Defensive Strategy - cornering opponents ball

[Gary Dillard]

This appears to be legal and a good strategy if you are going up against 2 good hurdlers, or if you have one big slow robot. If you push your opponent's trackball into a corner and "trap" it there, you can prevent them from getting potentially 8 points per lap versus the 2 points per lap you give up sitting there. The definition of herding allows continuous contact, and it doesn't meet the definition of being captured since the ball wouldn't keep the same position relative to your robot if you moved. You aren't impeding traffic so there is no requirement for you to move.

[Torboticsmember]

I'm pretty sure they mad the corners like they did to stop the balls from getting trapped in the corner. I'm pretty sure it says that somewhere in the manual

[Gary Dillard]

I'm pretty sure they mad the corners like they did to stop the balls from getting trapped in the corner. I'm pretty sure it says that somewhere in the manual

I agree that the 135 degree corners will make it more difficult to maintain control of the ball then a 90 degree corner, but I think it's still possible. We'll see how well it works if anyone tries it.

[SSMike]

What if a robot on the opposing alliance nudges you? If they got in a postition where you were technically impeding them, then you would have to move out of his way and free the trackballs from the corner. This is unless of course the rules specify that you only have to move if you are in the straightaways, which I believe they do not.

[IbleedPink233]

If you are in a corner, then you won't be impeding traffic, unless there are a lot of robots around you.
The rules say that you can herd as many balls as you want, potentially both of your opponents' :yikes: If you get them both into and inaccessible corner for half the match, then you would be making the game less fun, but you would get a serious advantage.

[Torboticsmember]

I thought the rules said that you could only herd 1 trackball

[Gary Dillard]

The only way I would be technically impeding them is if one of my alliance partners was blocking the rest of the track; there is over 14 feet worth of space between the corner and the lane divider, my robot and the ball will take up 6.5, which leaves enough room for a robot (even 2 robots) to go around me.

[Gary Dillard]

I thought the rules said that you could only herd 1 trackball

<G27> HERDING TRACKBALLS – ROBOTS may HERD one or more TRACKBALL at one time. ROBOTS shall not HERD a TRACKBALL while also being in POSSESSION of a second TRACKBALL. A PENALTY will be assigned for each infraction.

I hadn't thought of that - trapping both trackballs with one robot. Brilliant!

[IbleedPink233]

I thought the rules said that you could only herd 1 trackball
If I am not mistaken, you can "herd" as many as you can get your hands on. If you are in "possession" of a ball, then you can't herd any others.
Like I said, I think that ball-hogging will make the game get very old and dry very quickly and I hope that teams find strategies that go along with the spirit of the game instead.

[pakratt1991]

I thought is would be niffty to wait next to your opponents ball until they came into that zone to get it, then hit it into the previous zone, therefore making them go all the way around the field to retrieve their ball.

[Gary Dillard]

Like I said, I think that ball-hogging will make the game get very old and dry very quickly and I hope that teams find strategies that go along with the spirit of the game instead.

I believe it is in the spirit of the game is to score more points than your opponent within the rules. That means offense AND defense.

[jrdude]

this seems like a very good idea:]

[BrianD]

hmm...
Lets say you were cornering the ball. If one or two opposing robots came up beside you, so together you were all blocking the track, could they then bring in another robot and bump you to pass? Might be a counter to this strategy.

It probably be more interesting to simply knock the ball out of the field, but that's unfair to the other team.

[Dolan]

you could have one of your team bump them to counter the counter

[Gary Dillard]

hmm...
Lets say you were cornering the ball. If one or two opposing robots came up beside you, so together you were all blocking the track, could they then bring in another robot and bump you to pass?

<G40> ....
Note that a ROBOT is not IMPEDING traffic if:
• there is a clear “passing lane” around the ROBOT, or
• the IMPEDING ROBOT and the approaching ROBOT are from the same ALLIANCE (i.e. a ROBOT can not impede another ROBOT of the same ALLIANCE), or
• the ROBOT is in the process of HURDLING (except as noted in Rule <G43>).

My interpretation of this rule is that you are not impeding if the clear passing lane is blocked by the other alliance. They can't simply declare you to be the one who is impeding by bumping you.

[JesseK]

Get your alliance partner to act like he's stuck on a corner. Then you bump the opponent who's trapping the ball. BAM opponent has to move. Counter to the ridiculous counter of the loophole through the rule.

So let's say you decide to take this strategy with your bot:

There are now 3 opponent robots working together with a single track ball who are STILL scoring points. You my friend are not. You built a $10,000 robot that has the objective of sitting in a corner entraping a ball -- $10 worth of cinder blocks could do the same thing, so why even waste the engineering effort and money to build the machine?

Take this strategy and you will be outscored by an alliance that works together, and believe me after last year's bot-to-bot ramping there are quite a few teams who are figuring their strategies & designs based upon helping their alliance out in addition to their own team status.

[redbarron]

Get your alliance partner to act like he's stuck on a corner. Then you bump the opponent who's trapping the ball. BAM opponent has to move. Counter to the ridiculous counter of the loophole through the rule.

So let's say you decide to take this strategy with your bot:

There are now 3 opponent robots working together with a single track ball who are STILL scoring points. You my friend are not. You built a $10,000 robot that has the objective of sitting in a corner entraping a ball -- $10 worth of cinder blocks could do the same thing, so why even waste the engineering effort and money to build the machine?

Take this strategy and you will be outscored by an alliance that works together, and believe me after last year's bot-to-bot ramping there are quite a few teams who are figuring their strategies & designs based upon helping their alliance out in addition to their own team status.

I think the purpose of this strategy is to be a designated defensive bot its not a strategy that is going to ruin the game. There are still 2 other robots on your team. You would not be wasting money or engineering if your strategy pays off and wins you the match like Gary's signature says an ugly win is still a win..

[JesseK]

I think the purpose of this strategy is to be a designated defensive bot its not a strategy that is going to ruin the game. There are still 2 other robots on your team. You would not be wasting money or engineering if your strategy pays off and wins you the match like Gary's signature says an ugly win is still a win..

You miss the point completely.

[lukevanoort]

I don't think anyone is proposing building your robot with this as its sole purpose. If your [mechanism] breaks and you're up against a couple of good hurdlers, this might be a very useful strategy in your repertoire. You could drive in circles for a couple points a lap, or you could pin the ball and reduce one of your opponents' scoring ability from ten points per lap down to two. That seems like a useful backup strategy to me.

[Gary Dillard]

You miss the point completely.

OK, I guess I miss your point also. What was it exactly?

There are 3 robots on each alliance, and only 2 trackballs. Ignore hurdling for a moment; the other alliance can score 8 points per lap (3 robots + 1 ball x 2 pts each) and yours can also score 8 per lap (2 robots + 2 balls x 2 pts each) while you sit in the corner with 1 ball, so that's a draw. If you can trap 2 balls then the other alliance can only score 6 per lap versus your 8.

Now add hurdling. Your alliance has 2 balls with opportunity for the 6 point bonus each lap; the other alliance only has 1. How can that not be a benefit?

And why not use cinder blocks? Because accomplishing this strategy is not a done deal. You are going to have to fight to contain the balls - your robot needs traction, a good plow that protects but doesn't possess, some maneuverability. It needs to stow in the envelope and deploy to work.

If my robot can keep your robot from using its fantastic hurdler to score, who wasted the $10k? If defense wasn't a desirable aspect to the game, why not just put one alliance on the field at a time? Certainly you can score better with noone going against you. If your strategy involves scoring the ball you better design your robot to obtain a ball - which includes from the overpass or from the track or from another robot trying to block you.

[pheadxdll]

Instead of baracading yourself in the corner, why not take possion of the trackball and make your rounds around the track. That way you won't impede traffic and you'll earn points as well. Not a very nice strategy, but I guess you could call it defense.

Seems like its barely not against the rules to have possion of two trackballs as long as you don't hurdle one, but I will be amazed if anyone builds a robot that can keep in possion 2 40" diameter balls. :D

[artdutra04]

I don't see much of a return on investment in this.

While you sit there "blocking" the trackball: a. you are not scoring points. b. the other alliance can still be doing laps without the one of their trackballs and continuing to score points, and c. Contact in the bumper zone is still allowed, so long as it's not egregious behavior.

If a robot from the other alliance is trying to push my trackball into a 135o corner, I'd tell my drivers to just start pushing their robot. No high speed ramming or egregious behavior, just solid bumper-to-bumper contact. With the covers on the trackballs being so slippery, something will give, and I doubt that trackball will stay cornered for very long.

Now if there were 90o corners on the playing field, this strategy would be much more viable. But with the current field, I can't see it working for very long against a robot with a decent driver and drive train.

