Breakaway Discussion

[Joe Schornak]

For all things related to the new FRC game.

What are your thoughts?

[Elgin Clock]

Pretty dynamic game from a first glance. I think I like it! (so far). lol

I hope people start reading the manual ALL THE WAY THROUGH before they start posting questions here.

Just by paying attention to the kickoff I have already been able to answer a few questions some friends had (not on CD), but am certainly no expert on Breakaway yet.

[engunneer]

There's going to be a ton of variety and clever solutions to the various problems this year.

I think the center zone will be key. You need to score from the center zone to be effective.

the 3-point hanging robot will not be very common, but adding lower hang bars for other robots to grab will be a nice way to encourage it.

Shorty robots that can go through the passage and are fast will be a big one. I hope some teams use the vision system to align to the floor stripe too, since fittting through that space will be tough.

Teams should also make sure all the other teams have something to prevent caught balls on top of the robot. There will be a lot of penalties for that particular issue.

My $0.02

[vic burg]

I'm JUST getting to see the video! I'm Emceeing my first FLL event, so I've been just a little bit busy this morning. I can't use sound though but I LOVE the separation of the robots. Although I may end up not liking it much later, right now I do. As for the extra gate well, it makes sense. Just might be a pain when changing matches, having 4 robots moving in and out, though they could use the other gates, it's obviously going to be a bit harder.
I like that the robots can go under the bridge, as I will call it. I think it's a mix of volleyball and soccer, as far as the balls go. I will have to write more later once I look over the rules.

BACK TO EMCEE!

[hyperdude]

It made me and my brother laugh when Dean said that thankfully the scoring this year is understandable to human beings.


I also thought it was funny how Dean said "Oops! This year's game..." and that the pre-reveal video basically showed the game.


I think that this game will finally be one (for us, at least... our first year was Overdrive) that we can easily build practice fields for, and actually practice. Overdrive, we only got one ball, and we didn't have the time to build an overpass. Lunacy: we had 4 orbit balls, and never bothered to go shopping for Regolith (though the school hallway's tile floors helped a bit)

[-42-]

I am awaiting the many falling robots, they are inevitable with the bonus system. Otherwise the challenge seems a lot easier than last years. "Tunnel Tanks" will abound though.

[lyezzie]

Anybody have the new animation for Breakaway?

[sPod]

yup.

http://robotics.nasa.gov/events/2010_frcwebcasts.php


anyone know the robots dimensions yet?

[ScottOliveira]

I'm disappointed about robots still facing significant constraints about extending beyond bumpers, but overall the game looks very promising and fun.

[dcarswell]

I like the new idea of the bumper covers this year for some reason...

[Joe Matt]

All comments are based on watching the game animation one time.

Happy:
-Simplified point structure. No multiplication, no weird point values, just simplified 1, 2, 3.
-Easy to obtain field elements and game pieces.
-Toned down "theme", removes unnecessarily complex wording and definitions to create a more enjoyable, easy to understand, and easy to plan out game.
-Shooting/kicking back. Always a fun game dimension.

Confused:
-While I understand the ball return to the middle of the field is desired, it seems overly complex. I see this being a major bottle neck.
-Robots get points for going under the platform? On top? Hanging? Huh?
-Robots hanging on robots is sweet, but will this be the equivalent of 2003's bin stacking?

Meh:
-While I appreciate the work Mr Lavery does, I'm confused on FIRST's ever constant momentum to become more media savvy, yet they have the game animation narration done by Mr Lavery. Couldn't we have gotten one of our MC's or announcers to record it the night before? That would seem to be more professional and exciting.

[engunneer]

anyone know the robots dimensions yet?
R10

[EricLeifermann]

I like that there will (hopefully) be many different looking/style robots for the 1st time since 2004, as there are many ways to play this game and not only 1 way to score. But i feel this game will be boring to watch. I also feel that there will not be 1 robot design that will absolutely dominate this year, or strategy that will be impossible to defend or beat.

I don't like the 1 ball at a time rule, I understood it in Overdrive as the balls were huge, but these are soccer balls. Also the fact that there are only 12 balls on the field i see very very low scoring games.

[EricH]

I like it.

Specifically, easy access to game objects at any sporting goods store or people's garages.

I also think that we have a team to thank. Last year, a team requested that changing bumper colors by changing colors be allowed (or rather, is this legal?). They were denied. This year, it is one of the approved methods to change colors. Talk about giving the designers ideas! (Sadly, I don't remember which team asked that.)

[Homsar66]

They seemed to be trying to appeal to the media, but I think the game won't be as exciting or fast paced as last year.

[Aaron Lussier]

At least there will not be any lost time doing field reset. With only twelve balls that the teams place themselves; match set up will move much quicker then in previous years.

[,4lex S.]

This game is epic. It is already apparent to me that we are going to see robots that can do some rediculous stuff (as usual I guess...). I can't wait for these 3 things:

1) I can see the bumps becoming jumps... hopefully suspensions are considered by teams building fast robots. A couple feet of air will definitely make FIRST cooler (to the general public)...
2) The Triple Hang (Robot 1 on bar, two robots on robot 1)
3) Scoring from the back in autonomous, using the new vision system; which should work without too many hiccups (I have considerable faith in the new contrast based system, despite arena lighting).

[dysxqer]

Since people can use the Finale extensions to help right themselves when they fall over, it's going to be interesting to see what people create that not only right themselves but also enable them hang onto the Platforms.

I think most people will not use the middle paths under the platforms as their only mode of transportation to pass the bumps, because when other teams see that this is their only way to get past the bumps, a robot could be designated to simply block this exit, trapping the robot for the entire game. However, it's probably a good idea to make it small enough to get under the Platform just in case.

I think the 3 point suspension possibility will definitely be used, since every point seems to matter in this game, even more than before.

[Zack247]

I think this will be fun to watch. FIRST is what you make it, people are always into FIRST.

I do wish that there were more than 12 balls. This is a very small amount for 6 robots to deal with.

[dysxqer]

I think this will be fun to watch. FIRST is what you make it, people are always into FIRST.

I do wish that there were more than 12 balls. This is a very small amount for 6 robots to deal with.

I think it's more than you think. Balls take maybe 15 seconds to return to the field of play, so there will probably be at least ~9-10 balls on the field at a time. Nobody knows how fast scoring will end up being, so that will affect it too.

[Shawyan]

Likes:


The bumps are interesting


Dislikes:


One team member has looked through the tournament rules. I extremely dislike the scoring method used this Unless I am mistaken, a team's W/L record does not come into effect.

The amount of restrictions placed on the robot such as not being able to protrude past the bumpers for more than 2 seconds, etc. etc.

It is my understanding that it is a requirement to have the bumpers going the full 100% around the robot. Is this correct? (I hope I read it wrong)

[EricH]

It is my understanding that it is a requirement to have the bumpers going the full 100% around the robot. Is this correct? (I hope I read it wrong)
You read it right.

[Kimmeh]

I also think that we have a team to thank. Last year, a team requested that changing bumper colors by changing colors be allowed (or rather, is this legal?). They were denied. This year, it is one of the approved methods to change colors. Talk about giving the designers ideas! (Sadly, I don't remember which team asked that.)

