The ultimate game breaker bot.

[pbhead]

I may have found something that may be too good to be true... but i have not found anything in the rules that would make it illegal.

Immagine a robot... it cant go over the bump... it cant go under. It starts in the middle zone. in autonomous it uses a very basic pnumatic kicker to get those 2 balls just over to its home field... no aiming into the goals... just getting the balls to the right side of the field. very basic.

As soon as tellop starts, it goes in front of its tower, it touches the tower, and then deploys 2 gravity powered guides that physically attach the robot to the sides of the tower, and keep it level. then, using a very basic winch-and hook, it begins climbing. It reaches the top. the top of this robot is shaped in such a manor that the balls that fall off the ball return hit the top of this robot, and the balls are redirected straight back into the goal... a simple servo connected to a bar directs the balls either to the left goal or the right goal.

basicly, a bot that all it does, is that as soon as a goal is scored, it returns the balls straight back into the goal... every one of the 12 balls the other 2 robots place into the goal means that as soon as that ball is placed back on the ball return, 5 seconds later its right back in the goal. if a robot trys to block the goal... this "god bot" simply directs its payload towards the opposite goal. and as an added bonus, you got a minimum of 2 points for hanging.

any thoughts about this?

the only thing that perhaps could be questionable would be the server that redirects the balls to the right goal or left goal... but there are many ways... to use a properly designed lifting mechanism to till the frame one way, and the balls go left, till the frame the other way the ball goes right.

[Stephen of REX]

How do you intend to climb the tower without entering finale mode? It is only allowed during the final 20 seconds, and I don't think that you could climb the tower while staying inside your frame perimeter.

[pbhead]

if your touching the tower... you can expand to your final config at any time.

rule g30 c. TOWER Contact ROBOT Volume - During a MATCH, ROBOTS in contact with their ALLIANCE TOWER may extend beyond their NORMAL CONFIGURATION volume but may not exceed the FINALE CONFIGURATION maximum volume.

[Andrew141WOBOT]

How do you intend to climb the tower without entering finale mode? It is only allowed during the final 20 seconds, and I don't think that you could climb the tower while staying inside your frame perimeter.

you're allowed to leave your frame perimeter if you're touching the tower before the finale.

EDIT: sorry, what pbhead said.

[Chris is me]

I'm relatively convinced this game does not have a chokehold. It's too big of a design challenge to fit this within the 84 inch cylinder rule while creating surfaces that balls perfectly bounce off of that will repeatably bounce balls into your goals from the middle zone. I think you're overestimating the force the free falling balls have.

[hipsterjr]

This all hings on the GDC's ruling on carrying that many of us have been waiting on. IF the GDC rules that you can "redirect" returned balls, then this plan is genius!

edit: while balls may not always go in the goal after falling, they will be ease pickings for your alliance

[Chris is me]

This all hings on the GDC's ruling on carrying that many of us have been waiting on. IF the GDC rules that you can "redirect" returned balls, then this plan is genius!

edit: while balls may not always go in the goal after falling, they will be ease pickings for your alliance

I just picked up a ball and dropped it on some angled piece of plastic or whatever from a 3 foot height. It doesn't fly far enough.

[pbhead]

edit: while balls may not always go in the goal after falling, they will be ease pickings for your alliance

exactly. just as important as keeping the balls from bouncing into the enemy zone... at a very minimum, it would be very easy to design something passive, and something that doesnt hold on to the balls that just keeps the balls on your side of the field.

[Lord Byron]

I'm not sure about it being legal but my team had the same idea about redirecting balls when we saw the game. If you can redirect balls off the top of the robot then we're probably going to build our robot for this.

[pbhead]

I just picked up a ball and dropped it on some angled piece of plastic or whatever from a 3 foot height. It doesn't fly far enough.


fly far enough for what? as soon as the ball passes the front of your bumper, its allready on your third of the field...

[rcmolloy]

That is basically what we're accomplishing right now. Not only will this allow us to redirect but also maintain some control of the game.

[Phoenix Spud]

Assuming that this is legal:

It sounds like an awesome strategy!!! :D I wish I had thought of it. :rolleyes: I have a couple of concerns around actually building this robot. It could be like 190 in 2008. They had an awesome design, and I was amazed that their creativity. The GDC said it was legal, then changed their mind in between GSR and Atlanta. 190 ended up having to run laps with the slowest robot from that year. Also, I am not sure the human players would be fast enough, you could get quite a "bottle neck" for the middle human player with the trident, and incur a bunch of penalties. Otherwise, it sounds AMAZING!!!

[JesseK]

This would only be able to be done with a PASSIVE mechanism. The balls fall on top of the robot, implying that it falls above the bumper zone.

<G45> Active BALL control - ROBOTS may not control BALL direction with active MECHANISMS above the BUMPER ZONE. Violation: PENALTY.

It would depend on the definition of 'active' as to whether or not you could change the direction the ball went in (i.e. is the mechanism passive if it is in place and not moving when the ball hits it?)

Don't get me wrong, this would be a feat worth seeing in person if it could be pulled off. It is exactly like the space elevator concept. While it's not a chokehold strategy it does leave an additional element in place for the opponents to think about. It is also a good strategy for a robot that can also lift other robots to get two 3-pt suspension bonuses.

[Chris is me]

fly far enough for what? as soon as the ball passes the front of your bumper, its allready on your third of the field...

Nevermind, I misunderstood.

Regardless, you have to get your robot to hang from the sides, extend a big lexan plate (which people are free to push), and play 3 on 2 on the ground... when your opponents could hoard balls in their zone and score them all in the last minute or so.

[lscime]

As cool as this strategy is I'd be very concerned about it's legality. Especially keeping in mind that that the GDC rules on the "intent" and "spirit" of the rules.

These Rules/Definitions may apply:

<G47> BALL RETURN Interference - ROBOTS may not interfere with BALLS in contact with the BALL RETURN. Violation: Two PENALTIES per affected BALL.