[Gary Dillard]

Instead of baracading yourself in the corner, why not take possion of the trackball and make your rounds around the track. That way you won't impede traffic and you'll earn points as well. Not a very nice strategy, but I guess you could call it defense.

Seems like its barely not against the rules to have possion of two trackballs as long as you don't hurdle one, but I will be amazed if anyone builds a robot that can keep in possion 2 40" diameter balls. :D

2 reasons:

1) <G29> POSSESSING Opponent’s TRACKBALLS - ROBOTS may not be in the POSSESSION of a TRACKBALL belonging to an opposing ALLIANCE. A PENALTY will be assigned for each violation. HERDING of an opponent’s TRACKBALL and removing an opponent’s TRACKBALL from the OVERPASS is permitted.

So, you can't possess the other alliance's ball, but you can herd it. But:

<G10> Each TRACKBALL that has CROSSED its own FINISH LINE while not in contact with a ROBOT of the same ALLIANCE will earn 2 points.

So, if you herd your opponents' ball around the track (and therefore across their finish line) you are scoring 2 pts for them, which offset the 2 pts you score for crossing your own finish line.

[lukevanoort]

2 reasons:

1) <G29> POSSESSING Opponent’s TRACKBALLS - ROBOTS may not be in the POSSESSION of a TRACKBALL belonging to an opposing ALLIANCE. A PENALTY will be assigned for each violation. HERDING of an opponent’s TRACKBALL and removing an opponent’s TRACKBALL from the OVERPASS is permitted.

So, you can't possess the other alliance's ball, but you can herd it. But:

<G10> Each TRACKBALL that has CROSSED its own FINISH LINE while not in contact with a ROBOT of the same ALLIANCE will earn 2 points.

So, if you herd your opponents' ball around the track (and therefore across their finish line) you are scoring 2 pts for them, which offset the 2 pts you score for crossing your own finish line.
If you're already in the lead (and can herd the ball very well), that might be useful though; it would drive up your RPs. Hurdlers still can't get the ball and the match score increases equally for both alliances, so the net effect is the same (assuming you can keep control of the ball).

[Gary Dillard]

If you're already in the lead (and can herd the ball very well), that might be useful though; it would drive up your RPs. Hurdlers still can't get the ball and the match score increases equally for both alliances, so the net effect is the same (assuming you can keep control of the ball).

Good point - a strategy in the end game to maintain the lead AND increase RP's

[IbleedPink233]

This will definitely be a viable strategy for many teams [I know of one team that will use it for sure (I wonder who it could be. . . 233, or other. . . ?)] - we'll just have to see how the game plays, how teams go about this strategy, and how creative/aggressive teams get when trying to counter it.

[Elgin Clock]

I don't see much of a return on investment in this.
While you sit there "blocking" the trackball: a. you are not scoring points. b. the other alliance can still be doing laps without the one of their trackballs and continuing to score points, and c. Contact in the bumper zone is still allowed, so long as it's not egregious behavior.
If a robot from the other alliance is trying to push my trackball into a 135o corner, I'd tell my drivers to just start pushing their robot. No high speed ramming or egregious behavior, just solid bumper-to-bumper contact. With the covers on the trackballs being so slippery, something will give, and I doubt that trackball will stay cornered for very long.
Now if there were 90o corners on the playing field, this strategy would be much more viable. But with the current field, I can't see it working for very long against a robot with a decent driver and drive train.

Someone forgot to take into account the force if ramming a ball in a corner, and it getting popped.



I'm glad I found this thread.

Here's an example of something that has happened.


Team A traps team B's trackball against the corner consisting of the grated area making the Robocoach's wall & the Lexan players station wall on Team A's lane side.
Team B can not get to their trackball without crossing the Lane Divider in the legal direction, & going around Team A in reverse (illegal way) over the Lane Divider line.
To do this, Team B would get at least one 10pt. penalty.

There is a clear way to go past, so Team A is not technically blocking a lane / impeding traffic. (No Penalty)

Team A pins Team B's ball there for a good 30 seconds while Team B makes an effort to get it by staying around Team A and bumping Team A so they will move away from the ball.

That's not the end of the story though.

Upon Team A finally letting up on the pinning strategy, & pushing it forward over the Lane Divider line, Team B grabs the ball... It's now losing air from being pinned so tightly into the wall.

Team B tries to grab the ball but fails at hurdling the ball as it falls out of their grabber before it is at a height to go over the Overpass & is made inactive on the field.
Now, with a minute or so left in the match, a new ball is made ready at the sidelines, but never put into the arena, and the popped ball sits there just losing more & more air with a new ball nowhere to be found.

Team B loses the match.

Team A is assessed no penalties for any play in question.
(Popped ball, impeding traffic, pinning an opponent's trackball)

Upon waiting for a decision, & seeing the score with Team B losing by a small amount (which a good ball would have been able to compensate for), the match & plays are legally disputed with a Student from Team B & the Head Referee, but no penalties are given to Team A, nor is a rematch granted.


What do you think about pinning a ball now, and the legality of it?

Actually, let's do one of these. Based on the 2008 rules, You make the call!!

[Alex Cormier]

Someone forgot to take into account the force if ramming a ball in a corner, and it getting popped.



I'm glad I found this thread.

Here's an example of something that has happened.


Team A traps team B's trackball against the corner consisting of the grated area making the Robocoach's wall & the Lexan players station wall on Team A's lane side.
Team B can not get to their trackball without crossing the Lane Divider in the legal direction, & going around Team A in reverse (illegal way) over the Lane Divider line.
To do this, Team B would get at least one 10pt. penalty.

There is a clear way to go past, so Team A is not technically blocking a lane / impeding traffic. (No Penalty)

Team A pins Team B's ball there for a good 30 seconds while Team B makes an effort to get it by staying around Team A and bumping Team A so they will move away from the ball.

That's not the end of the story though.

Upon Team A finally letting up on the pinning strategy, & pushing it forward over the Lane Divider line, Team B grabs the ball... It's now losing air from being pinned so tightly into the wall.

Team B tries to grab the ball but fails at hurdling the ball as it falls out of their grabber before it is at a height to go over the Overpass & is made inactive on the field.
Now, with a minute or so left in the match, a new ball is made ready at the sidelines, but never put into the arena, and the popped ball sits there just losing more & more air with a new ball nowhere to be found.

Team B loses the match.

Team A is assessed no penalties for any play in question.
(Popped ball, impeding traffic, pinning an opponent's trackball)

Upon waiting for a decision, & seeing the score with Team B losing by a small amount (which a good ball would have been able to compensate for), the match & plays are legally disputed with a Student from Team B & the Head Referee, but no penalties are given to Team A, nor is a rematch granted.


What do you think about pinning a ball now, and the legality of it?

Actually, let's do one of these. Based on the 2008 rules, You make the call!!

At first i thought you were talking about GTR and 1507's strategy once they were almost not operational. I would personally see it as a valid argument as a no penalty play as long as there is not anything with sharp edges on the robot that was pinning in the area that was in contact with the ball. If there is then, shouldn't they be in violation of the rules of harming the field elements? It is a unique strategy and will probably be used (if not already, you make it sound like it happened) sometime during week 6 and most likely down in Atlanta. I know how hard it is to stop even one amazing shooting robot. In many matches 1930 had a broken gripper and was being worked on as we were playing matches. I had my driver play some hard defense and played the ball more then the opposing robot. It proved to me there is defense in this game and can also be very legal. I even remember shutting down one of the top scoring robots via not letting even touch a ball. Also remember trying to stop 1126, but couldn't do it because of their speed and ability to grasp the ball so quickly. Maybe if I tried out the strategy you described here, we would have been more successful at stopping them.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Someone forgot to take into account the force if ramming a ball in a corner, and it getting popped.



I'm glad I found this thread.

Here's an example of something that has happened.


Team A traps team B's trackball against the corner consisting of the grated area making the Robocoach's wall & the Lexan players station wall on Team A's lane side.
Team B can not get to their trackball without crossing the Lane Divider in the legal direction, & going around Team A in reverse (illegal way) over the Lane Divider line.
To do this, Team B would get at least one 10pt. penalty.

There is a clear way to go past, so Team A is not technically blocking a lane / impeding traffic. (No Penalty)

Team A pins Team B's ball there for a good 30 seconds while Team B makes an effort to get it by staying around Team A and bumping Team A so they will move away from the ball.

That's not the end of the story though.

Upon Team A finally letting up on the pinning strategy, & pushing it forward over the Lane Divider line, Team B grabs the ball... It's now losing air from being pinned so tightly into the wall.

Team B tries to grab the ball but fails at hurdling the ball as it falls out of their grabber before it is at a height to go over the Overpass & is made inactive on the field.
Now, with a minute or so left in the match, a new ball is made ready at the sidelines, but never put into the arena, and the popped ball sits there just losing more & more air with a new ball nowhere to be found.