After reading last year's section on bumpers, and comparing it to this years, I believe I'm correct in saying we can't change colors in the same way you're thinking. This year bumpers have to be either red or blue. <R07>

<R07> The fabric covering the BUMPERS must be solid red or solid blue in color. Visually, the red or blue must be as close to the corresponding color in the FIRST logo as reasonable (i.e. to a reasonably astute observer, they appear similar). The only markings permitted on the BUMPER fabric cover are the team number (see Rule <R15>).

[OScubed]

So much for our Red Camo bumpers :(

[Chris is me]

I also think that we have a team to thank. Last year, a team requested that changing bumper colors by changing colors be allowed (or rather, is this legal?). They were denied. This year, it is one of the approved methods to change colors. Talk about giving the designers ideas! (Sadly, I don't remember which team asked that.)

I believe it was 1038.

As for my thoughts on the game, it makes my head hurt. My only negative thought about it is that kicking soccer balls into goals doesn't seem very exciting, but I suspect I'll be proven wrong here.

I really like how this game isn't a one task wonder, there are at least 3 distinctly different tasks I'm juggling in my head, and many differences between individual implementations of these. This doesn't look easy.

[EricH]

After reading last year's section on bumpers, and comparing it to this years, I believe I'm correct in saying we can't change colors in the same way you're thinking. This year bumpers have to be either red or blue. <R07>
Keep reading.
<R12> The color of the BUMPERS will be used to identify the ALLIANCE to which the ROBOT has been assigned, red or blue. Therefore, each ROBOT must be able to display red BUMPERS and blue BUMPERS This may be done via either of two acceptable methods:

A. Each ROBOT may be built with two complete sets of interchangeable BUMPERS, one red and one blue. If this method is chosen, the BUMPERS must be identical except for the color of the covering fabric (see Rule <R07-F>).
B. The BUMPERS may be constructed with a fabric covering of one color (see Rule <R07-F>), and then covered with a removable fabric shroud of the opposite color when appropriate. The removable cover must completely enclose the BUMPERS and conceal the contrasting fabric. The cover must be constructed solely of fabric and a fastening/restraining system to hold the cover in place. The fastening/restraining system must extend no further than one inch beyond the FRAME PERIMETER (i.e. no further than any other hard parts of the BUMPER - see Rule <R07-N>). Please note that the fastening/restraining system MUST be designed with robust performance in mind. The restraints must hold the removable cover in place during vigorous interactions with other ROBOTS and FIELD elements during the MATCH without allowing the cover to come off.

[mathking]

Qualification in seeding is not based on wins and losses, but on total seeding points. But in the elimination matches advancement is purely from winning. Which will make for an interesting change in game strategy going from qualification to elimination. There is much less incentive to play defense in qualification, since you want high scores. (For example, if you win 3 - 2 you get 7 seeding points. If you lose 13 - 12, you get 13 seeding points. And your opponents get 37 seeding points.) Then in elimination 1-0 is as good as 23 - 22.

[Kimmeh]

Keep reading.


Oops. My bad. The first time I read that section (won't be the last), I had a 4 year old on my lap. I read the rules before and after it, so I must have gotten sidetracked and skipped it. Thanks.

[LavastormSW]

I find it interesting how the red goals are on the red side and vice versa. I think most of the competition will be played out in the middle as the balls are returned to the center with the alliances fighting over them. It will definitely be an interesting year.

[ttldomination]

I don't think that the game will be played that much in the middle.

Looking further at the restraints of the balls, meaning they can only enter 3" into your robot frame, they can't leave the ground, you can't leave the robot frame except for a couple of seconds to extend into the bumper frame. I don't see many robots with the ability to consistently score from the middle. I think the more successful machines will be making accurate, and quick goals from the closest area.

[mathking]

But you have to get the balls from the middle to the goal or back to your robot(s) near the goal to score. The ball return is going to drop them in the middle.

[Eagle981]

I don't think that the game will be played that much in the middle.

Looking further at the restraints of the balls, meaning they can only enter 3" into your robot frame, they can't leave the ground, you can't leave the robot frame except for a couple of seconds to extend into the bumper frame. I don't see many robots with the ability to consistently score from the middle. I think the more successful machines will be making accurate, and quick goals from the closest area.

This sounds logical to me but then again with the existence of the "bumps" that short throw of an extension could lead to some ball air time ;). I'm glad that there are quite a few dimensions to the game that allow a greater engineering diversity for all levels of experience to excel in certain areas as well as the game field itself being less planar than the past couple years.

[DiehardCybercard]

I think this year's game is amazing. This game requires an intense planning of robot design. Not only that it requires adaptability which is not a necessary an item needed in previous games. It seems this year's game will rely heavily on alliance communication and strategy. It seems every year FIRST has tried to implement more and more team work into the game. This year seems like a year for significant stratagy. Im excited to see the robots, but more so how teams cooperate.

[pandamonium]

I have a serious question. Can you heard multiple balls? The obvious answer is no because you can only posses one ball at a time. BUT a ball is in possession "if, as the ROBOT moves or changes orientation (e.g. backs up or spins in place), the ball remains in approximately the same position relative to the robot." 7.2 DEFINITIONS

so I think that you can push kinda like dribble / run into multiple balls because they do not remain in the same position relative to the robot. This would perhaps make a plow a viable mechanism? When a plow backs up and spins in place balls do not stay in the same position.

[Tetraman]

I can't seem to "break away" my interest.

(bad pun)

I think it's great. I agree its a disappointment we can't really strech robot arms out this year or do some really crazy stuff, but it's a challenge nonetheless and I can't wait for teams to start posting their work around weeks 5-6. It will be great to see the kind of innovation you can make with such limitations and rules. It's got the headaches of Overdrive with the excitement of Aim High. A perfect FIRST combonation!

[dodar]

Ok, now when the rules say that you can extend into Finale Dimensions during the match as long as you are in contact with the tower, does the platform be considered as part of the tower?

[EricH]

Ok, now when the rules say that you can extend into Finale Dimensions during the match as long as you are in contact with the tower, does the platform be considered as part of the tower?
Considering the fact that the platform is included under the tower section of Section 6, that is a reasonable assumption. A quick check via Q&A would probably be in order, though.

[dodar]

Qualification in seeding is not based on wins and losses, but on total seeding points. But in the elimination matches advancement is purely from winning. Which will make for an interesting change in game strategy going from qualification to elimination. There is much less incentive to play defense in qualification, since you want high scores. (For example, if you win 3 - 2 you get 7 seeding points. If you lose 13 - 12, you get 13 seeding points. And your opponents get 37 seeding points.) Then in elimination 1-0 is as good as 23 - 22.

This is one other thing that confused me too, does that mean that if you win that you actual receive less seeding points and therefore a lower rank then the alliance that just lost?

[Radical Pi]

This is one other thing that confused me too, does that mean that if you win that you actual receive less seeding points and therefore a lower rank then the alliance that just lost?