POSSESSION: Controlling the position and movement of a BALL

CARRYING: POSSESSING a BALL that is not in contact with the FIELD

[Kevin Sevcik]

I thought this same bot up a few days ago and have been toying with the idea. There's a very significant downside to this strategy. Yes, it gives you a theoretically very predictable source of balls. But it is also extremely limited. You're only getting balls your team actually scores, and you're never recovering any other balls from midfield. If you don't give yourself any ability to get down at some point, then all you've done is make yourself an extremely predictable opponent. If I know my opponent is going to attempt this strategy, the counter strategy becomes obvious. I have my defender concentrate solely on ejecting balls out of my opponents scoring zone and into the midfield, since my midfielder is now completely unopposed there. If I have a kicker that can score even 25% of the time from midfield then you're now in a world of hurt, because he can line up his shots unopposed.

Basically, you're trading your mobility and flexibility for what you think will be a steady supply of balls. If that supply gets slowly whittled down, then your plan fails.

[Kingofl337]

Once the ball leaves the ball return G47 no longer applies.

[Kims Robot]

Im quite impressed with this idea...

And actually in regards to this:
This would only be able to be done with a PASSIVE mechanism. The balls fall on top of the robot, implying that it falls above the bumper zone.

What Im not sure is if the FINALE configuration or the BALL INTERACTION volume takes precedence... If in fact its the FINALE Configuration (Im doubtful, though) then who says the mechanism has to be above your bumper? Granted this might be tough, but if you can extend to your finale configuration, you can be outside of your frame perimeter, which means you are free to create an active mechanism BELOW your bumper that directs the balls... again my guess is that the ball interaction volume still is required there... but this is a really cool thought.

Another way to make it work is to use your hanging device to angle your entire robot and "slide"....

I dunno, even if this isnt quite legal, its a really creative idea that is very very close to being legal with the current rules!

[PAR_WIG1350]

If it can be done without CARRYING, its worth trying
However, one really can't judge effectiveness before its tested

[GreatAnnoyance]

Carrying is when the ball is in contact with your robot when it is not on the feild. I would think that since the returning balls are midair that it would be considered carrying. Even if your scoring goals each time you then have a
1pt penalty. The only plus side is the 2pts you get as soon as the game ends and up to eight if the other robots can attatch to you. But the other team can do the same. But you would probally get a red card before the end of the match.

You also have that problem with the six balls the opposing alliance get at the begining. Unless your alliance can quickly get control of all twelve balls you will either have to abandon your offensive position (which may not be a problem) or leave the midefeild unapposed.

But even with the penalties, you could have your alliance try to stall the other bots so they can't get up onto the tower in time*. Plug the tunnel, park in front of the side of the tower. Or maybe even park on the platform**.

A very good idea. But probally illigal.

*You can mess with other robots during the finale, but you can't if they are in contact with the tower.

**Not sure about this one. I'll assume no in the name of Gracious Professionalism.

[pbhead]

in order for a ball to be carried... it must also be possessed. if your definition were true (which its not) any time any ball touched the top of any robot, it would be a penelty.

[EricH]

Carrying is when the ball is in contact with your robot when it is not on the feild.In that case, I'll make sure to have two robots hold yours right under the ball drops. The refs can't call pinning on me; they can call carrying on you every time a ball drops onto you. I'll let you score one net point, though. Just to get the coopertition bonus.[/sarcasm]

Until we get an OFFICIAL answer, please don't make that statement. Even under the current (non-interpreted) rules, it's when a ball is in possession of your robot and off the ground.

[M. Mellott]

I really can't believe this--I thought that this group of rookies that I've been working with came up with a really unique idea, something that no one has mentioned before and that no one would expect before it was too late. Something they could really make their mark with...

Now this post, with the EXACT strategy they came up with, was posted...:eek:

Absolutely amazing...kudos, pbhead!!

[Donut]

An interesting idea that as mentioned more than one team is willing to attempt if the GDC deems enough components of it legal.

However if you are going for this strategy you had better build a ROBUST design (the capitalization emphasis is needed). There is no protection granted to a robot attempting to elevate itself on the tower/platform prior to the finale period, and I can say for myself at least that if I were a driver against this robot at least one member of my alliance would be pinning, blocking, and doing everything possible to prevent this robot from doing its job, especially if its good at it. I would expect enough defense to be played that this design might not be feasible because the resources needed to hang and redirect balls might make the drivetrain too weak to ever get the robot to the tower under constant harassment.

[hipsterjr]

I wish the GDC would come out with their ruling on <44> and <45> ("carring" and "possesion").

[Jared Russell]

I wish the GDC would come out with their ruling on <44> and <45> ("carring" and "possesion").

What ruling are you after? In my opinion, the definitions of CARRYING and POSSESSING are crystal clear this year.

Does the ball stay in the same relative position to the robot when the robot moves or changes orientation (e.g. backs up or spins)? If so, you are POSSESSING this ball.

If you are POSSESSING the ball, is it also not in contact with the FIELD? If so, you are CARRYING this ball.

[sircedric4]

Similar to an old Ghostbusters quote about what answer you should always give when asked if you're a god. Whenever you have a "god-bot" you should keep the design to yourself until after ship date, while still building said "god-bot" for yourself. That way you don't give away your secret weapon.

Or in this case, the secret weapon that a few other teams had thought about and were planning on using themselves! Now this team has to do some different brainstorming on how we'll differentiate ourselves now that so many teams that read Delphi might look like us. We thought we were gonna be cool to be the only bot climbing the tower right off the bat, or at least one of the few who had thought outside the kicking box. Now the cat's out of the bag.

We have put a few carefully worded questions into Q&A on what is considered carrying in regards to structures on top of the robot, but it wasn't enough to give away a design approach. Coopertition is good and all, but I really like seeing the crazy, yet effective ideas that come from the quieter camps each year, and was hoping to join their ranks with a sneaky bot this year. Now we need to rethink how we are gonna be different so back to the drawing board.