Team B loses the match.

Team A is assessed no penalties for any play in question.
(Popped ball, impeding traffic, pinning an opponent's trackball)

Upon waiting for a decision, & seeing the score with Team B losing by a small amount (which a good ball would have been able to compensate for), the match & plays are legally disputed with a Student from Team B & the Head Referee, but no penalties are given to Team A, nor is a rematch granted.


What do you think about pinning a ball now, and the legality of it?

Actually, let's do one of these. Based on the 2008 rules, You make the call!!

Sounds like great defense as long as the ball being popped was not caused by egregious (sp?) behavior or sharp points on team A.

Team A did not impede traffic, pinning the ball is not against the rules, and new track balls are entered into the field only when it is safe to do so.

Score 1 for the defense.

[GaryVoshol]

...

Team B loses the match.

Team A is assessed no penalties for any play in question.
(Popped ball, impeding traffic, pinning an opponent's trackball)

You make the call!!You already did. There is no penalty. You admitted they did not impede B, so no penalty for that. Popping the ball is not a penalty, although it could result in a re-inspection for sharp points or edges. Pinning the trackball against the wall is not possession:
POSSESSION: Controlling the position and movement of a TRACKBALL while the TRACKBALL is
supported or captured by an ALLIANCE shall be considered POSSESSION of the TRACKBALL. A
TRACKBALL shall be considered “supported” by a ROBOT if in the estimation of a reasonably
astute observer the majority of the weight of the TRACKBALL is being borne by the ROBOT. A
TRACKBALL shall be considered “captured” by a ROBOT if, as the ROBOT moves or changes
orientation (e.g. backs up or spins in place), the TRACKBALL remains in approximately the same
position relative to the ROBOT. Both the “supported” and “captured” conditions include the case
where the TRACKBALL is also in contact with the floor.

No penalty.

A rookie team, 2612, did this at GLR to shut down the opposing alliance, which included 47.

[Elgin Clock]

and new track balls are entered into the field only when it is safe to do so.

Do the rules define if the old bad trackball has to come out of the field before a new one goes in?

I find it extremely hard to believe with 4 possible open entry points on the field for a ball to be placed back in, that at no time in 1 minute was there not a "safe opportunity" to put one back in.

And yes, this did happen in a Week 5 regional.

[Alex Cormier]

Do the rules define if the old bad trackball has to come out of the field before a new one goes in?

I find it extremely hard to believe with 4 possible open entry points on the field for a ball to be placed back in, that at no time in 1 minute was there not a "safe opportunity" to put one back in.

And yes, this did happen in a Week 5 regional.

From what I have seen and heard at many regionals that I have attended, is that the popped ball stays on the field and the new ball is supposed to be placed as close as possible to the popped ball. In many cases this was not true and the new ball was just placed on the field with the easiest access point from where the extra balls were being stored.

[Travis Hoffman]

Do the rules define if the old bad trackball has to come out of the field before a new one goes in?

I find it extremely hard to believe with 4 possible open entry points on the field for a ball to be placed back in, that at no time in 1 minute was there not a "safe opportunity" to put one back in.

And yes, this did happen in a Week 5 regional.

Several balls were popped at GTR and they were rather promptly replaced. The old balls remained on the field - one presumes the popped ball was no longer scoreable once the new ball entered play.

The defense in your example seems perfectly valid.

[GBilletdeaux930]

yea cornering works...but be careful bout it...

during our first practice match our team attempted to push a ball away from another robot and then push it into a corner... well the ball popped up and bounced on top of us. we got penalized because the refs called that possesion of an opponents trackball.

now that was possession(supporting another teams trackball) but u gotta be careful because you don't know how picky the refs are going to be.

[Joe J.]

Its a valid strategy and in some cases the only one that will work. We used it as part of the #8 alliance of 291, 862, 573 in the quarterfinals against #1 66, 217, 910. We tried only having one robot play defense on the other trackballs and it didn't work 114 to 62, the next two matches we had two robots dedicated to playing keep away with other trackballs and 217, the first time it allowed us to tie them at 54 (with a penalty on them), then next we tried it again but they beat use by having 910 grab a trackball while we doubled up on 217 trying to keep the other away from them, then 217 was able to come around and grab the trackball 910 was holding and hurdle that one. Doing that they won 88 to 62. It was amazing (and slightly scary) looking down the field while coaching and seeing 217 pick up a trackball out of 910. Simply an awesome counter to our defense.

[web_master_dpep]

yea.Corning does work my team did it many time in finals. Funny tho how people will find the smalles loop holes and use it as defense...

[web_master_dpep]

Its a valid strategy and in some cases the only one that will work. We used it as part of the #8 alliance of 291, 862, 573 in the quarterfinals against #1 66, 217, 910. We tried only having one robot play defense on the other trackballs and it didn't work 114 to 62, the next two matches we had two robots dedicated to playing keep away with other trackballs and 217, the first time it allowed us to tie them at 54 (with a penalty on them), then next we tried it again but they beat use by having 910 grab a trackball while we doubled up on 217 trying to keep the other away from them, then 217 was able to come around and grab the trackball 910 was holding and hurdle that one. Doing that they won 88 to 62. It was amazing (and slightly scary) looking down the field while coaching and seeing 217 pick up a trackball out of 910. Simply an awesome counter to our defense.

You guys did great tho. Hope the best to you guys. im with 66. Are you going to Atlanta?

[Carlee10]

I think that this could be a very good strategy, and from the posts I've seen, it seems to work. But I think that it should only be used if your scoring mechanism is in some way disabled during the match. At kickoff(correct me if I'm wrong) it seemed to me that they really didn't want teams to play much defense, and that they wanted us to really try to challenge ourselves by trying to make a great scoring bot.

[George A.]

It's valid defense.

I know the round that Elgin is referring to (I think) and while I won't name names, the reason that a new trackball wasn't put onto the field, is that the old (popped) trackball was being brought around the field and attempted to score with. Which means that it wasn't declared "dead" until it was sitting on the field deflating. Had the team that picked up the deflating trackball decided to leave it, then a new ball probably would've been placed on the field.

The blocker wasn't pushing the ball against the wall in an attempt to pop it. It was simply sitting there, moving back and forth preventing the opposing alliance to grab onto it.

I say bravo, and I only hope that we see strategies like this in the future.

[cwood]

thats an interesting strategy, being on a team with a very offensive robot (we like to score) we would get very annoyed by this sort of passive defense. Yes it would work but is it really in the spirit of the game, from what i've seen as far as kick off and the rules, this game was ment to be almost purely offensive and this strategy just seems like teams, as some one above said, are finding loop holes and calling it defense. So yes a clever and most likely successful strategy but probaly not how the game was invisioned by the design team, not that there is anything wrong with thinking outside the box.

good luck with it we will see how it plays out in Atlanta

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Do the rules define if the old bad trackball has to come out of the field before a new one goes in?

I find it extremely hard to believe with 4 possible open entry points on the field for a ball to be placed back in, that at no time in 1 minute was there not a "safe opportunity" to put one back in.

And yes, this did happen in a Week 5 regional.

To my understanding the old ball does NOT have to be removed before the new one gets put ontothe field.

I cannot comment on there not being a safe oppertunity for a whole minute. I know at BAE the popped balls were removed (if possible) but the new ball was put in rather quickly. Do you have a TBA link to the match in question?

[web_master_dpep]

I think that this could be a very good strategy, and from the posts I've seen, it seems to work. But I think that it should only be used if your scoring mechanism is in some way disabled during the match. At kickoff(correct me if I'm wrong) it seemed to me that they really didn't want teams to play much defense, and that they wanted us to really try to challenge ourselves by trying to make a great scoring bot.

Thats what i was thinking. It seemed like FIRST tried to stay away from defense this year but teams tried to find ways and they did. If it was cornering the ball or when they go to get the ball to hurdle just bump to the last quadrent. We did the second on on accident and got a team to break the plain. oops. but i saw some good defense at GLR. Cant wait for atlanta. I want to see the defensive stratagies there.

[GBilletdeaux930]

If you watch 148 this week at Bayou during the elims(only ones i watched so they might have done this the rest of the comp to) it seemed like they gave up lap running and focused completely on defense.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

thats an interesting strategy, being on a team with a very offensive robot (we like to score) we would get very annoyed by this sort of passive defense. Yes it would work but is it really in the spirit of the game, from what i've seen as far as kick off and the rules, this game was ment to be almost purely offensive and this strategy just seems like teams, as some one above said, are finding loop holes and calling it defense. So yes a clever and most likely successful strategy but probaly not how the game was invisioned by the design team, not that there is anything wrong with thinking outside the box.

good luck with it we will see how it plays out in Atlanta

Some teams take pride in their defense, just as others take pride in their offense.