I think the seeding system is trying to penalize the team that gets penalties. Look at it closely:

All teams on the winning ALLIANCE will receive a number of seeding points equal to the penalized score (the score with any assessed penalties) of the winning ALLIANCE.

All teams on the losing ALLIANCE will receive a number of seeding points equal to un-penalized score (the score without any assessed penalties) of the winning ALLIANCE.

Note the bold text. If you win, you can either get the same or less points as the other team, depending on if you got penalties.

I also don't really get the Coopertition bonus. Is the only use of it just for seeding tiebreakers?

[EricH]

I also don't really get the Coopertition bonus. Is the only use of it just for seeding tiebreakers?
No. 9.3.7 makes it clear that all seeding points are counted (and the Coopertition bonus is in seeding points).

[dodar]

I think the seeding system is trying to penalize the team that gets penalties. Look at it closely:



Note the bold text. If you win, you can either get the same or less points as the other team, depending on if you got penalties.

I also don't really get the Coopertition bonus. Is the only use of it just for seeding tiebreakers?

Exactly, so if say A1 scores 10 points with a 2 point penalty and A2 scores 2 points. A1 then gets a seeding score of 8 whereas A2 gets 10 points

So the losing alliance, A2, gets the higher seeding rank

[Radical Pi]

No. 9.3.7 makes it clear that all seeding points are counted (and the Coopertition bonus is in seeding points).

Ah. 9.3.9 had me confused since it talked about coopertition bonus as a separate thing from seeding points

[dodar]

Ok ya I just re-read the rules for scoring and rankings and to me it seems like that a team that wins every match will get a lower ranking than a team that will lose every match.

Like a team that has just a base could end up being ranked #1 and a team that can score like 10 goals and boost a team onto the ramp then can pull themselves onto the bar could get last place, that to me doesnt make me wanna really build a super amazing robot, trust me I will want to but to me it seems that rookie teams will take it as they dont have to be super inventive to get a picking position

[GaryVoshol]

Exactly, so if say A1 scores 10 points with a 2 point penalty and A2 scores 2 points. A1 then gets a seeding score of 8 whereas A2 gets 10 points

So the losing alliance, A2, gets the higher seeding rank

But A1 gets a coopertition bonus of 4 (2*A2 score), bringing their total seeding points to 12.

[dodar]

How me and my mother read it, Co-op points dont come into account unless 2or more teams' seeding rankings are tied

[EricH]

How me and my mother read it, Co-op points dont come into account unless 2or more teams' seeding rankings are tied
Coopertition points are seeding points, according to 9.3.5, first sentence. 9.3.7 makes it clear that all seeding points are counted in the seeding score.

Then you get the rankings using:
Seeding score
Highest coopertition bonus
Hanging points
Electronic coin toss.

[dodar]

exactly so in the order that 9.3.7 states than a losing team can rank higher than a winning team

[EricH]

exactly so in the order that 9.3.7 states than a losing team can rank higher than a winning team
No, they can't.

9.3.7 Seeding Score
The total number of seeding points earned by a TEAM throughout their qualification matches will be their seeding score.
9.3.5 Coopertition™ Bonus
All teams on the winning ALLIANCE will receive a coopertition bonus: a number of seeding points equal to twice the un-penalized score (the score without any assessed penalties) of the losing ALLIANCE.
In the case of a tie, all participating teams will receive a coopertition bonus of a number of seeding points equal to twice their ALLIANCE score (with any assessed penalties).

In other words, the Coopertition bonus == seeding points. Seeding points == position, then the highest bonus splits any ties.

[dodar]

but its not a tie though so its like, Red scores 10 but gets a 2 point penalty so they get 8 seeding points, Blue scores 2 points 0 penalty so they get 10 seeding points, so until their next match Blue is ranked ahead of Red

[EricH]

but its not a tie though so its like, Red scores 10 but gets a 2 point penalty so they get 8 seeding points, Blue scores 2 points 0 penalty so they get 10 seeding points, so until their next match Blue is ranked ahead of Red
Coopertition == seeding. All seeding points go into the seeding score. The seeding score determines ranking. Therefore, in the above, this is what actually happens:

Red gets 8+2*2=12, Blue gets 10. Until the next match, Red has 2 more seeding points and the Coopertition bonus tiebreaker over Blue.

[dodar]

the rules say it as Co-op only being used in the circumsyance of a tie

[EricH]

Read Section 9.3.5. Especially the words that I bolded when I quoted it a couple of posts ago. The Coop bonus is in seeding points. Can I make it any more clear?

[GaryVoshol]

the rules say it as Co-op only being used in the circumsyance of a tie

Sorry, you're incorrect.
9.3.5 Coopertition™ Bonus
All teams on the winning ALLIANCE will receive a coopertition bonus: a number of seeding points equal to twice the un-penalized score (the score without any assessed penalties) of the losing ALLIANCE.
In the case of a tie, all participating teams will receive a coopertition bonus of a number of seeding points equal to twice their ALLIANCE score (with any assessed penalties).
(emphasis mine)

The bonus is seeding points.

In addition, the bonus is used for tiebreaking, but that is not the only use.

[dodar]

they said that the seeding points and the Co-op points will be kept separately unless needed to undo a tie

[GGCO]

Disregard that post. I goofed up. Sorry.

[EricH]

they said that the seeding points and the Co-op points will be kept separately unless needed to undo a tie
I don't care what "they" said or where "they" said it (or who "they" is specifically for that matter). Unless it is in the Manual, it is not official. The Manual explicitly states that Co-op points are seeding points, and that all seeding points go into your seeding score. Highest Co-op bonus is tracked but not displayed, and is the first tiebreaker. Note that it's the highest one, not the sum of them.

And you're reversed on the Co-op bonus makeup. It's not that the bonus is based on your seeding points, it's that the bonus is extra seeding points.

[dodar]

Ok im not trying to sound defiant or saying that you guys arent wrong and I am right, I am just trying to figure it out but it never says that Co-op are seeding points

[GaryVoshol]

Yes I understand that but its not saying that those are seeding points, they are USING seeding points to make the Co-op pointsNo, they are adding to your seeding point total. The bonus is not using seeding points, it is using unpenalized scores. Seeding points are penalized scores.

[dodar]

Ok my bad guys, my Dad just came in here and described how the rules are saying that rule and I now understand it, sorry for the confusion

[Drivencrazy]

"9.3.4 Match Seeding Points
All teams on the winning ALLIANCE will receive a number of seeding points equal to the penalized score (the score with any assessed penalties) of the winning ALLIANCE.

All teams on the losing ALLIANCE will receive a number of seeding points equal to un-penalized score (the score without any assessed penalties) of the winning ALLIANCE.

9.3.5 Coopertition™ Bonus
All teams on the winning ALLIANCE will receive a coopertition bonus: a number of seeding points equal to twice the un-penalized score (the score without any assessed penalties) of the losing ALLIANCE."

If I am reading this correctly this means that the formula for the winning team A is S=P+2L

Where S is the seeding score; P is the penalized score of the winning team, and L is the un-penalized score of the losing team.

So say the Red Alliance wins over the Blue Alliance 15-0 but incurred 3 penalties.