[goodsky]

Regardless of the legality here, I am still not convinced that having a robot with only this one function is worth losing a member of your alliance, forfeiting ball control on the field.

If you hang on the tower for an entire game, you have left your alliance outnumbered on the field.

[Jimmy Nichols]

exactly. just as important as keeping the balls from bouncing into the enemy zone... at a very minimum, it would be very easy to design something passive, and something that doesnt hold on to the balls that just keeps the balls on your side of the field.

Please remember, even in the heat of battle, we are all here for the same purpose. We are not enemies, we are gracious opponents.

[hipsterjr]

Regardless of the legality here, I am still not convinced that having a robot with only this one function is worth losing a member of your alliance, forfeiting ball control on the field.

If you hang on the tower for an entire game, you have left your alliance outnumbered on the field.

I see your point, but may I counter with this...
There has been a lot of talk about the mid-fielder as a key role in any stratagy. The mid-field bot is responsible for ball control and blocking the tunnels. The design discused in this form controls balls more effectivly by not having to chase them down and then kick them over the bump, making up for it being less active. You could also drop back down to block the tunnel. While there are down sides to the "God-bot" stratagy and obvious counter-stratagies, if the team can mix things up and stay unpredictable, I think most alliances will be looking for a God-bot.

[jvriezen]

This would only be able to be done with a PASSIVE mechanism. The balls fall on top of the robot, implying that it falls above the bumper zone.



It would depend on the definition of 'active' as to whether or not you could change the direction the ball went in (i.e. is the mechanism passive if it is in place and not moving when the ball hits it?)



What if the robot inverted itself as it climbed the tower, so that its bottom was facing up? Then ACTIVE mechanisms (bot not POSSESSING mechanisms) could be used to swat the ball or alter ball deflection surfaces toward one goal or another.

[Taylor]

I believe a robot like this, if ruled to be legal, would do extremely well in Week 1 or 2 regionals; probably even win a couple design awards as well.
That being said, come weeks 3-5, teams will have developed counter-strategies and this design will become as much a hindrance to its alliance as a help. Certainly come Championship time, this strategy will be nearly obsolete.
The challenge in utilizing this design lies in staying one step ahead of the competition. What strategies will combat this design; what can you do to counter those strategies?
As I said before, adaptability is king in this game. It will be highly strategic, possibly the most FIRST has developed. The teams that do the best work between the ears will be the champions.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

I believe a robot like this, if ruled to be legal, would do extremely well in Week 1 or 2 regionals; probably even win a couple design awards as well.
That being said, come weeks 3-5, teams will have developed counter-strategies and this design will become as much a hindrance to its alliance as a help. Certainly come Championship time, this strategy will be nearly obsolete.
The challenge in utilizing this design lies in staying one step ahead of the competition. What strategies will combat this design; what can you do to counter those strategies?
As I said before, adaptability is king in this game. It will be highly strategic, possibly the most FIRST has developed. The teams that do the best work between the ears will be the champions.

Weeks 3-5?!? ... try Week 1 Thursday Noon. If a robot displays this type of capability it will surely recieve enough attention and counter strategy.

I do not however see this as the ultimate game breaker bot as I see many counter strategies to it:
Defense before it latches on to the tower -- this will make it very difficult to line up and attach.
Defense once it attaches to the tower -- Probably will happen and is the most likely to damage the robot (which I am against, but y'all are putting yourself in a vulnerable position. Build it robust).
Ball denial -- Once you are up, it's 3 vs 2 against your alliance partners, and unless you are perfect in scoring the opponents will control more balls than you as the match progresses.


... And this is all dependent on your design being legal (The only issue I see is the definition of active MECHINISM with the ball redirect).


Personally, I like the strategy but I find if very restictive and ultimately defendable once someone knows you have that capability.

JMHO

[Chris is me]

I believe a robot like this, if ruled to be legal, would do extremely well in Week 1 or 2 regionals; probably even win a couple design awards as well.
That being said, come weeks 3-5, teams will have developed counter-strategies and this design will become as much a hindrance to its alliance as a help. Certainly come Championship time, this strategy will be nearly obsolete.
The challenge in utilizing this design lies in staying one step ahead of the competition. What strategies will combat this design; what can you do to counter those strategies?
As I said before, adaptability is king in this game. It will be highly strategic, possibly the most FIRST has developed. The teams that do the best work between the ears will be the champions.

I'm just saying, but please build this robot and compete against me with it. I'm assuming whomever builds it gets it to work perfectly in Week 1. Please build it and let me play against it. It requires a low scoring match but it can be beaten. Trust me.

And it's way easier to win 3 on 2 than it is 3 on 3. :)

[hschase]

Nevermind, I misunderstood.

Regardless, you have to get your robot to hang from the sides, extend a big lexan plate (which people are free to push), and play 3 on 2 on the ground... when your opponents could hoard balls in their zone and score them all in the last minute or so.

except only one robot from the opposing alliance can be in your scoring zone anyway so it isn't really three on 2

[Chris is me]

except only one robot from the opposing alliance can be in your scoring zone anyway so it isn't really three on 2

Well, if you have both of your teammates in the scoring zone, all the opposing alliiance has to do is get all of the balls into its scoring zone and not score them. If you have one scorer and one defender, then I can pin the defender between two of the three robots and generally just stall, scoring everything in the last 30 seconds. Neither of us will get good RP, but you'll lose the match.

This is assuming the hanging robot works perfectly.

[Cyberphil]

The problem I see with this design is what happens when your opponent holds the majority of the balls? If they are doing the same thing then you loose. Also, the time that it takes the balls to get scored, passed to the middle human player, and roll down the chute might not make this worth it. With all of that wasted time you can try to posses the balls that the other team has. Why wouldn't you just build a robot that could just do that from the ground? Then, when there is free time you could try to posses more balls and possibly score more and get balls from both sides of the field. I feel that it would be a waste of time, although it is a good idea.

