy points by basically doing nothing is not good for the game. The GDC recognized this and put an end to it.

I've asked this before, but nobody has answered:

Would you put your FUNCTIONAL robot on top of another and sit there for the entire match to "earn" 30 points?

If so, then why spend six weeks building a robot that does nothing??? I could do that in a day.

[Goldeye]

The fact that it happened so rarely isn't the issue here. The new rule was made by the GDC to avoid having stacked robots become common. I don't think that the GDC envisioned this as a game strategy - even after ship date. I think that getting 30 easy points by basically doing nothing is not good for the game. The GDC recognized this and put an end to it.

I've asked this before, but nobody has answered:

Would you put your FUNCTIONAL robot on top of another and sit there for the entire match to "earn" 30 points?

If so, then why spend six weeks building a robot that does nothing??? I could do that in a day.
I don't see why you'd ask the question of the case of the functional robot. The nature of the game makes scoring/defending then getting on top of a bot a better choice than sitting on top the whole time, if possible.

At any rate, I find it hard to believe that the GDC couldn't have envisioned this when it was mentioned and responded to by the GDC in Q&A days after kickoff (see the link in my previous post...)
This, like several other recent GDC decisions are changing the game for poor reasons. The rule regarding tubes under ramps is flat out lawyering and in contradiction to the spirit of several other rules.
This rule, while it would have been fine early in build season, is completely unwarranted now. It doesn't break the game. It would probably rarely to never decide the course of elimination matches, and if a team wins a qual match on it, they deserve it for designing a robot such that there is space to do this and recognizing the usefulness of this strategy. Nothing there outweighs the negative impact of changing the game this late.