And I don't think playing defense is finding loopholes ... it's more finding ways to slow down those that think of offense only :p

[cwood]

i mean just this particular strategy of finding a way to inaffect control or possess two of your opponets trackballs(through the herding rule), and despite the nature of this years game there are a lot of affective defensive bots

[Joe J.]

You guys did great tho. Hope the best to you guys. im with 66. Are you going to Atlanta?


Thanks, it was a blast playing against you guys. Sadly no GLR was our last stop, though I believe 291 and 573 are going to Atlanta. Good luck to you guys.

[web_master_dpep]

Thank you. Well hope to see you guys next year at GLR.

[FoleyEngineer]

Its a valid strategy and in some cases the only one that will work. We used it as part of the #8 alliance of 291, 862, 573 in the quarterfinals against #1 66, 217, 910. We tried only having one robot play defense on the other trackballs and it didn't work 114 to 62, the next two matches we had two robots dedicated to playing keep away with other trackballs and 217, the first time it allowed us to tie them at 54 (with a penalty on them), then next we tried it again but they beat use by having 910 grab a trackball while we doubled up on 217 trying to keep the other away from them, then 217 was able to come around and grab the trackball 910 was holding and hurdle that one. Doing that they won 88 to 62. It was amazing (and slightly scary) looking down the field while coaching and seeing 217 pick up a trackball out of 910. Simply an awesome counter to our defense.

When we had played in the morning with two rookie teams that had no hurdling capability and limited lapping, we suggested they "feed us balls" and we'd hurdle them. That way we could get twice the bang for the buck as sometimes getting around the track can be a nightmare - especially when being "slowed" and defended heavily, or with traffic jams.

We talked about using this strategy with 217 before we started our first playoff match. Paul Copioli and I kept in constant communications behind the drivers watching to see how the opponents played us. If they let 217 get the ball, then we grabbed one ourselves and scored it (usually 3 to 4 a match which complemented their 5 to 6). If however they got boxed up or couldn't get a ball, we'd deliver our ball to them in our home zone and while they were shooting it, go get the other ball that had been left behind. That left the defender(s) caught between "waiting" for them to shoot and beginning to defend again, or going after us. Either way, we had a free bot to grab, and pass or score the other ball. Similarly if one of us got hung up on the overpass, the other alliance partner was there as fast as possible to free them. I think having the coaches discuss and plan stragegies like this ahead of time and then communicating during the matches can make all the difference in the world.

On another note, we also did the same type of planning for hybrid mode. It took us a few matches to work out the timing (delays) and positions so that all three of us could get our 3 or 4 lines without bumping into each other. An auton switch with a variable delay can be a lifesaver!

[vadyr]

I don't mean to sound nasty or negative, I really don't agree with all of this talk about pinning the ball. For one, it takes the whole concept of the game and crushes it. The game this year was designed to be an offensive game, not a defensive game. Sure, defense will always be a part of the game but it comes in other forms. How about instead of pinning the trackball and basically giving a low-blow to the other alliance, just keep it out of the opposing alliance's possession. Get in the way when they are trying to pick it up, or push it out of the way. If you really are trying to ruin the game then by all means pin the ball in a corner, but it is not a sportsman-like strategy. It may not technically be against the rules, but does it really seem right?

[ALIBI]

Is cornering an opponents trackball legal? This strategy is becoming very affective and will no doubt be a part of game play in Atlanta. I see nothing in the rules that prevents you from knocking an opponents trackball all over the field, the rules even allow you to herd and hurdle (knocking off overpass in a counter clockwise direction) your opponents trackball. As I read the definition of POSSESSION a few questions come to mind:

POSSESSION: Controlling the position and movement of a TRACKBALL while the TRACKBALL is supported or captured by an ALLIANCE shall be considered POSSESSION of the TRACKBALL. A TRACKBALL shall be considered “supported” by a ROBOT if in the estimation of a reasonably astute observer the majority of the weight of the TRACKBALL is being borne by the ROBOT. A TRACKBALL shall be considered “captured” by a ROBOT if, as the ROBOT moves or changes orientation (e.g. backs up or spins in place), the TRACKBALL remains in approximately the same position relative to the ROBOT. Both the “supported” and “captured” conditions include the case
where the TRACKBALL is also in contact with the floor.

If you have a trackball pinned between you and a field element, are you controlling the position of the trackball?

If you have a trackball pinned between you and a field element, by preventing the trackball from moving, are you controlling the movement of a trackball?

If you have a trackball pinned between you and a field element and when you move back and forth, the trackball stays pinned between you and the filed element, have you captured the trackball?

I do not necessarily like lawyering the rules. However, the GDC has made it clear that they do not want you to possess your opponents trackball. I see pinning your opponents trackball as approaching the fine line between affective defense and possession. When you pin a trackball, I believe you are controlling the position of that trackball. By definition, "and", you must also control the movement of the trackball. Is preventing the trackball from moving, also controlling the movement of the trackball. I don't know. Anyone else have any comments?

From the Q & A:

"The difference between Herding and Possession (specifically "captured") is inherent in the influence the Robot has over the Trackball's movement. A Robot is Herding if it pushes, bumps, rolls, etc a Trackball in a particular direction, but the Trackball is not controlled by the Robot. A Robot has "captured" a Trackball if it consistently controls the location of a Trackball with reference to the Robot.

We cannot comment on specific assemblies and designs."

If a trackball is consistantly pinned between you and a field element, or located between you and a field element, have you captured that trackball? Playing keep away is a permitted strategy, I am not sure that pinning a trackball is in the spirit of this years game.

[GaryVoshol]

Pinning the ball against a wall is not possession, because if the robot would move the ball would not move with it.

[ALIBI]

Pinning the ball against a wall is not possession, because if the robot would move the ball would not move with it.

I really do not have any problems with pinning going either way. It is just that when a trackball is pinned in a corner and an alliance can not get to it, it just looks captured.

[petek]

I had the best seat in the house to witness one example of this tactic: I was standing 6 ft away when 84 trapped their opponent's trackball against the robocoach fence and 103 successfully took it away - eventually. 84 did not possess or fully control the position of the ball at any time; they simply pushed it against the fence and made it difficult for 103 to get to it. Given the capabilities of those two machines, I feel this was the best tactic 84 could play. They certainly wouldn't have been able to harry a flying 103 on the run! But playing this game slowed their opponent down considerably, allowing their partners to close the gap with their faster-shooting opponents.

I feel that this is not a loophole or underhanded in any way, at least the way these teams played it. It was simply the best way that this robot could help their alliance partners. I believe that if the GDC had wanted this to be an offensive-only game, they would have put six trackballs on the overpass.

I'm pretty sure that 341 was overjoyed to find that 84 was still there for them to pick for their alliance, knowing how well they play alliance strategy and that they can be depended upon to play fair. They did win Philly together last year using much the same strategy, after all.

[SL8]

I gotta say we were "guilty" of this more than once, because at LSR the best way we saw for us to compete was to pin and push and block the trackballs away from our opponents in the semifinals at LSR.
We realized this after the first match (76,18) we lost and managed to almost eke out a win the second match (68,50) because of our defense. Unfortunately, our battery somehow shorted before halfway through the match.

Definitely not not GP though.

-Jesus

[Travis Hoffman]

I gotta say we were "guilty" of this more than once, because at LSR the best way we saw for us to compete was to pin and push and block the trackballs away from our opponents in the semifinals at LSR.
We realized this after the first match (76,18) we lost and managed to almost eke out a win the second match (68,50) because of our defense. Unfortunately, our battery somehow shorted before halfway through the match.

Definitely not not GP though.

-Jesus


Hey if Jesus says pinning trackballs is GP, how can you argue with that? :P

So it has been written. So it shall be done.

[SL8]

Hey if Jesus says pinning trackballs is GP, how can you argue with that? :P

So it has been written. So it shall be done.

I don't mind toomuch the puns on my name, some of them are actually funny.( Like this one)

When I said pinning, I did ean in the sense that we ran it agains the wall.

[JesseK]

It would seem that defensively bumping a trackball backwards after it's been hurdled would earn a much larger point differential than simply pinning a ball in place. It allows you to keep moving and forces the opponents to do 2 laps before hurdling that ball again (20-30 seconds of delay) instead of sitting in place for 15-20 seconds. Of course, this is subjective to being in the right place at the right time.

[SL8]

It would seem that defensively bumping a trackball backwards after it's been hurdled would earn a much larger point differential than simply pinning a ball in place. It allows you to keep moving and forces the opponents to do 2 laps before hurdling that ball again (20-30 seconds of delay) instead of sitting in place for 15-20 seconds. Of course, this is subjective to being in the right place at the right time.