[PerpetualMotion]

If the robot could only direct the balls in one, fixed direction, it may be legal, but I think any mechanism that could change the direction of the ball would be considered active and would thus be illegal. However, lets assume it is legal...

Seems like it would be very easy to defend. As any goalie knows (hockey, soccer, ect), the further you come out of the net, the more you cut down the angle, and the less the opponent has to score in. The issue with this in most situations is that if the opponent gets around you, they have an open net to score in.

Since the robot in this strategy is unable to move, there is no concern with it getting around the defender. All the defender has to do is get very close to the robot deflecting the balls.

Also, this strategy assumes your alliance scores a ball to get it in the system. It's bad practice to assume anything, especially in FIRST.

This would also leave your team playing 2 vs 3. Once the defending robot has successful cut off your supply (assuming a ball gets scored), all it needs to do is clear the zone of remaining balls and pin whatever robot is in the zone. The game has now become 1 vs 2 with no balls in your zone... good luck

[Ian Curtis]

Well, if you have both of your teammates in the scoring zone, all the opposing alliiance has to do is get all of the balls into its scoring zone and not score them. If you have one scorer and one defender, then I can pin the defender between two of the three robots and generally just stall, scoring everything in the last 30 seconds. Neither of us will get good RP, but you'll lose the match.

This is assuming the hanging robot works perfectly.

It's not impossible to un-hang (harder, but not impossible).

I don't see the big deal with them not scoring. I doubt a ball has enough oomph to be directed from your opponents RETURN to your alliance's scoring zone. I'm much more comfortable with the idea a robot can hang in front of it's own RETURN making balls their alliance score go straight back into their zone.

I think it will be a non-trivial task to score multiple balls in a short amount of time, even if they are all floating around in your zone.

Ideally, this robot will hang in autonomous, so their really isn't any defensive strategy for it. The other alliance just need a really skilled defensive bot to kick the balls out as soon as they come rolling off the chute into your scoring zone.

I'll bet a cookie that 190 is building this exact robot (probably with the ability to suspend the rest of their alliance too), so hopefully we'll see how it fairs!*

*Based exclusively on the fact that this is the coolest, strategically most interesting robot I can think of.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Defense once it attaches to the tower -- Probably will happen and is the most likely to damage the robot (which I am against, but y'all are putting yourself in a vulnerable position. Build it robust).I'm calling this defense strategy a bad idea. Strategies intended solely for tipping, disabling, or damaging opponents are illegal and disqualifying.

If a robot has hung and rigidly attached itself to a field element, and your first bumps/taps aren't enough to dislodge it, then you should stop trying, because the only way that you can stop it is by physically destroying the robot's latching mechanism. I'll readily allow that it's acceptable if the mechanism is fragile enough to break under reasonable interaction. But I don't think a team attempting this strategy should be forced to design systems that are proof against a 6-motor, high torque shove-bot just because the other team can't figure out anything more creative than "push it till it breaks."

[M. Mellott]

The goal of this strategy is not to direct a returning ball into the goal every time--I don't think there will be enough energy in the ball to do that (since the only energy that can be on said ball is gravity). The goal is to direct a returning ball towards a goal, where a partner (already working against the goalie to score goals) can quickly stuff the ball into the goal...and start the process all over again. That sounds like 2 on 1 to me in my team's favor.

Also remember, if you're using a robot to keep me off the tower, you're no longer trying to score, which now makes it a 2 on 2 game, right?

[Daniel_LaFleur]

I'm calling this defense strategy a bad idea. Strategies intended solely for tipping, disabling, or damaging opponents are illegal and disqualifying.

If a robot has hung and rigidly attached itself to a field element, and your first bumps/taps aren't enough to dislodge it, then you should stop trying, because the only way that you can stop it is by physically destroying the robot's latching mechanism. I'll readily allow that it's acceptable if the mechanism is fragile enough to break under reasonable interaction. But I don't think a team attempting this strategy should be forced to design systems that are proof against a 6-motor, high torque shove-bot just because the other team can't figure out anything more creative than "push it till it breaks."

Kevin,

I completely agree with you ... hence my quote in the parentheses and my warning to build it robust.

[Jared Russell]

You build a robot to deflect returned balls directly into your zone, and I'll build a robot that sits right in front of your deflector to kick your returned balls into my zone.

[bobmonkey836]

1: due to rule <g28>, you get penalized for COMPLETELY crossing the center line in autonomous. this means you *could* use sensors (line reader?) to line up with the tower, latch onto it, and possibly start climbing in autonomous mode. the only real defense at that point is dead reckoning to sit in front of the tower right away and block it.

2: assuming this would be allowed, use some of that memory foam to help prevent the ball from bouncing off the back of the robot, and then let it slope.

3: i personally think this is not that great of a plan, unless it's actually meant to do that for end game purposes. as it, have some other abilities, then at the end, climb up, and get an extra couple of points in those last seconds. just don't build it with this being your whole game plan.

[Bomberofdoom]

Lol, when did you come up with this idea? I first thought about it on Sunday, when we were brainstorming about the hanging from the tower. The idea is unrealistic, I'm afraid. Maybe you could block the balls and make them fall to the platform and (hopefully) roll a bit towards the near zone.

[Racer26]

seems to me that you could probably get the deflector configured in such a way that the energy of the ball coming down the return is enough to push it forward and hit the angled part of the hump, which, if positioned right, could give it the required energy to go directly into the goal. now sure, a defensive bot could try to get in the way, but if you're able to change the direction the ball goes, then what can they do? the ball is smaller and faster than a 120lb robot.

[MCahoon]

<G45> Active BALL control - ROBOTS may not control BALL direction with active MECHANISMS above the BUMPER ZONE. Violation: PENALTY.

What defines an "active mechanism"? If the device you control the ball direction with is moved to extend to get into the finale configuration allowed when in contact with the tower, is it "passive" or "active"? It isn't obvious to me whether "active" is restricted to only the motion used in controlling the ball direction.