The Red seeding score would be 15 and the Blue seeding score would be 18.

Is this correct? Am I missing something? If not I believe this to be the only downfall of this game.

[EricH]

"9.3.4 Match Seeding Points
All teams on the winning ALLIANCE will receive a number of seeding points equal to the penalized score (the score with any assessed penalties) of the winning ALLIANCE.

All teams on the losing ALLIANCE will receive a number of seeding points equal to un-penalized score (the score without any assessed penalties) of the winning ALLIANCE.

9.3.5 Coopertition™ Bonus
All teams on the winning ALLIANCE will receive a coopertition bonus: a number of seeding points equal to twice the un-penalized score (the score without any assessed penalties) of the losing ALLIANCE."

If I am reading this correctly this means that the formula for the winning team A is S=P+2L

Where S is the seeding score; P is the penalized score of the winning team, and L is the un-penalized score of the losing team.

So say the Red Alliance wins over the Blue Alliance 15-0 but incurred 3 penalties.

The Red seeding score would be 15 and the Blue seeding score would be 18.

Is this correct? Am I missing something? If not I believe this to be the only downfall of this game.This is correct.

It's not a downfall, though. It's like <G14> last year: making it clear that blowing out an opponent is a bad thing.

[SamMullen]

I remember last year, if you won you got two points (QS I think?), tied one point, and if you lost, nothing. Is their anything like that this year, or is it all off the seeding points?

[EricH]

I remember last year, if you won you got two points (QS I think?), tied one point, and if you lost, nothing. Is their anything like that this year, or is it all off the seeding points?
Not that I can find in the Manual. It's all seeding points, coopertition bonuses, and getting off the ground.

[GaryVoshol]

I remember last year, if you won you got two points (QS I think?), tied one point, and if you lost, nothing. Is their anything like that this year, or is it all off the seeding points?Nope, that's all gone this year. Just seeding points. Which is kind of weird in a soccer/football theme game, as standings in soccer/football are based 3 points for a win, 1 for a draw, 0 for loss. Then goal differential (goals-for minus goals-against) is usually the first tiebreaker.

[mathking]

I had not thought about it this way before, but the penalties and scoring rules make the "one team gets 0, the other scores all the points" a less attractive strategy for the team scoring all the points and more for the zero points team. Because the best the winning team can do in that case is equal the losing team's seeding points. If Red scores 10 points and B gets zero, then they both get 10 points if Red had no penalties, and Red ends up with fewer points if they had penalties. This means that it is probably not in an alliance's best interest to cooperate in a "one alliance scores all the points, the other goes for zero" strategy if they are going to be the alliance that scores.

[SamMullen]

Yep, you want the opposing alliance to score one less than you, cause that way you get nearly triple your score in seeding points.

[Tetraman]

If you want to score to the point you can get the score 30-0...do it in the Elimination matches. Otherwise, make it 16-15. thats just how it works.

[Creator Mat]

OK i have a lot of long points to make about the game so this post will be kinda long

1. the 0 point losing team loophole of rules 9.3.4 & 9.3.5
I think this is a easily a fixable situation by teams trying to play the game the right way. For example say you got the allstars vs. the brokebots and the allstars have scored 20 points with 30 secs left with and the brokebots have scored 0 points. For the allstars to boost their seeding they need to score for the brokebots. All points scored this way are worth 2 points (basicly an endgame). However some are saying like in these posts http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=79736 http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=79708 that if you don't score and prevent your opponents from scoring for you this could be a favorable exploitation. But beyond just being against the spirit of gracious professionalism and the spirit of the game, it will hurt you more because if you follow this train of thought you give up on the chance to win which can net you more points (don't go to the all stars team scored 12 with 5 penalties and broke bots team scored 2 argument they can be nullified with what i said before or later in this post). Also when it comes time to choose alliances no one will want choose you if you went this route and if you did get in the top eight you will be considered the "carried" team and no one will like you. Plus if to many teams to this in the early regionals, continuity of the game be d****d, i will guarantee you FIRST will change the the rules to stop this type of action. So save the excitement of the game, the spirit of the game, and the spirit of gracious professionalism.

2. Quick change bumpers will be very important due to rule R12
This is something i was surprised no one has mentioned it. In the past i have heard teams (even veteran teams) complain how it takes FOREVER to take of their bumpers. With the requirement of having red and blue bumpers for your robot and the quick match turn around teams experience at regionals, teams could find themselves taking to long to change a bumper and cant compete. Yes teams do have the option to make the covering thing but i find that a bad idea if you have the resources to make a bumper. I think that type of system could be hard to make work because of how easily it could slip off. One hit or snag by another robot and your team could suddenly face a penalty (maybe i don't know if this breaks G30). But even if it doesn't break a rule why risk it?. my team uses a easy to create a quick disconnect system using c channel and some pins. If you have any questions about this just PM me and ill give you some more info on it.

3. defense is bad in the qualifications but great in the elimination
This pretty much goes back to my first point but defense sucks in the qualifications because more points your opponent scores the better win or lose (rules 9.3.4 & 9.3.5.) So shut outs are something people want to avoid so overall they get more seeding points. However the defensive bots (the good ones, not the box on wheels) and defensive strategys will become kings because they can help prevent the come back

4. the game will be played with one bot from each alliance in all three sections
This one might be a more individual results may vary type situation with exceptions to the rules appearing all the time. But on average i think putting 2 bots in one section (while forsaking another section of the field completely. not traveling back and forth) gives to many advantages to the opponent or would create an cluster like in lunacy with nothing happening. i will explore the three ways you can effectively do this

take some one out of your opponents alliance zone
take some one out of the middle
take someone out of your alliance zone

the first choice of taking someone out of your opponents alliance zone may be the best choice if you where to do this but is still bad. Even tho i have just said defense is bad, defensive hindrance and giving balls to your team to score with are good. Every one wants to win (i hope) and the best way to win in this is to score points faster than out opponent while still allowing them to score points. Plus having someone to "return" balls back to the middle or even you own alliances side is also a plus.
The second choice of taking some one out of the middle is complete suicide. That is where the balls are enough said. If your alliance chooses to do this they are probably playing by the strategy i discussed in my first point. Then you are just hurting yourself.
Then the third choice is most likely a gray area. Maybe some teams can score from mid field but it would probably be the same as taking someone out of your opponents zone but in reverse. Now your opponent has a easier time hindering the scoring of your alliance, which is bad.
All this would result in your alliance trying to gain increased control over a section (but not complete thanks to rule G39) while giving your opponent complete control over a section of which i have described the results (hopefully accurately) above

[BVespone]

Creator Mat:
Awesome post, my friend and I were literally just having a conversation about the topics you discussed, and its almost as if I could have written your post. I feel the same about the loophole issue, but I honestly don't think many teams will risk taking the chance of a zero scoring game, it's just not what FIRST is about.

[jamie_1930]

For all things related to the new FRC game.

What are your thoughts?

Immediately I fell in love with the game and being the drive coach I think I'm going to be pretty busy this year

[Tetraman]

I'm having trouble...breaking away...from this game.
I'm getting a...kick...out of the design possibilities.
There sure are some...bumps...we have to smooth out.
Hopefully the pressure doesn't feel too...towering...
We had a human player practice. He...tried 'nt...he failed.