I did mention pushing, but yes it all depends, especially when you consider that they will be getting four points on the way around and the opponent can come around in about 8 seconds only to pick up the ball.

[GaryVoshol]

Hey if Jesus says pinning trackballs is GP, how can you argue with that? :P

So it has been written. So it shall be done.

Wrong Testament. :)

[Travis Hoffman]

It would seem that defensively bumping a trackball backwards after it's been hurdled would earn a much larger point differential than simply pinning a ball in place. It allows you to keep moving and forces the opponents to do 2 laps before hurdling that ball again (20-30 seconds of delay) instead of sitting in place for 15-20 seconds. Of course, this is subjective to being in the right place at the right time.

Or try this - call it the Push-Pin strategy.....

Do what you said, but then have a partner pin it in their homestretch while you lap and do whatever. Repeat as necessary to achieve proper annoying effect........;)

Adds even more delay as not only would they have to lap the ball to get it "hurdleable" again, they'd have to waste even more time trying to pry it away from your defending partner first.

Even better, have your partner pass you your trackball across the opponent's finish line as you pass them the opponent's trackball. You would be free to grab your trackball, make the short quadrant jump to your homestretch, and hurdle away. Play a flexible offensive/defensive strategy throughout the match.

This all requires the proper coordination but it would be quite awesome to see, IMHO.

[SL8]

And as you said, the annoying effect, would affect them even more by impairing the drivers flow of adrenaline with thyroid hormones.:ahh: :D

[Beldo]

Interesting.

[SL8]

Congrats for picking your first post to consist of " interesting":D .
But seriously, actively participate more often, mkay? We don't bite.
On the driving not, I had utter confidence in our driver and believe that games can be won or lost based on the defense of each alliance as well as the offense.

[The Lucas]

I believe that if the GDC had wanted this to be an offensive-only game, they would have put six trackballs on the overpass.


I also think that the GDC wouldn't have written a definition of Hurdle that required the original robot to lose possession of the ball if they intended this game to be offense only. This Pinning a trackball is completely legal, as long as the trackball is on the floor (not supported) and not moving with the robot (not captured). It is a challenge to the driver and designers of the offensive robot to get the ball out of the pin quickly. This thread/strategy has been around since 1/6/08, so it was something to consider during build.

I have always thought the third robot is usually best served as a defense bot, since they can likely prevent more points in (high scoring) opponents hurdles then they can score (without one of their own trackballs) by simply doing laps (prevent 3 hurdles > 11 laps). Pretty much every alliance at I saw Philly tried trackball defense including pinning trackballs at some point with various degrees of success. Alliance 7 even tried using 2 robots to pin 2 trackballs. They succeeded in pinning one for the majority of the match. I was totally surprised how little defense there was in the qualification matches, considering Philly's rep in previous years.

At both regionals my team competed in, FLR and Philly, the alliance with the best trackball defender IMHO won. At FLR it was 2053 (with 20 & 191 & later 174) and at Philly it was 84. They can't win it without the offensive robots but they certainly play a key role in the "alliance" winning.

[Shadow503]

While pinning is definitely against the intent of the game, I do have to say it will make the championship interesting. I think we'll find more lower seeding box bots making it in to the finals and beyond because of defensive abilities.

I do have to warn any team that sees fit to pin our ball that I have no qualms against high speed "bumping" of the trackball to recover it . . .

[XaulZan11]

I do have to warn any team that sees fit to pin our ball that I have no qualms against high speed "bumping" of the trackball to recover it . . .

Just make sure you don't accidently hit the robot instead and recieve a high speed ramming penality.

[thefro526]

I will say this, pinning the trackball is one hell of a defensive strategy, it cost us the semi's in philly. If you need a defensive strategy, use this one and you effectively make any match with 2 hurdlers into a match with one hurdler and a hurdler that now has to run laps.

[Shadow503]

Yup, "accidently". . .

If you can't tell, pinning is really starting to tick me off because it's such a good defensive strategy XD (we have a highly offensive bot)! I'd recommend any team looking for defensive strategies try to pin the balls.

[JB987]

I will say this, pinning the trackball is one hell of a defensive strategy, it cost us the semi's in philly. If you need a defensive strategy, use this one and you effectively make any match with 2 hurdlers into a match with one hurdler and a hurdler that now has to run laps.

Gee, maybe if we are lucky both teams will pin both opponents trackballs so the spectators can take a well needed nap!

What we will probably begin to see is many versatile offensive teams using the low end of their shifters to separate the pinning bot from the trackball? The game will slow some and the scores will reduce in these instances, but I still see the game going in favor of the team actually scoring hurdles...

[FoleyEngineer]

As someone who's been on both sides of the pinning - having partners who pinned to help us and having to fight through pins, I wouldn't mind a modification to the rules - allow pinning for 10 seconds, and then force the bot to back off for say 3 feet and 3 seconds - just like last year. That way, they can't hold it forever but can slow things down.

My only other rule suggestion is to change the lane violation rule on the "end lanes" (not the overpass lanes) to NOT be a violation if you break the plane but only if your entire robot crosses back into the previous quadrant. That way, you could turn or move out of the way of another bot and as long as your entire robot didn't come back into the previous quadrant, you'd be fine. I think this would reduce those darned violations by a good 80% and everyone would be happy. The whole purpose was to keep people going clockwise and not be able to do tricky plane maneuvers around the finish line - both of which this would keep in effect.

[Bill Moore]

My only other rule suggestion is to change the lane violation rule on the "end lanes" (not the overpass lanes) to NOT be a violation if you break the plane but only if your entire robot crosses back into the previous quadrant. That way, you could turn or move out of the way of another bot and as long as your entire robot didn't come back into the previous quadrant, you'd be fine. I think this would reduce those darned violations by a good 80% and everyone would be happy. The whole purpose was to keep people going clockwise and not be able to do tricky plane maneuvers around the finish line - both of which this would keep in effect.

I am told that it is quite difficult to see the robot through the reflection and glare off the center divider at the opposite end of the field. This tweak would help alleviate that problem.

[Shadow503]

I am told that it is quite difficult to see the robot through the reflection and glare off the center divider at the opposite end of the field. This tweak would help alleviate that problem.
QFT. We need an amendment like this. What is the chance of FIRST releasing another update before championships?

[FoleyEngineer]

My only other rule suggestion is to change the lane violation rule on the "end lane dividers" (not the overpass lanes) to NOT be a violation if you break the plane but only if your entire robot crosses back into the previous quadrant. That way, you could turn or move out of the way of another bot and as long as your entire robot didn't come back into the previous quadrant, you'd be fine. I think this would reduce those darned violations by a good 80% and everyone would be happy. The whole purpose was to keep people going clockwise and not be able to do tricky plane maneuvers around the finish line - both of which this would keep in effect.

Who would complain? The offensive or defense bots? Not likely, as it seems everyone falls victim to this occasionally and it actually slows the game down. Not the refs as it would make their job a ton easier and reduce complaints. Not the fans, so I say let's ask them to do it!

[GaryVoshol]

Not the refs as it would make their job a ton easier and reduce complaints.Actually it would make it harder for the refs to see. Call the home stretch Quadrant 1, followed by Quadrant 2, Q3 (the other home stretch) and Q4. The ref who calls the lane marker crossing penalties is the one in Q2. She can clearly see that the robot has completely exited Q2 and entered Q3, and then breaks the plane back into Q2. If the requirement were that the robot had to completely cross back into Q2 before the penalty would be called, she wouldn't be able to tell if it was completely over the line because the robot itself would be obscuring her vision of the line.

[FoleyEngineer]

Well, I think you'd have so few violations of it this way, that it wouldn't really matter. Bots very seldom enter the entire way back into "Q2", it's usually just an arm or corner as they make the turn in traffic. I bet you'd see one every 4 or 5 matches... at best... which would be a tiny fraction of what they are now. Nobody likes the way it is now.

[Weis]

One of the teams that is mentored by us (Purdue FIRST Programs) had a cornering strategy that messed up, but ended up working wonders. We tried to ram one of the other team's trackballs away from them, and managed to knock it off of the field and down the aisle. It wasn't intentional, but it worked pretty well.

[s_forbes]

(Changing the line violation to work like that would allow people to go backwards and remove balls from the overpass behind them, which isn't allowed by the current rule. This may be why it hasn't been modified as everyone has suggested.)

But back on to the topic of cornering trackballs: it seems to me that this is something that was originally anticipated by the game designers, hence the lack of a rule to prevent it. But remember, if you pin both of your opponent's balls with two of your alliances' robots, you effectively have only one robot on the field that is doing anything. The other alliance has three teams that can all run laps while their trackballs are pinned, which will still get them a substantial amount of points!

Unfortunately for the defensive bots, this years game doesn't offer much of an endgame bonus (as compared to 06 and 07), so it is hard to play defense the entire match and pull out a win.