[Brad Voracek]

I thought of this day one, and I still think it is a key element of this game.

I didn't read the entire thread, but I think one robot like this will be on the winning alliance on Einstein.

However, you have to have good supporting mechanisms to begin with. You need to be able to kick balls over at least 1 hump still, and you need to be agile. And I'd want to be able to drive over a hump incase you don't start in the middle in your alliance. The good thing is, once you have a majority of balls in your near zone (8+), it is now 2 vs 1 in your near zone, since your opponent can only have 1 robot there, and you can have 2, it becomes a race to see if you can use 2 robots to score 8 balls faster than they can use 2 (or 3 if they pull your defender, but then you could pull 1 from your near zone to midfield.. so the game is still dynamic) robots to score 4 balls.


This is a good strategy, although it is not god mode, you still need to get more balls on your rotation, and have good support robots to help you score, because lets face it, having the balls roll to the goal is near impossible (wait til week one and we find a robot that's perfected this hehe).. But I think this type of robot (a return bot maybe?) will be key to ball control in midfield, because once the balls are in your rotation it becomes increasingly harder to defend against.

Let's not forget, this robot will also be good enough to go herd balls back into the rotation midfield, when balls aren't rolling down the chute. ;)

[Chris is me]

1: due to rule <g28>, you get penalized for COMPLETELY crossing the center line in autonomous. this means you *could* use sensors (line reader?) to line up with the tower, latch onto it, and possibly start climbing in autonomous mode. the only real defense at that point is dead reckoning to sit in front of the tower right away and block it.


Other than the general ball starvation strategy. There's more to defense than just stopping a robot from getting to a spot.

[Jones571]

GDC:

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=13696

[pandamonium]

I took this idea one step further controlling your ball return is great... but controlling both is better. This would be a great design challenge but I think if the rules allow the old design this one would also be legal.

[Kevin Sevcik]

I think the key question with this design is whether you can ever get a sufficient number of balls on your side of the field. I think a good, fast defense bot is going to be capable of clearing balls away from the near side much faster than you can score them, for a very simple reason: Scoring requires aiming, clearing does not. All a defensive robot has to do is make sure it's pointed up or down field and swing away.

[Brad Voracek]

I think the key question with this design is whether you can ever get a sufficient number of balls on your side of the field. I think a good, fast defense bot is going to be capable of clearing balls away from the near side much faster than you can score them, for a very simple reason: Scoring requires aiming, clearing does not. All a defensive robot has to do is make sure it's pointed up or down field and swing away.

You have to remember though that it will be 2 robots against 1 in the near zone, or at least it can be, which creates some interesting gameplay...

[Brad Voracek]

I took this idea one step further controlling your ball return is great... but controlling both is better. This would be a great design challenge but I think if the rules allow the old design this one would also be legal.

Haha, now you're just giving everything away! ;)

[pandamonium]

Haha, now you're just giving everything away! ;)

no there actually is an even better robot concept that is completely legal but I don't want to post that :) so I am not giving everything away.

[Chris is me]

You have to remember though that it will be 2 robots against 1 in the near zone, or at least it can be, which creates some interesting gameplay...

If that happens, every ball that isn't in the strategy exectuer's area is free and undefended in the defender's area. Say it's 6 and 6 even to start, the defender's one robot kicks 2 balls over, 4 go in. Assuming the same success rate with each cycle, the strategy executer can score about 6 or 7 points while the defender's other 2 robots hog balls all match long.

This is of course, assuming you build the side hanger required for this manuver.

[bobmonkey836]

Other than the general ball starvation strategy. There's more to defense than just stopping a robot from getting to a spot.

to me, it seems like it'd be better to block them from getting it to latch, as it requires less attention after that.

[Racer26]

These strategies all rely on the answer to this question. Is it allowed to have a robot designed in such a way that it CAN influence the direction of a ball that happens to land on it, WITHOUT the ball contacting any "active" mechanisms. If this is the case, one could build some sort of a trough, which would catch falling balls from above, and guide them in a particular direction.

[Cyberphil]

I took this idea one step further controlling your ball return is great... but controlling both is better. This would be a great design challenge but I think if the rules allow the old design this one would also be legal.

The problem with this is that the distance between the two towers is much longer than that. The field is split into three 18' sections. The robot can only be 90" tall in the finale config. How can you possibly reach that distance?

[Matt C]

I had a similar idea, but I have a strong feeling that it would be deemed in violation of G45.

It also requires a relatively loose interpretation of POSSESSION.

If your robot would move, and that ball would move with it at any time during your little manipulation move, even if you succeeded in flipping your robot and having everything extend out the bottom, you'd be in POSSESSION, and since the ball would not be in contact with the field, you'd be CARRYING.

Also, based on the GDC response to G45:
Incidental contact with MECHANISMS or COMPONENTS that do not control the direction of the BALL is permitted.

Could we conclude that intentional contact with MECHANISMS or COMPONENTS that contol the direction of the BALL is not permitted?

[Chris is me]

The problem with this is that the distance between the two towers is much longer than that. The field is split into three 18' sections. The robot can only be 90" tall in the finale config. How can you possibly reach that distance?

In fact, the maximum distance your robot COULD extend (assuming it grabs both side poles on the exact edge of the robot, without even considering bumpers) is 84 inches. 7 feet out. Looking at how the balls roll out of the chute, the opponent's ball lands at about a quarter way into the zone, 4 more feet away from where you need to be. In fact, your robot may be in such a position where it stops the ball from bouncing into your own zone.

[acidrain2012]

as much as I hate to be the party pooper here...
I don't think that would win any Gracious Professionalism or Coopertition awards. It defeats the purpose of actual competition during a match... Your decision.