[gburlison]

Has anyone noticed that while only a HUMAN PLAYER can use the TRIDENT, coaches can handle the balls in the Alliance Station?
Do you think this is an error that will be corrected?

TEAM: Four representatives from a registered FRC team that interact with their ROBOT and their
ALLIANCE partners to play Breakaway. Positions on the TEAM include:
COACH: A student or adult mentor designated as the team coach and advisor during the MATCH
and identified as the person wearing the designated "COACH" pin or button. There is one
COACH per TEAM.
DRIVER: A pre-college student team member responsible for operating and controlling the
ROBOT. There are two DRIVERS per TEAM.
HUMAN PLAYER: A pre-college student team member responsible for properly returning BALLS
to the FIELD. There is one HUMAN PLAYER per TEAM. The HUMAN PLAYER is the only TEAM
MEMBER that may handle the TRIDENT.

<G15> BALL Handling – BALLS may be handled by any TEAM member when BALLS are in the
CORRAL or ALLIANCE STATION. BALLS may not be handled until they have exited from
the BALL COUNTER and are in the CORRAL. Violation: PENALTY.
<G16> BALL Return - HUMAN PLAYERS must place BALLS on the BALL RETURN using the
TRIDENT. No other means are permitted for TEAMS to return BALLS to the FIELD.
Violation: Two PENALTIES and YELLOW CARD.

[EricH]

Has anyone noticed that while only a HUMAN PLAYER can use the TRIDENT, coaches can handle the balls in the Alliance Station?
Do you think this is an error that will be corrected?Nope. I think the coach, when not coaching, will serve as a handy trident loader.

Nothing says that you have to use the trident to move the balls in the station, just to put them on the return.

[Prash R.]

I have a question about Breakaway.

I have read the manual pretty thoroughly, but this was never specified, at least to my knowledge.

Defensively, are there any rules on how long we can block something i.e goals or tunnel?

[EricH]

I have a question about Breakaway.

I have read the manual pretty thoroughly, but this was never specified, at least to my knowledge.

Defensively, are there any rules on how long we can block something i.e goals or tunnel?
Not that I've seen.

[dtengineering]

What? Where are all the posts saying "this game isn't as good as 200x!"? (which, of course, always disappear as the season goes on)

It looks like the GDC has outdone themselves, again... and soccer in a world cup year, no less.

(Yes, it's also a winter olympics year, but that shouldn't influence our build period too much, except maybe for a few hockey games and inconviently closed streets...)

My only concern is that some of those zones are going to get pretty crowded.

<broken record> Oh, how I long for a larger playing field! </broken record>

Jason

[Creator Mat]

after some thinking more points
5. going through the tunnel
I think this is the best choice for changing positions on the game field (which i don't think is something you should do often btw). It is safer because you don't run the risk of tipping over or losing the ball going through. Also the risk of being blocked is not a big problem. If someone blocks you from changing sections become a hindrance bot (not defense) because the more your opponent scores the better it is for you as long as your alliance can score more. I would say if you where to make a "runner" bot who depends on getting back and forth often by the tunnel, getting blocked could be detrimental. So i think all bots should have a way to move a ball over the bump be it by "kicking" or pushing

6. going over the bump
This method of travel is the best for those "frequent fliers" because no one can stop you which would be detrimental to your strategy (see the above point). However for those who want a bot who might want to switch sections once or twice a match, it would be a bad way to go. The risk of tipping would be too great for such a minor part of you game strategy. the cost your team would pay would be a lot of time and effort designing a drive train that can go over the bump and a self-righting system for when you do tip, when might not even use them in a match. Also when you go over the bump with a ball you are guaranteed to lose it because when you push it over the ball will roll away before you robot is over the bump.

[Koko Ed]

1. the 0 point losing team loophole of rules 9.3.4 & 9.3.5
I think this is a easily a fixable situation by teams trying to play the game the right way. For example say you got the allstars vs. the brokebots and the allstars have scored 20 points with 30 secs left with and the brokebots have scored 0 points. For the allstars to boost their seeding they need to score for the brokebots. All points scored this way are worth 2 points (basicly an endgame). However some are saying like in these posts http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=79736 http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=79708 that if you don't score and prevent your opponents from scoring for you this could be a favorable exploitation. But beyond just being against the spirit of gracious professionalism and the spirit of the game, it will hurt you more because if you follow this train of thought you give up on the chance to win which can net you more points (don't go to the all stars team scored 12 with 5 penalties and broke bots team scored 2 argument they can be nullified with what i said before or later in this post). Also when it comes time to choose alliances no one will want choose you if you went this route and if you did get in the top eight you will be considered the "carried" team and no one will like you. Plus if to many teams to this in the early regionals, continuity of the game be d****d, i will guarantee you FIRST will change the the rules to stop this type of action. So save the excitement of the game, the spirit of the game, and the spirit of gracious professionalism.


I see qualification matches not just as competition but I think of them more as a job interview. You are trying to present your case why the other teams at the competition not only want you but NEED you like they need air. Doing nothing is not going to impress anyone and if you end up seeding by using shady tactics you are going to get turned down left and right come selection time so you probably won't be very long for the eliminations anyways. I suspect not too many teams to participate in these tactics because they won't get very far using them.

[engunneer]

One of my college professors had an interesting rule - all grades are scaled so the highest scoring test gets 100%.

The side effect that he specifically pointed out was that if absolutely everyone skipped the test, everyone gets 100%. He never had that occur. Someone (usually everyone) always shows up.

The same will be true here. Can you trust everyone else to put their shiny cool robot on the field and not use it?

Last year, they used G14 to get more even matches, and people did score on themselves to prevent it (sometimes). The same must happen here. A good driver/coach team will know when to score on themselves without risking a loss. The new seeding rules are certainly controversial, but they will also certainly make for an interesting game.

[V_Chip]

after some thinking more points
5. going through the tunnel
I think this is the best choice for changing positions on the game field (which i don't think is something you should do often btw). It is safer because you don't run the risk of tipping over or losing the ball going through. Also the risk of being blocked is not a big problem. If someone blocks you from changing sections become a hindrance bot (not defense) because the more your opponent scores the better it is for you as long as your alliance can score more. I would say if you where to make a "runner" bot who depends on getting back and forth often by the tunnel, getting blocked could be detrimental. So i think all bots should have a way to move a ball over the bump be it by "kicking" or pushing

6. going over the bump
This method of travel is the best for those "frequent fliers" because no one can stop you which would be detrimental to your strategy (see the above point). However for those who want a bot who might want to switch sections once or twice a match, it would be a bad way to go. The risk of tipping would be too great for such a minor part of you game strategy. the cost your team would pay would be a lot of time and effort designing a drive train that can go over the bump and a self-righting system for when you do tip, when might not even use them in a match. Also when you go over the bump with a ball you are guaranteed to lose it because when you push it over the ball will roll away before you robot is over the bump.