[riskkeeper205]

well i dono about that cuz if u hav a decent hurdler then the 3 oponents get 6 pts for every 10 ur team gets (8 for the hurdle and 2 for the lap) and if they can put one ball up at the end then ur alliance is pretty well off. the only flaw is if the oposing 3 alliance robots are a lot faster than ur hurdler, but other than that if u corner all the oponents track balls ur pretty well off.



although another thing that could mess u up is the hybrid mode. if the other alliance puts u in a big enough hole in the first 15 sec then u ll have to hav 2 hurdlers and defend only one of the oponent's track balls.

[Rick TYler]

well i dono about that cuz if u hav a decent hurdler then the 3 oponents get 6 pts for every 10 ur team gets (8 for the hurdle and 2 for the lap) and if they can put one ball up at the end then ur alliance is pretty well off. the only flaw is if the oposing 3 alliance robots are a lot faster than ur hurdler, but other than that if u corner all the oponents track balls ur pretty well off.

Forgive me for sounding like either an old guy or -- even worse -- an English teacher, but this isn't a cell phone or a chat forum. You're not in that much of a hurry, and could certainly find the time to type "your," "you," "because," "have," "opponents," "opposing," and "don't know." Using the "shift" key does not take any extra time, either. Doing things correctly is important in both robots AND language.

[GaryVoshol]

Forgive me for sounding like either an old guy or -- even worse -- an English teacher, but this isn't a cell phone or a chat forum. You're not in that much of a hurry, and could certainly find the time to type "your," "you," "because," "have," "opponents," "opposing," and "don't know." Using the "shift" key does not take any extra time, either. Doing things correctly is important in both robots AND language.

I'm another fogey who skips reading those kind of posts, rather than trying to decipher them.

[riskkeeper205]

Alright I'm sorry i will make sure to write correctly in the future. Thank you for telling me though so I can make that change. :)

[Shadow503]

. . .
But back on to the topic of cornering trackballs: it seems to me that this is something that was originally anticipated by the game designers, hence the lack of a rule to prevent it.

I'm not sure I follow your logic there. Are you suggesting that they would not have originally anticipated cornering of track balls if they did make a rule to prevent it? :confused:


But remember, if you pin both of your opponent's balls with two of your alliances' robots, you effectively have only one robot on the field that is doing anything. The other alliance has three teams that can all run laps while their trackballs are pinned, which will still get them a substantial amount of points!

Unfortunately for the defensive bots, this years game doesn't offer much of an endgame bonus (as compared to 06 and 07), so it is hard to play defense the entire match and pull out a win.

It still seems against the intent of the game. Do you really believe Woody Flowers intended four robots to be pinning track balls up against a wall while the two remaining robots run laps?

I'm not sure I buy all this "defensive bot" talk. It seems these robots are simply bots that are not capable of doing anything else. Anyone can slap a drive train on a control board and create a "defensive bot". If one has a robot that can not hurdle/herd and is not even fast enough run laps the appropriate term is box bot.

I believe this is why the game creators put such little value in defense this year. They want to encourage teams build a robot to actually play the game. They don't want teams to put together some robot that can be thrown into any game and called a "defensive bot". They want us to put some real thought in to our bots. They want us to truly engineer a unique piece of machinery. They want us to craft arms for hurdling. They want us to design complex shooters to launch the ball over the overpass. They want us to build grippers to quickly retrieve the track ball. They want us to engineer speedy drive trains to rack up laps.

They don't want us throwing wheels on an iron frame and pinning track balls in the corner.

Come on people, lets play the game!

[s_forbes]

I'm not sure I follow your logic there. Are you suggesting that they would not have originally anticipated cornering of track balls if they did make a rule to prevent it? :confused:


Heh, I meant that they had thought of it and decided not to make a rule against it. The GDC thinks of everything, you know!


As for whether or not the defense belongs in the game, it's obvious that the GDC was trying to encourage teams to build offensive robots this year (which is why all of these darn penalties are required...), but there are always going to be teams that cannot complete the task and end up with a half-done robot that can't run fast laps or hurdle the ball. I think this was anticipated, and so no rules were made to stop these teams from intercepting/playing keep away with the other alliance's trackballs. But with the way the scoring works, there isn't a good chance for a team to win with this type of defensive strategy.

(As a side note, I used to be way against defense, especially after Rack'n'Roll. Now I see that it is just another part of the challenge. Don't fight it, just overcome it with a better robot. :))

[Valley Raider]

you could have one of your team bump them to counter the counter

thats doesn't work, the penalty is charged to the bot that is causing the back up not the one that is trying to pass.

[Shadow503]

As for whether or not the defense belongs in the game, it's obvious that the GDC was trying to encourage teams to build offensive robots this year (which is why all of these darn penalties are required...), but there are always going to be teams that cannot complete the task and end up with a half-done robot that can't run fast laps or hurdle the ball. I think this was anticipated, and so no rules were made to stop these teams from intercepting/playing keep away with the other alliance's trackballs. But with the way the scoring works, there isn't a good chance for a team to win with this type of defensive strategy.
I guess this is where our opinions split. I believe a team with a half-done robot should not be able to effectively compete.

Teams like us have spent too many hours building a powerful bot to have our scoring potential neutralized by a half-done box bot ("defensive bot"). The game creators intended to reduce pinning. This can be found by the lack of any 90 degree corners in the track. Unfortunately, teams are still able to pin a ball.

I've done the math and I have a counter pinning strategy: high speed ramming. If I can get our 120lb bot moving at 20 ft/s we should be able to disable/dislodge the defensive bot/track ball. A single lap w/ hurdle will be sufficient to cover 10pt penalty. After this, one of four things happens:
A) The defensive robot has been damaged and is no longer able to play defense
B) The defensive robot is still working, but we are able to keep control of the ball
C) The defensive robot, while still working, has realized it is in their best interests to not pin the ball
D) The defensive robot, still working, pins the ball after we come around the track again. We repeat the ramming maneuver and hurdle (with no net point loss) and hope for conditions A),B), or C) next time around.

Most defense bots are weak KOP bots, so I have a feeling condition is A) is the likely outcome.

Yes, it might not be the most GP solution, but neither is pinning. Pinning was not in the intent of the game creators and promotes laziness in bot design and construction. Pinning will lead to boring, low scoring matches. I intend to change that. I encourage other teams with competitive robots to do the same to keep this years game interesting.

See you at Nationals!:D

[Paul Copioli]

Shadow503,

You must not be playing the same game we are. As a team subjected to quite a lot of defense, there are some fully complete robots that have an excellent drive train and a decent shooter that can play some mean defense against that ball.

I watched every single one of our GLR matches on video and we had single, and sometimes double, defense against us in every match except 1 but we managed to play through it.

The ability to play through defense is key in almost every FIRST game, so I suggest you figure out how to play through it because camplaining about it isn't going to make it go away.

-Paul

[SL8]

I don't think its fair to say that most defensive robots are half done or weak KOP robots. Even if they are, you have to remember that it takes more than a well built robot or good programming and design. Put that on the field and the robot might perform half decent. Put a good driver who has had practice and it should do phenomenal. So even if a half done robot is blocking your way, think about this, why is it able to do so?

[Rick TYler]

I watched every single one of our GLR matches on video and we had single, and sometimes double, defense against us in every match except 1 but we managed to play through it.

The ability to play through defense is key in almost every FIRST game, so I suggest you figure out how to play through it because camplaining about it isn't going to make it go away.

Great point, Paul. Ever since our FTC tournament in late February I've wondering why 575 didn't do better. Of the three robots our program fielded, they had by far the highest scoring potential, and worked perfectly every minute of every match. It was the only one of our three 'bots that didn't have some sort of mechanical problem during the event, and yet it finished qualifying ranked in the teens (out of 28), and only dominated a couple of matches. This week I finally got the video from the mentor who was shooting our matches and watched the entire thing. In every single match after the first, 575s opposition keyed on them. No matter what they were trying to do, there was an opposition 'bot trying to stop them.

417 finished ranked first after quals, using a lower-scoring strategy than 575s, but one that was much more difficult to block. 417 was ranked first after qualifications. By using a pretty-good strategy that was hard to stop they ended up being more effective than the high-potential, but easier-to-block 575. One more thing to add to my mentor's "strategic concerns to go over with the teams" list. If you build a good robot, the opposition will focus on stopping you -- even to the extent of abandoning their own scoring.

A good robot can score a lot of points. A great robot can do it when the other alliance does everything they can to stop it.

[Herodotus]

I don't see why people keep saying things like "It's not what the GDC intended." The truth is it doesn't matter what the GDC intended, they wrote rules, and we are to follow those rules. Anything that falls within those rules is a valid strategy. Our job is to play the game that the GDC gave us, not the one we think they should have given us.