[Rick Wagner]

In fact, the maximum distance your robot COULD extend (assuming it grabs both side poles on the exact edge of the robot, without even considering bumpers) is 84 inches. 7 feet out. Looking at how the balls roll out of the chute, the opponent's ball lands at about a quarter way into the zone, 4 more feet away from where you need to be. In fact, your robot may be in such a position where it stops the ball from bouncing into your own zone.
It seems to me that balls rolling off the chute will be going fast enough to completely miss a robot hanging from either tower. I think the GDC intended allowing the pre-FINALE tower-touch-and-hang in order to enable slow-hoisting robots to have enough time to get up past the platform.

[Chris is me]

It seems to me that balls rolling off the chute will be going fast enough to completely miss a robot hanging from either tower. I think the GDC intended allowing the pre-FINALE tower-touch-and-hang in order to enable slow-hoisting robots to have enough time to get up past the platform.

As I don't have a full size field at my house (YET!), I was going off of the ball return video from Kickoff (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCzRhLSoGt0&feature=related) (1:45 in). It looks like the second or third bounce could hit the ramp robot and bounce back.

[CallieJ]

I'm not sure if someone already mentioned this (probably), but rule <G44> says that robots cannot carry a ball, which is defined as controlling the direction and motion of a ball if the ball is not in contact with the field. Also, rule <G45> says that robots can't control a ball with a mechanism above the bumper zone.

It's a very good idea, and I know some people on my team and on the team at my school (192) came up with it as well, but I think they really want us to play "soccer".

[EricH]

I'm not sure if someone already mentioned this (probably), but rule <G44> says that robots cannot carry a ball, which is defined as controlling the direction and motion of a ball if the ball is not in contact with the field. Also, rule <G45> says that robots can't control a ball with a mechanism above the bumper zone.Psst... <G45> specifies an active mechanism. If it didn't, we'd all be in trouble if we had the misfortune to be under the ball return.

The rule you really wanted to refer to was <R19> as added to in Update #2. Simply put, no more than 3" of the ball can enter anything designed to deflect balls in a controlled manner if it's above the bumper zone.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Update #2:
<R19> ROBOTS must be designed so that in normal operation BALLS cannot extend more than 3 inches inside:
a) the FRAME PERIMETER below the level of the bumper zone (see figure 8-5)
b) a MECHANISM or feature designed to deflect balls in a controlled manner that is above the level of the BUMPER ZONE
This certainly puts a kink in these plans. The added difficulty depends on if they're making it:
a) 3 inches from a vertical right prism containing all the parts of the mechanism (ie, if you're looking down at it, is it 3 inches past the edge of the mechanism)
b) 3 inches inside some sort of other projection of the mechanism. Like if you had a slide with 2" walls at a 45deg tilt. Wouldn't pass the first test, would pass this one.

[bduddy]

Update #2:

This certainly puts a kink in these plans. The added difficulty depends on if they're making it:
a) 3 inches from a vertical right prism containing all the parts of the mechanism (ie, if you're looking down at it, is it 3 inches past the edge of the mechanism)
b) 3 inches inside some sort of other projection of the mechanism. Like if you had a slide with 2" walls at a 45deg tilt. Wouldn't pass the first test, would pass this one.
As currently written, I don't see anything referring to any kind of projection... so any kind of ramp, or deflector, should be legal. I'm not entirely sure what "inside" is defined to be in that new rule, actually. I fear this update has asked more questions than it has answered...

[Brandon Holley]

As currently written, I don't see anything referring to any kind of projection... so any kind of ramp, or deflector, should be legal. I'm not entirely sure what "inside" is defined to be in that new rule, actually. I fear this update has asked more questions than it has answered...


The update is clear. Read it and re-read it. The ball cannot extend 3" into any MECHANISM above the bumper zone.

[ThirteenOfTwo]

And since the mechanism couldn't have been active, it would have redirected balls in only one direction. A well placed defender with a kicker would make mincemeat of this, even if <R19> didn't ban it.

[EricH]

And since the mechanism couldn't have been active, it would have redirected balls in only one direction. A well placed defender with a kicker would make mincemeat of this, even if <R19> didn't ban it.
At which point, the robot up top changes the angle of the redirecter between balls coming down. See Team Update #2's added note to <G45>.

And it is possible to comply with <R19> and still direct the balls in the general direction you want them to go.

[dodar]

So does this mean if you build protector plates for say your electronics and they are angled, when a ball hits your robot and rolls off in another direction would you get a penalty or not cause it was accidental

[pbhead]

as long as the ball doesnt find its way 3 inchs past your plates... no.

so... my origional post still stands... and... as long as you dont activate your servo when a ball is in contact with the robot... you can use a powered mechanizem to direct the ball. (just make sure you dont move your ball director when a ball is touching it!)

[Racer26]

Agree. Changes to G45/R19 as in Team Update #2 have asked more questions than they've answered. It seems that they dont want us to be intentionally deflecting balls in a particular direction, but consider the following scenario:

if i design my holonomic drive bot with a slanted top, and NEVER rotate my robot, instead opting to only translate it, ball hits the slanted top... am i intentionally diverting the ball in the correct direction?

[Woody1458]

Im interested in the interaction between this idea and the 3 inch rule.

[smedley.jason]

I think it would be legal but you would possibly be penalized for doing all the work for your team. Remember FIRST is a team sport.

[Nigel]

Well, assuming this bot gets past both the 3 inch intrusion rule (doubtful), and the active mechanism rule (maybe), and the carrying/possessing rule (doubtful as well), what about the fact that this bot, when power is shut off, will not be able to be detached from all I have heard about it so far... seemingly the design relies on high power clamps or grabbers or something to keep it attached to the tower, yet these won't be easily detached when finale mode ends and the bot has to be detached...

Also, I have a feeling that someone will build this bot regardless, and that it will work 1 time during first week qualifications, and then be useless when the other midfield bot pins it against a wall or pushes it over a bump "accidentally" causing it to tip over and fall and die...