The introduction of a field where one may only access the other sections either by climbing the "bump" or traveling through the tunnel definitely poses some problems. (The "bump" is a foot high with a one foot plateau at the top. Also, its trapezoidal shape forms an incline at 45 degrees for each side. On the otherhand, the tunnel is only 20 inches in height, with the opening width of 36 inches and extends 18 inches deep.)

These problems definitely pose a challenge in design: on whether a team would like to climb the bump, sacrifice height to go through the tunnel, or simply be a defensive or long range robot.

Other than these obvious qualms, the game is . . . "interesting". I will not take a side yet on whether or not it will be as quick-paced as last year's.

_I am also glad that FRC added rules G36 and G39!_
(Read the manual!)

[chabotics]

I think it's going to put much greater emphasis on teamwork than any game before it because of the necessity of passing balls downfield over the bumps.

[Pausert]

Out of curiosity, who's thinking that swerve drive is the way to go? I think being able to move in both axis will be useful this year because it'll allow you to keep your kicking device aligned. I am afraid of it's durability though...

[Jane n Mike]

I find myself disturbed by the suggestion by some in this thread that legal game strategies aimed at optimizing an alliance's score are somehow incompatible with the ideal of GP. Consider the strategy of a strong team scoring in the opposing alliance's goal to maximize their seeding points, or a weak team refusing to defend in order to maximize their share of the winning alliance's seeding points. Or to take a rather more extreme case, would there be any problem with two strong opposing alliances agreeing to engineer a high-scoring tie, under which each alliance would earn triple seeding points? This is clearly the strategy under which the two "opposing" alliances could jointly maximize their seeding points.

Fundamental to the entire purpose of incorporating a reward/penalty structure into the design of a game is the notion that such a structure should encourage behavior consistent with the goals of the game and deter behavior contrary to those goals. Why should we assume that strategies like those above are somehow inconsistent with the goals of the GDC, if in fact they are tactically sound?

I like this game very much, over all, and think the GDC has done a spectacular job at posing a range of interesting problems to solve. But if the rules have the effect of encouraging strategies that are incompatible with the objectives of FIRST, that is a deep failure of the design of the rules, not of the character of the teams that aspire to play as successfully as those rules allow.

Mike Dennis
Team 1719

[goodsky]

I'll start out by saying this game looks like it has great potential! I (along with the rest of team 1902) give it a resounding Oink Oink BOOM of approval!

As a programmer, one of the things that has been on my mind the most is the target. It has not been easy in the past, locking the camera on glowing green targets or the fluorescent pink/green fabrics.

The plus side I see this year compared to last year specifically is that the target will not be moving. I am also glad to see the gyro integrated camera library this time.

I personally am still working on setting up my test platform for the targets. Does anyone else have any other thoughts / test data for how well we should expect to lock on to the goals this year?

[hg273]

PLEASE REMEMBER TO READ THE RULES!

It should be noted that there is a major difference between the SEEDING POINTS and the COOPERTITION POINTS.

The seeding points are simply your robots penalized scores. The coopertition points are your penalized scores plus 2x the opponents score. You gain no SEEDING benefit from it having be a close match, you do, however gain a significant Coopertition bonus.

[Alan Anderson]

PLEASE REMEMBER TO READ THE RULES!

It should be noted that there is a major difference between the SEEDING POINTS and the COOPERTITION POINTS.

The seeding points are simply your robots penalized scores. The coopertition points are your penalized scores plus 2x the opponents score. You gain no SEEDING benefit from it having be a close match, you do, however gain a significant Coopertition bonus.

The Coopertition bonus adds to your seeding score. This does not seem like a major difference.

[Abrakadabra]

... I am also glad to see the gyro integrated camera library this time. ...


I'm curious what you mean by this? I haven't been able to find any reference to such a thing in the currently-released docs, but it sounds interesting!

Thanks!

[Dillon Compton]

Or to take a rather more extreme case, would there be any problem with two strong opposing alliances agreeing to engineer a high-scoring tie, under which each alliance would earn triple seeding points? This is clearly the strategy under which the two "opposing" alliances could jointly maximize their seeding points.

This will never happen. Let us suppose we have two dream teams on the field, they maximize scoring during autonomous and teleoperated modes, and both enter the last 20 or 30 seconds of game time with 30 points on the board and no penalties to confuse the matter.

Sure, both teams could be content with 30 points and be happy that this match was very beneficial for their rankings, but it is now incredibly advantageous for both teams to try to score at least one point more than their opponents. Let me present two scenarios:

1.) both alliances stick to the agreed upon terms. Each alliance ends the match with 30 points and each team receives 30 seeding points. Everybody is happy, right... wrong! because one of their team members points out later that if they had done....

2.) Red alliance trusts the blue alliance and didn't crunch the numbers, so they stop scoring at 30 points and wait for the match to end. One of the blue alliance coaches crunched some numbers during the match, and, at the last second has his driver score one last ball, resulting in a match score of Red 30, Blue 31. The Red alliance did well for themselves and they receive 31 seeding points- the match score of the Blue alliance. The Blue alliance, however, receives a whopping 91 seeding points - their match score, plus a coopertition bonus equal to twice the match score of the loosing alliance.



See? I think we all know how that would go - and it's a good thing! It will encourage fierce competition, especially between top-tier teams. Interestingly, I think this new ranking structure will result in a general surpression (but not elimination) of defensive activity during the qualifying matches (you want to make sure you win, but only just barely), and then a massive upwelling of defensive games during the elimination matches.

[Jane n Mike]

"Let us suppose we have two dream teams on the field, they maximize scoring during autonomous and teleoperated modes, and both enter the last 20 or 30 seconds of game time with 30 points on the board and no penalties to confuse the matter.

Sure, both teams could be content with 30 points and be happy that this match was very beneficial for their rankings, but it is now incredibly advantageous for both teams to try to score at least one point more than their opponents. Let me present two scenarios:

1.) both alliances stick to the agreed upon terms. Each alliance ends the match with 30 points and each team receives 30 seeding points. Everybody is happy, right... wrong! because one of their team members points out later that if they had done....

2.) Red alliance trusts the blue alliance and didn't crunch the numbers, so they stop scoring at 30 points and wait for the match to end. One of the blue alliance coaches crunched some numbers during the match, and, at the last second has his driver score one last ball, resulting in a match score of Red 30, Blue 31. The Red alliance did well for themselves and they receive 31 seeding points- the match score of the Blue alliance. The Blue alliance, however, receives a whopping 91 seeding points - their match score, plus a coopertition bonus equal to twice the match score of the loosing alliance."[

I think you have misunderstood the scoring. Per rule 9.3.5: "In the case of a tie, all participating teams will receive a coopertition bonus of a number of seeding points equal to twice their ALLIANCE score (with any assessed penalties)." So the teams that have engineered a tied score at 30 stand to earn a total of 90 seeding points apiece from that tie. The only incentive for one team to cheat on their agreement, aside from a single extra point, is to deprive the opponents of their 60-pt bonus. That could be a ridiculously expensive decision, as their demonstrated untrustworthiness would make it very hard for them to participate in future lucrative collusions.