[XaulZan11]

I don't see why people keep saying things like "It's not what the GDC intended." The truth is it doesn't matter what the GDC intended, they wrote rules, and we are to follow those rules. Anything that falls within those rules is a valid strategy. Our job is to play the game that the GDC gave us, not the one we think they should have given us.

Exactly. I also think that we don't really know the 'real intent' of the rules. By saying 'that goes against the intent of the rules and thus shouldn't be done', is almost like saying 'the protection of hurlders goes against the intent of the rules, so I'm not going to follow that rule'. It doesn't matter what people think the 'intent of the rules' is, we have the play the game that was given to us and not make our own inteprentations and intents.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

I guess this is where our opinions split. I believe a team with a half-done robot should not be able to effectively compete.

Teams like us have spent too many hours building a powerful bot to have our scoring potential neutralized by a half-done box bot ("defensive bot"). The game creators intended to reduce pinning. This can be found by the lack of any 90 degree corners in the track. Unfortunately, teams are still able to pin a ball.


If your "powerful bot" can be neutralized by a "half-done box bot" then I put forth that your bot isn't all that powerful.

More likely, the fact is your team did not take into account defensive strategies ... so now you are crying foul.


I've done the math and I have a counter pinning strategy: high speed ramming. If I can get our 120lb bot moving at 20 ft/s we should be able to disable/dislodge the defensive bot/track ball. A single lap w/ hurdle will be sufficient to cover 10pt penalty. After this, one of four things happens:
A) The defensive robot has been damaged and is no longer able to play defense
B) The defensive robot is still working, but we are able to keep control of the ball
C) The defensive robot, while still working, has realized it is in their best interests to not pin the ball
D) The defensive robot, still working, pins the ball after we come around the track again. We repeat the ramming maneuver and hurdle (with no net point loss) and hope for conditions A),B), or C) next time around.

1> High speed ramming is against the rules
2> Strategies designed to damage other bots or the field will get you DQ'd
3> Most defensive bots I've encountered are built stronger than their offensive counterparts because they 'expect' contact.

Have fun with your strategy. I'll be there to assist the other guy putting his robot back together while your team goes home after being DQ'd


Most defense bots are weak KOP bots, so I have a feeling condition is A) is the likely outcome.


Please show me your evidence that defensive bots are weak KoP bots.


Yes, it might not be the most GP solution, but neither is pinning. Pinning was not in the intent of the game creators and promotes laziness in bot design and construction. Pinning will lead to boring, low scoring matches. I intend to change that. I encourage other teams with competitive robots to do the same to keep this years game interesting.

See you at Nationals!:D

Please show me your evidence that pinning was not the intent of the game creators. My guess is that they knew some teams would try this strategy and a few would actually get good at it.

If you try to destroy others robots and encourage others to do the same ... don't be surprised when it happens to you.

Have fun at the nationals ;)

[SL8]

If your "powerful bot" can be neutralized by a "half-done box bot" then I put forth that your bot isn't all that powerful.

More likely, the fact is your team did not take into account defensive strategies ... so now you are crying foul.


1> High speed ramming is against the rules
2> Strategies designed to damage other bots or the field will get you DQ'd
3> Most defensive bots I've encountered are built stronger than their offensive counterparts because they 'expect' contact.

Have fun with your strategy. I'll be there to assist the other guy putting his robot back together while your team goes home after being DQ'd



Please show me your evidence that defensive bots are weak KoP bots.



Please show me your evidence that pinning was not the intent of the game creators. My guess is that they knew some teams would try this strategy and a few would actually get good at it.

If you try to destroy others robots and encourage others to do the same ... don't be surprised when it happens to you.

Have fun at the nationals ;)

I'm hearing yet another echo.:D
I think the concensus is that if you can be stopped by a defensive bot then it is your problem to deal with, not complain about. ( or at least not ours.)

[Shadow503]

If your "powerful bot" can be neutralized by a "half-done box bot" then I put forth that your bot isn't all that powerful.

More likely, the fact is your team did not take into account defensive strategies ... so now you are crying foul.

I'm curious how you suggest teams take into account for defensive strategies. If a ball is pinned against a wall, what can a team do besides ignore it and do laps? My point is that any offensive bot can be neutralized by this technique.

If a ball is pinned against a wall there is nothing even the best bot can do about it. That is the biggest thing that separates pinning from previous defensive strategies. In previous years, a defensive bot had to be robust and have a solid drive train. This year, the rules protect a pinning bot from contact so a cardboard box with wheels could effectively carry out this "strategy".

1> High speed ramming is against the rules

Yes, and a single hurdle + lap will eliminate that penalty.

2> Strategies designed to damage other bots or the field will get you DQ'd
3> Most defensive bots I've encountered are built stronger than their offensive counterparts because they 'expect' contact.

If they are built so robustly then they have nothing to worry about. I don't intend to damage the robot. I simply wish to dislodge the ball. If the robot gets damaged, then so be it. A yellow card is just a warning, and it also disappears once the finals start.


Please show me your evidence that defensive bots are weak KoP bots.


. . .
but there are always going to be teams that cannot complete the task and end up with a half-done robot that can't run fast laps or hurdle the ball. I think this was anticipated, and so no rules were made to stop these teams from intercepting/playing keep away with the other alliance's trackballs.

I don't think anyone is proposing building your robot with this as its sole purpose. If your [mechanism] breaks and you're up against a couple of good hurdlers, this might be a very useful strategy in your repertoire. You could drive in circles for a couple points a lap, or you could pin the ball and reduce one of your opponents' scoring ability from ten points per lap down to two. That seems like a useful backup strategy to me.

Ok, maybe not KOP bots, but many people are suggesting that defense be used by defective/half-finished bots.


Please show me your evidence that pinning was not the intent of the game creators.

135 degree angles on the walls. A right angle would be much more easily manufactured, but the GDC still chose to use 135 angles (which make it more difficult to pin). If you also look at the other rules, they discourage defensive play this year. I'm pretty sure the GDC doesn't want four bots to park themselves in the corners pinning balls while the other two remaining bots run laps. That leads to very dry gameplay.


If you try to destroy others robots and encourage others to do the same ... don't be surprised when it happens to you.

Have fun at the nationals ;)
I don't encourage the destruction of other robots, I'm simply suggesting a way to prevent a loophole from ruining this years game. And as you've previously stated, defensive bots are built strong, so they should have no problem holding up to our attempts to bring the track ball back in to play. ;)

See you at nationals!

[SL8]

135 degree angles on the walls. A right angle would be much more easily manufactured, but the GDC still chose to use 135 angles (which make it more difficult to pin). If you also look at the other rules, they discourage defensive play this year. I'm pretty sure the GDC doesn't want four bots to park themselves in the corners pinning balls while the other two remaining bots run laps. That leads to very dry gameplay.


I don't encourage the destruction of other robots, I'm simply suggesting a way to prevent a loophole from ruining this years game. And as you've previously stated, defensive bots are built strong, so they should have no problem holding up to our attempts to bring the track ball back in to play. ;)

See you at nationals!

I think you're forgetting the diversity that occurs every year.

[Herodotus]

I'm curious how you suggest teams take into account for defensive strategies. If a ball is pinned against a wall, what can a team do besides ignore it and do laps? My point is that any offensive bot can be neutralized by this technique.

Very simple, push them out of the way. There is nothing to prevent bumper to bumper contact. If we had chosen to use our drive train from last year we could have pushed any of the defensive bots out of the way, very easily. We could even have pushed other bots sideways in some cases. Also, you could simply not let them pin in the first place. Part of the game this year, I would almost say the most important part, is ball control. You must be able to pick up quickly and reliably and a team that does this can make it so another team never has the chance to play defense in the first place.

Finally, I direct you to the eliminations at GLR. There you can see a very fine showing of counter-defense between us (910) and the Thunderchickens. Above all else teamwork can prevent defense from shutting you down.

Also the 135 degree walls are likely there to give the track a somewhat oval appearance, to simulate a race track. Not for any specific anti defense reason.

[lukevanoort]

Alex, I'll be honest with you, I think that your argument is baseless. Defense is a valid strategy, and as an offensive robot, you must play through it or lose. Also, if defense-oriented robots were so weak and flimsy, you should have no trouble dealing with them unless your robot is similarly weak or flimsy; all you have to do is push them out of the way. In addition, a strategy that has severely damaging or destroying opposing robots as one of its main goals has no place in this game, and I would hope the refs would DQ any team trying such a foul strategy. A side note, calling other robots "half-finished" or "defective" is just bad manners, and is very rude.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Who said anything about running laps. Our bot, in low gear, drives @ 5' per second and has 175+ LB pushing force. Very few "half-done box bots" won't be pushed by us. And we don't need to ram.