Though creative, I doubt the legality or effectiveness of this design... plus there's the whole gracious professionalism thing which easily can throw a wrench into those plans :D

[Ian Curtis]

Well, assuming this bot gets past both the 3 inch intrusion rule (doubtful), and the active mechanism rule (maybe), and the carrying/possessing rule (doubtful as well), what about the fact that this bot, when power is shut off, will not be able to be detached from all I have heard about it so far... seemingly the design relies on high power clamps or grabbers or something to keep it attached to the tower, yet these won't be easily detached when finale mode ends and the bot has to be detached...

Are you suggesting that no one will be able to hang because they can't design a system to get them off at the end of the match? I think you'll be surprised when you get to your regional! :)

Though creative, I doubt the legality or effectiveness of this design... plus there's the whole gracious professionalism thing which easily can throw a wrench into those plans :D

What makes this un-GP? Knowing her grandson won a robot competition using an innovative, competitive design would make my grandmother proud. :)

I think the discussion up to this point has made it clear that it's very possible to build a robot that redirects balls coming off the return that meets the redefined criteria <R19> in Team Update #2. Am I missing something?

[Nigel]

Are you suggesting that no one will be able to hang because they can't design a system to get them off at the end of the match? I think you'll be surprised when you get to your regional! :)


No I wasn't suggesting that actually, I was simply stating that given what has been discussed in some of the posts, i.e. hooking onto the sides of the tower firmly enough to be unable to be pushed off easily, that a bot which is clamped on firmly enough to be detach proof during competition may have a hard time detaching at the end of the game... I understand completely that it is entirely possible to climb the tower, if it wasn't they wouldn't have made it part of the game...

And it IS possible in theory, the only question is how practical will it be, and how easy to defend against this "god-bot" will it be... those sorts of questions may only be able to be answered during regionals though so I guess we'll see 'cos its pretty clear at least one team will be doing this design

[Kellen Hill]

Something interesting I would like to throw in to this discussion.

Page 5 of the Robot section in the Manual:
MECHANISM – A COTS or custom assembly of COMPONENTS that provide specific functionality on the ROBOT. A MECHANISM can be disassembled (and then reassembled) into individual COMPONENTS without damage to the parts.

So with this definition of a mechanism, could you build something that you wouldn't be able to take apart without damaging and use it to redirect balls (My idea was to simply put a sticker on it because to take the sticker off would involve damaging it). In my mind this device, as it is not a mechanism from this definition, could be as active as you want it to redirect balls from this hanging position.

Just a thought :yikes:

[dlavery]

A few thoughts...

Is this design within the original intent of how the game was to be played? No, not really. But, teams have found their way around the intent of the game before, and it has not been disastrous.

Is this design legal within the current rules of the game? Certain aspects of the design make me think that answer is slightly more fuzzy. The only way to know for sure is to ask on the official Q&A system and let FIRST make a call on it.

If it is determined that it is legal, is this really the "god-bot game killer" that is being advertised? I am pretty much convinced that it is not even close. Let's put it this way - if you think this will be an unbeatable design that will dominate the game the way that Beatty did in 2002, then I urge you to build it and compete. Please. Please, please, please. Because if you do, there is a group of us that would hope to be first in line to go up against this design. We think there are multiple obvious (and a few not-so-obvious) defense approaches that shut down the effectiveness of this design very quickly. And once that happens, if the control of the game swings over to the other alliance, then the match is likely effectively over.

Could I guarantee that an opposing alliance would win against this design every time? No, not really. But do we already have ideas on how an opposing alliance can win often enough to take the "god-bot game dominator" title away in a real hurry? You betcha. And there are a few that are just itching to try out those ideas.

-dave



.

[pbhead]

Dave Lavery posted on my thread!

I admit, that there are multiple strategies against the design... and it will be interesting to see the robots that do this compete against those strategies... If we can make it definitively legal, and I can get my team to do this design... It will make a very exciting game. If it does as well "as advertised", then we will see you in Atlanta!

[Cyberphil]

In fact, the maximum distance your robot COULD extend (assuming it grabs both side poles on the exact edge of the robot, without even considering bumpers) is 84 inches. 7 feet out. Looking at how the balls roll out of the chute, the opponent's ball lands at about a quarter way into the zone, 4 more feet away from where you need to be. In fact, your robot may be in such a position where it stops the ball from bouncing into your own zone.

I don't know what kind of track you are using, but ours doesn't go that far. The ball is supposed to bounce off of the tower once first. Ours only goes like a foot past the tower, where it is supposed to be.

[Chris is me]

I don't know what kind of track you are using, but ours doesn't go that far. The ball is supposed to bounce off of the tower once first. Ours only goes like a foot past the tower, where it is supposed to be.

The distance I said in my post is my guesstimate of where the ball hits the ground from the track based on the Kickoff video. I could be way off with the horizontal distance of the ball coming out of the chute, but it certainly doesn't have enough momentum rolling down the chute to hit "the ultimate game breaker bot".

[Cyberphil]

The distance I said in my post is my guesstimate of where the ball hits the ground from the track based on the Kickoff video. I could be way off with the horizontal distance of the ball coming out of the chute, but it certainly doesn't have enough momentum rolling down the chute to hit "the ultimate game breaker bot".

Agreed.

[CrazyCarl461]

Balls this year are already going to be highly contested the moment they fall to earth (at least if the alliances are any good). It seems this hanging bot is merely changing the location that the ball falls to the ground. What's so great about that? I'll go wherever you want to challenge you to the returned balls, it doesn't matter to me. Opposing robots will be able to intercept them either way. There are 12 balls on this field, the likelihood that you can get 12 balls in this magical infinite loop seems almost nonexistent. This hanging bot essentially turns the game into a 2 v 3 match. Assuming you would want to defend the other alliance from disrupting the loop, it becomes a 1 v 2 match. There will be plenty of balls for the other alliance to get a relatively uncontested regular scoring loop of their own going.

If I ever see this strategy work at all, I will eat my hat (see Who am I pic above)

[Chris is me]

Balls this year are already going to be highly contested the moment they fall to earth (at least if the alliances are any good). It seems this hanging bot is merely changing the location that the ball falls to the ground. What's so great about that? I'll go wherever you want to challenge you to the returned balls, it doesn't matter to me.