Mike Dennis
Team 1719

[dodar]

Does anyone see any struggle this year for teams to be able to drive onto the platform at the finale time?

[mathking]

Mike is correct that the main benefit of the extra point is to knock three teams down from 90 to 31 points, since you would only gain 1 point.

However, playing for the tie is a very difficult proposition. First off, you likely won't know for sure who penalties are on. Suppose you know that one penalty has been called, but are not sure who it is called on. Or even worse, what if there are 5 or 7 or some other fairly large odd number of penalties. You know for sure that a tie in points scored will not end up being a tie, but you aren't sure which team is behind. If you do not attempt to score a couple more for yourself, you risk losing out on a lot of points.

We should also remember that this is a robotics competition. It is not going to be easy to score one at a time, so alliances which are cooperating will probably just try to score a bunch of balls in the first half of the game and then equalize later. It may be difficult to insure a tie at this point. Say its 25 - 24 with 20 seconds left. You have the 25 and an agreement to play for a tie with the other team. Do you leave to go lift yourselves or try to score for them? What if both sides are trying to score that last ball for the side with 24 and they accidentally put in 2 balls? Then sticking to your agreement just knocked you from 73 points to 26 points. Or if you are the alliance with 24. Do you stick to your agreement and take 24 or do you lift one of your robots to get to 26 for yourself, moving you to 76 and the other side to 26. If you have an alliance with 3 really strong scoring bots, you may just decide to run up a big score for yourselves and then at some point switch to scoring for the other side to pump up your coopertition bonus.

I don't see anything wrong with cooperating for a tie, or cooperating for an n to 0 score. But I don't think it will be so easily done. I also don't see anything wrong with declining to participate in a cooperative tie. And again I will say that this is a really interesting game theory problem.

[Eckh]

I have only one thought and it reflectes the utter complexity of this years game. Wow this is going to be an interesting year.

[M80]

I think that in all honesty the lifting yourself onto the bar for bonus points is really just added difficulty i mean why couldn't they have chosen somthing that will be a little easier to accomplish along with the primary goal like kicking a ball all the way across the field.

[EricH]

I think that in all honesty the lifting yourself onto the bar for bonus points is really just added difficulty i mean why couldn't they have chosen somthing that will be a little easier to accomplish along with the primary goal like kicking a ball all the way across the field.Engineering is about tradeoffs. This is one of the tradeoffs. If you don't like the fact that putting yourself up on the bar is difficult, feel free to not do it. Just be aware that a number of other teams think that it's not that difficult and will be hanging, getting themselves 2 or even 3 points. If you can stay on the floor and score 2 or 3 points that way, that is your decision.

Tradeoff: Hang for 2-3 points, depending on hanging place, or kick more goals for however many points you can get. Your choice.

[dodar]

After looking through the manual I didnt see anything about this but i could have missed something, are you allowed to have a pneumatic piston to already have air inside of it?

[EricH]

After looking through the manual I didnt see anything about this but i could have missed something, are you allowed to have a pneumatic piston to already have air inside of it?
I'd ask for clarification of this, but I'm pretty sure that <R01> has the answer:<R01> Energy used by FRC ROBOTS, (i.e., stored at the start of a MATCH), shall come only from the following sources:
...
B. Compressed air stored in the pneumatic system, stored at a maximum pressure of 120 PSI in no more than four Clippard Instruments tanks. Extraneous lengths of pneumatic tubing shall not be used to increase the storage capacity of the air storage system.

Probably something to confirm with the Q&A, but it would be reasonable to assume so.

Now, can you weigh in without the air is the other question...

[dodar]

well would having the air already inside the pistons add that much more weight?

[EricH]

well would having the air already inside the pistons add that much more weight?
You'd be surprised. I've seen robots a couple pounds over drain their tanks and suddenly be right on the limit.

[dodar]

Well i dont mean inside the tanks i mean actually in the pistons but anyways, how big were the tanks?

[johnr]

Lets see. Six robots + 12 team members + refs + one gate + 2 teams waiting to come in = a very crowded mid field at end of game. I think by second comp they will let teams push their bots over bumps at end of game.

[viperred396]

Does anyone see any struggle this year for teams to be able to drive onto the platform at the finale time?

I think this could be pretty hard to get up there because it is 20 in from the ground and even if you can get to the top of the bump you still have a 8 inch gap to get up there.

[Liu_yiang]

Overall, I think it's a good game. 2 problems with it though:
1: <R19> and Frame Perimeter. The 3 inches rule is an absolute beast to work around. The X-bot shall be remembered.

2. Hanging doesn't seem to have much of a point. In the last 20 seconds, wouldn't it be feasable to have a fast bot score 2 points and thus win the round? Hanging points are only for when all is said and done.

Other than that, I think they did a really good job with the game. I've been showing my non-robotics team friends the video for playing the game, and they are actually pretty interested in going to see it. Dean's homework is gonna be easy this year.

[dodar]

OK if you build your bumpers and back then with a frame but it is separate from your drivetrain, i.e. they arent connected by bolting them together or welding, would that be legal?

[johnr]

If the target is black and white, the floor stripe white and the ball is white, will the refs be wearing zebra shirts this year?

[viperred396]

If the target is black and white, the floor stripe white and the ball is white, will the refs be wearing zebra shirts this year?

I also think it will be filmed with a black and white camera :P

[AlexSortor]

i saw in the video one of the robots standing on the platform above the tunnel for the 2 extra points. i dont know if they changed that rule, but i though it would be interesting to point out.

[EricH]

i saw in the video one of the robots standing on the platform above the tunnel for the 2 extra points. i dont know if they changed that rule, but i though it would be interesting to point out.
Yep, and we're still trying to figure out if that is in fact correct. We're pretty sure it is, but we'd like to be 100% sure instead of 99% sure.

[AlexSortor]

I think that in all honesty the lifting yourself onto the bar for bonus points is really just added difficulty i mean why couldn't they have chosen somthing that will be a little easier to accomplish along with the primary goal like kicking a ball all the way across the field.

i saw in the video that one of the example robots got itself onto the platform above the tunnel for the 2 extra points. i thought it would be good to point out.

[AlexSortor]

sorry for the double reply

[Bill_B]

Lets see. Six robots + 12 team members + refs + one gate + 2 teams waiting to come in = a very crowded mid field at end of game. I think by second comp they will let teams push their bots over bumps at end of game.

presuming all six robots are bonused on towers? mid field has two gates right? I'm sure some susp/elev'd 'bots will be accessible in the other field sections.

[EricH]

presuming all six robots are bonused on towers? mid field has two gates right? I'm sure some susp/elev'd 'bots will be accessible in the other field sections.
There are only 5 gates on the field. The scorers kind of hate having robot traffic come right in front of their table (might have something to do with a cable cover that typically runs from the table to the field).

[Wayne Doenges]

Why couldn't they make it worth while to hang? Like say....15 points for hanging from the bar and 10 points for hanging from another bot.

[HaleyMortensen]

Because mathmatically speaking you can't get enough points just by kicking the ball. You might as well try and get extra points so you have a chance at winning.