Design for defense ... because it will happen once you prove yourself a scoring threat.


Planning on high speed ramming will get you DQ'd under <G37>

ROBOT to ROBOT Interaction - Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage, tipping over, or entanglement of ROBOTS are not in the spirit of the FIRST Robotics Competition and are not allowed.

I've done the math and I have a counter pinning strategy: high speed ramming. If I can get our 120lb bot moving at 20 ft/s we should be able to disable/dislodge the defensive bot/track ball. A single lap w/ hurdle will be sufficient to cover 10pt penalty. After this, one of four things happens:
A) The defensive robot has been damaged and is no longer able to play defense
B) The defensive robot is still working, but we are able to keep control of the ball
C) The defensive robot, while still working, has realized it is in their best interests to not pin the ball
D) The defensive robot, still working, pins the ball after we come around the track again. We repeat the ramming maneuver and hurdle (with no net point loss) and hope for conditions A),B), or C) next time around.

This is the most un-GP statement I've ever seen, and shows that you are far more interested in winning than in doing what is right.

135 degree wall sections proves nothing other than it's different from years ago ... not that the GDC did not want or expect pinning of the trackballs. At best it's your estimation of what the GDC wanted. And your opinion is biased because your "powerful bot" was unable to compensate for this "simplistic" defense (in fairness, my opinion is probably just as biased even though we built a lap bot this year).

Also think that your arm / gripper / manipulator very well could be outside the bumperzone and any interaction with that will give you another 10 point penalty and may get you disabled / Yellow carded / DQ'd.

Again, have fun with your strategy at the championships.

[SL8]

I gotta say, it seems like we are going in circles with this one. I'm gonna run out ways to reword what I've already said.:ahh:

[GaryVoshol]

The game creators intended to reduce pinning.Then why didn't they simply outlaw it? Reduce <> prohibit.
I have a counter pinning strategy: high speed ramming. So to counteract a strategy that is not prohibited in the rules, you will employ a strategy that deliberately breaks the rules. And you're questioning the other team's GP?

A yellow card is just a warning, and it also disappears once the finals start.But a second yellow card results in a DQ. And each and every one after that results in a DQ. You won't be racking up many wins in qualifying matches that way. And who would choose a robot in an alliance that might get the whole alliance DQ'd in the eliminations?
135 degree angles on the walls. A right angle would be much more easily manufactured, but the GDC still chose to use 135 angles (which make it more difficult to pin).
And it would be easier to hurdle if the overpass was only 4.5 feet tall, not 6.5. I guess that means the GDC didn't intend us to hurdle, else they wouldn't have made it so difficult.
If you also look at the other rules, they discourage defensive play this year.Some kinds of defense are outlawed. How do you jump to the conclusion that this discourages all defense?
I'm pretty sure the GDC doesn't want four bots to park themselves in the corners pinning balls while the other two remaining bots run laps. That leads to very dry gameplay.If they had not wanted that, why didn't they say so in the rules? There's been no Team Updates since Week 2. Don't you think they would have changed the rule if that's what they really wanted?

[Shadow503]

Alex, I'll be honest with you. Your argument reminds me of one you would hear from a spoiled rich kid with a sports car who gets pulled over for speeding.

Geez, has our discussion really regressed to personal attacks? I care little for how you interpret my arguments.

Defense is a valid strategy, and as an offensive robot, you must play through it or lose. Also, if defense-oriented robots were so weak and flimsy, you should have no trouble dealing with them unless your robot is similarly weak or flimsy; all you have to do is push them out of the way. In addition, a strategy that has severely damaging or destroying opposing robots as one of its main goals has no place in this game, and I would hope the refs would DQ any team trying such a foul strategy.

You're sending mixed messages. At first you say that offensive bots should have no problem dealing with defense bots if they are weak. Then immediately after that you condemn damaging opposing robots. I'm not sure I understand exactly what you propose offensive bots do.

I'll clarify my previous statement. The goal of my strategy is to simply dislodge the ball. The last thing I want to do is to destroy another teams robot. Herodotus suggested pushing, and I agree with him. This will allow competitive bots with a good drive train to move the pinning bot. Yes, my suggestion for high speed ramming may have been blunt. Pushing is a more reasonable solution.


A side note, calling other robots "half-finished" or "defective" is just bad manners, and is very rude.
I'm only using words that were used by supporters of pinning in the past few pages. Is it really rude if I haven't actually named any robots? Please consider your own personal attacks when you wish to point fingers about being rude.

[SL8]

I really don't like the way this thread is going,
how about we have some hot chocolate and heatedly discuss, rather than argue, about it eh?

Really, words do not peirce hearts, people do. So no, it is only the usage and implications of said usage that render words poisonous.

-Jesus

Edit. Or Lemonade.

[Shadow503]

Yes, lemonade would probably be a better idea right now!:cool:

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Lemonaid sounds real good :D

[lukevanoort]

Alex, I apologize, I did not mean to attack you, just your argument. On a second reading, I see how easily that difference is missed, and so have modified the line.

Now, lacking lemonade, I'll go play some guitar.

[SL8]

Alex, I apologize, I did not mean to attack you, just your argument. On a second reading, I see how easily that difference is missed, and so have modified the line.

Now, lacking lemonade, I'll go play some guitar.

I can only play real guitar so-so, so onward to Rock Band.:cool:

[Shadow503]

Maybe it would be a good time for a lock on this thread. Both sides have discussed their opinions and I think we've all come to the conclusion that we won't come to a conclusion. We all know it is both a legal and effective strategy. All the rest is just a matter of perspective.

[SL8]

Maybe it would be a good time for a lock on this thread. Both sides have discussed their opinions and I think we've all come to the conclusion that we won't come to a conclusion. We all know it is both a legal and effective strategy. All the rest is just a matter of perspective.

Here we go with the echoes, but I agree.

[Travis Hoffman]

Maybe it would be a good time for a lock on this thread. Both sides have discussed their opinions and I think we've all come to the conclusion that we won't come to a conclusion. We all know it is both a legal and effective strategy. All the rest is just a matter of perspective.


Up until around post #85, no one would have suggested this thread required a lock. If people can avoid the antagonism and focus on the meat of the conversation, there's no reason to stifle the discussion.

That being said, I do wonder if there's much more for anyone to lend to this particular topic. But I'd submit cooler heads still have a right to share any as-yet uncommunicated insight. Locking this thread would deny that right.

If there's nothing more constructive that needs to be said, then it won't be said.

[SL8]

Up until around post #85, no one would have suggested this thread required a lock. If people can avoid the antagonism and focus on the meat of the conversation, there's no reason to stifle the discussion.

That being said, I do wonder if there's much more for anyone to lend to this particular topic. But I'd submit cooler heads still have a right to share any as-yet uncommunicated insight. Locking this thread would deny that right.

If there's nothing more constructive that needs to be said, then it won't be said.

Good point. Regardless of the most recent post, we should be able to post here rather than have to waste space creating a new thread.

[JackN]

I am a big fan of pinning an opponents ball. Anyone who thinks that this strategy is Un-GP or against the intent of the rules is kind of just whining about not having a robot that can counteract a smart play. I can think of several teams that are able to fight their way in and can pick up a ball that is pinned against a wall (PM me and I can give you some of these teams). Those people that say how boring it would be to watch a match where all 4 balls are pinned, I disagree completely. That would be very interesting to watch, does a team try to grab a pinned ball and let their opponents get a lap lead, or do they just try and out run their opponents and hope they can win that way. I expect that at least one team on Einstein will be pinning a ball and limiting the scoring for the opposing alliance.

[Aren_Hill]

I am a big fan of pinning an opponents ball. Anyone who thinks that this strategy is Un-GP or against the intent of the rules is kind of just whining about not having a robot that can counteract a smart play. I can think of several teams that are able to fight their way in and can pick up a ball that is pinned against a wall (PM me and I can give you some of these teams). Those people that say how boring it would be to watch a match where all 4 balls are pinned, I disagree completely. That would be very interesting to watch, does a team try to grab a pinned ball and let their opponents get a lap lead, or do they just try and out run their opponents and hope they can win that way. I expect that at least one team on Einstein will be pinning a ball and limiting the scoring for the opposing alliance.


Yay for low gear and grippy tires, we'll get that ball

[SL8]

Good point. Regardless of the most recent post, we should be able to post here rather than have to waste space creating a new thread.

Somehow, I think we activated a deluge of new post.:yikes:

[Bill Moore]

Design for defense ... because it will happen once you prove yourself a scoring threat.

This is key. Many teams lock into an idea immediately after their brainstorming sessions and rush off to prototype. Equal importance should be given to developing a "Threat" team to consider counter strategies to the robot design, so improvements can be made during prototyping.

Strategy is rarely static, and how you design your robot isn't always the best way to win the game.