[JHSmentor]

Lets see. Six robots + 12 team members + refs + one gate + 2 teams waiting to come in = a very crowded mid field at end of game. I think by second comp they will let teams push their bots over bumps at end of game.

I don't believe that there is any restriction to which side of the tower the robot is hangng from - or whether they are hanging from the top bar or the verticle bars for that matter.

at least I have not seen any stipulation for either case.

[dlavery]

I don't believe that there is any restriction to which side of the tower the robot is hangng from - or whether they are hanging from the top bar or the verticle bars for that matter.

at least I have not seen any stipulation for either case.

You might want to go back and read The Manual again (particularly The Game section and the rules in the "30's"). Very carefully.

Just a gentle reminder that not being aware of rules such as the one that covers this topic is an almost guaranteed way of making mistakes during a competition. Mistakes that can cost you - and your alliance partners - a match when you can least afford it. Last year, I saw many matches where teams made simple and completely avoidable mistakes. Human Players did things like putting their hands through the port in the shield, and collected enough penalties to lose a match, just because they didn't read the rules and find out that they were not supposed to do that.

-dave



.

[JHSmentor]

You might want to go back and read The Manual again (particularly The Game section and the rules in the "30's"). Very carefully.

Just a gentle reminder that not being aware of rules such as the one that covers this topic is an almost guaranteed way of making mistakes during a competition. Mistakes that can cost you - and your alliance partners - a match when you can least afford it. Last year, I saw many matches where teams made simple and completely avoidable mistakes. Human Players did things like putting their hands through the port in the shield, and collected enough penalties to lose a match, just because they didn't read the rules and find out that they were not supposed to do that.

-dave



.

Hmm - I see. you are specifically referring to G31: Robots may not contact the Ball Return or the Return Bars. I read this several times but it doesn't make complete sense unless you look at how the Tower is built and how the parts of it are labeled.

Still - if you were on the Alliance Zone side of the tower - you could still use the vertical tower bars to grab onto - just not the Return Bars portion of the tower. I don't see too many teams trying this but I could be wrong.

[2945Robotics]

Ok, Our team has been having troubles locating the exact dimensions of the target. The manual says that it has a 42" diameter and each ring is 4". however, one of the PDFs on the FIRST site said the dimensions were 38" diameter with two 2.5" rings and one 5" ring. Does anyone else have this problem and do you know the answer?

[GaryVoshol]

Ok, Our team has been having troubles locating the exact dimensions of the target. The manual says that it has a 42" diameter and each ring is 4". however, one of the PDFs on the FIRST site said the dimensions were 38" diameter with two 2.5" rings and one 5" ring. Does anyone else have this problem and do you know the answer?Have you seen Team Update #2?

[Pausert]

If the target is black and white, the floor stripe white and the ball is white, will the refs be wearing zebra shirts this year?

You can still distinguish between the vision target by shape. Tracking relies on finding the eccentricity of the vision target, so I don't think this sort of interference will be a problem.

[2945Robotics]

Have you seen Team Update #2?


thanks, that helps tremendously

[johnr]

You might want to think about re-inforceing your bumpers to take a hit from above. Just saw 120 pounds of bot coming down a bump. Looks scary. If your bot is passing by at the wrong time , i could see some bumpers getting sheared off.

[AlexSortor]

thanks, that helps tremendously

I dont believe i have, lolz, i actually only saw "Team Update #1"

[EricH]

I dont believe i have, lolz, i actually only saw "Team Update #1"
Means you need to look at the updates page again. They're up to #3, and #4 is due out Friday.

[vic burg]

Means you need to look at the updates page again. They're up to #3, and #4 is due out Friday.

What?! Oh crap I need to find those.... I only knew about 1. My computer must be hiding these from me.

[johnr]

I understand the answer to the question the way it is written, http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=13940 , but are you not able to change robot size if you are in touch with tower? Also understanding that you are not protected during this change. What, maybe i don't understand gdc answer. Can anybody clear this up for me?

[EricH]

I understand the answer to the question the way it is written, http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=13940 , but are you not able to change robot size if you are in touch with tower? Also understanding that you are not protected during this change. What, maybe i don't understand gdc answer. Can anybody clear this up for me?
I had to think about this, and it's both sides' fault for that one. I believe that the question referred to expanding and contracting the frame, which is specifically disallowed.

Anything above the frame perimeter/not affecting the frame perimeter, no big deal.

[KrakatoaCoo]

i love this game because it seems there are a lot more challenges than last year. The changeable bumpers are a really great idea because I was always confused as to which robot was on which alliance.

[JHSmentor]

I understand the answer to the question the way it is written, http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=13940 , but are you not able to change robot size if you are in touch with tower? Also understanding that you are not protected during this change. What, maybe i don't understand gdc answer. Can anybody clear this up for me?

the way I read it is that you can not make the perimeter of the robot wider or narrower. The Frame perimeter cannot chage even during the FINALE (R11). The question that I have is can the height change any time before the FINALE? Below is the definition of the NORMAL Configuration of the robot and it seems to say that the once the robot is placed on the field for the MATCH, it cannot change shape until the FINALE period. I know that the allowed NORMAL configuration height is up to 60" but can it change during the game? Or, is this statement only saying that the starting configuration must be identicle for a given MATCH (like the playoff rounds when it's the best of 3 for the match).


NORMAL CONFIGURATION – The physical configuration and orientation of the ROBOT when the MATCH is started. This is the state of the ROBOT immediately before being enabled by the Field Management System, before the ROBOT takes any actions, deploys any mechanisms, or moves away from the starting location. This configuration is static, and does not change during a single MATCH (although it may change from MATCH to MATCH).

[EricH]

You are allowed to expand up to the Finale Configuration at any time provided that you contact the Tower or that it's the Finale period. I would encourage you to read <G30> carefully, particularly <G30-C>.

[JHSmentor]

You are allowed to expand up to the Finale Configuration at any time provided that you contact the Tower or that it's the Finale period. I would encourage you to read <G30> carefully, particularly <G30-C>.


Hmmm - yeah, it seems that you are correct the way it's written - but it sounds like risky business to me. if you got pushed off/away from the tower while you were extended then you risk getting a penalty if this happens prior to the Finale period. I personally can't think of a reason to do this or where it might be beneficial - but I'm sure i'm not thinking far enough outside the box for various possibilities.

[Chris is me]

Hmmm - yeah, it seems that you are correct the way it's written - but it sounds like risky business to me. if you got pushed off/away from the tower while you were extended then you risk getting a penalty if this happens prior to the Finale period.

If you're pushed away, your opponents would be forcing you to incur a penalty, which isn't allowed.

[EricH]

Hmmm - yeah, it seems that you are correct the way it's written - but it sounds like risky business to me. if you got pushed off/away from the tower while you were extended then you risk getting a penalty if this happens prior to the Finale period. I personally can't think of a reason to do this or where it might be beneficial - but I'm sure i'm not thinking far enough outside the box for various possibilities.
If you're pushed away by an opponent, <G13> protects you from getting a penalty. (Though once they've stopped pushing, you need to either get back to the tower or get back to normal configuration.)

I can think of a reason or two to extend like that. Slow hanger is one reason; there are others.