Then you'll get plenty of penalties for being a second opposing robot in the other alliance's zone. Perhaps "I'll go wherever you want to challenge you, it only matters if my teammate is already there, in which case, the balls are in a zone where possession is harder to contest."

That's most of the premise behind any kind of ball hogging strategy. That being said, this variant of it I believe is worse than a variant with 3 mobile alliance members.

[CrazyCarl461]

Then you'll get plenty of penalties for being a second opposing robot in the other alliance's zone.

That is true, the balls are being directed to a more restrictive zone. However, I submit that only one bot will be needed to disrupt this flow of balls enough to break it. If the unbeatable alliance decides they want to put 2 v 1 in their near zone to keep the defending bot at bay, then that will completely remove their presence from the other two zones and the other alliance will have two robots roaming this area freely with the remaining balls.

I certainly don't want my nay saying to come off as negative, I really did enjoy reading about this idea. It is a creative strategy and it is always good to see FIRSTers using their brains! I just think the power play situation you put the other alliance in will be harder to overcome than people think.

[Jstack14]

I had this exact same idea for a design whenour team was brainstorming however my team shot it down because to direct the ball towards the goal it oculd violate <G45> Active BALL control - ROBOTS may not control BALL direction with active MECHANISMS
above the BUMPER ZONE. Violation: PENALTY.

and they defined active mechanisms as: MECHANISMS are considered “active” if they are in motion relative to the ROBOT
while in contact with the BALL. Resetting or moving MECHANISMS while not in
contact with a BALL is permitted as the MECHANISMS are not considered “active.”
Also according to <G46> BALL Penetration Restriction – The BALL must not extend more than 3 inches inside the
FRAME PERIMETER as defined in Rule <R19>

<R19> ROBOTS must be designed so that in normal operation BALLS cannot extend more than 3
inches inside
a) the FRAME PERIMETER below the level of the BUMPER ZONE (see Figure 8-5),
b) a MECHANISM or feature designed to deflect BALLS in a controlled manner that is
above the level of the BUMPER ZONE.

THis means that your way of deflecting balls may only allow the ball to go three inches into your frame so it would be very hard to make this work becuase the way most robots pull themselves up you will not be able to redirect the ball simply because it will be inside your frame perimeter sometime.

I like the strategy though, when i was thinking about it i thought it would be dominated but the only flaw is your team has to score for you to get balls and if the don't score then you are doing no good to help your team.

[EricH]

<R19> ROBOTS must be designed so that in normal operation BALLS cannot extend more than 3
inches inside
a) the FRAME PERIMETER below the level of the BUMPER ZONE (see Figure 8-5),
b) a MECHANISM or feature designed to deflect BALLS in a controlled manner that is
above the level of the BUMPER ZONE.

THis means that your way of deflecting balls may only allow the ball to go three inches into your frame so it would be very hard to make this work becuase the way most robots pull themselves up you will not be able to redirect the ball simply because it will be inside your frame perimeter sometime. You've obviously read the current manual, but in this case, I think you may want to look at it again. See <R19-B>, which I've highlighted in your post.

There is still debate about what "3 inches inside a mechanism...above the bumper zone" actually means, but I think the common consensus on CD is that that means that the ball can't go more than 3 inches into whatever mechanism/feature is used for the deflection, not that the mechanism must be no more than 3 inches from the frame perimeter. The GDC may wish to look at tweaking the wording of <G46> to match the current version of <R19>.

[Steve W]

I actually have found the ultimate bot design. The issue is whether or not any rules will be broken.

http://www.xkcd.com/689/

[Racer26]

heh... If only Randall had named that comic Dozer's Revenge :P

[KGood]

To start, this would most likely be barred from use simply because it's designed as a loophole tactic; judges try to eliminate that as much as possible because it's not in the spirit of the game.

Also, wouldn't this violate the finale configuration rule <R10> which says the maximum "regular configuration height" is 60 inches, meaning the robot can't extent to the height you specified because the bar is 7 feet above the ground?

Also, I can't cite the rule off hand but robots can't interfere with the ball-return mechanism...I'm fairly sure the judges could use this to disqualify your bot in attempt to keep out loophole designs, like I said in the beginning.

[EricH]

To start, this would most likely be barred from use simply because it's designed as a loophole tactic; judges try to eliminate that as much as possible because it's not in the spirit of the game.

Also, wouldn't this violate the finale configuration rule <R10> which says the maximum "regular configuration height" is 60 inches, meaning the robot can't extent to the height you specified because the bar is 7 feet above the ground?

Also, I can't cite the rule off hand but robots can't interfere with the ball-return mechanism...I'm fairly sure the judges could use this to disqualify your bot in attempt to keep out loophole designs, like I said in the beginning.
<G30> and the OTHER configuration in <R10> allow it. <G47> only disallows contact with a ball on the return. The second it is not on the return, a ball can be contacted.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

To start, this would most likely be barred from use simply because it's designed as a loophole tactic; judges try to eliminate that as much as possible because it's not in the spirit of the game.

Judges are there to enforce the rules, not bar something because it is a 'loophole' tactic. It's up to the GDC to determine legality of a tactic/device.


Also, wouldn't this violate the finale configuration rule <R10> which says the maximum "regular configuration height" is 60 inches, meaning the robot can't extent to the height you specified because the bar is 7 feet above the ground?

When you are touching the tower you may assume FINALE configuration at any time. Thus the total allowable height while in contact with the tower is 90"

Also, I can't cite the rule off hand but robots can't interfere with the ball-return mechanism...I'm fairly sure the judges could use this to disqualify your bot in attempt to keep out loophole designs, like I said in the beginning.

The tactic here does not interfere with the return mechanism. It waits for the ball to leave the return mechanism and then redirects the ball.

From what I see, properly implemented, it could be legal. As for it's effectiveness ... That is to be seen. I, personally, look forward to playing against this strategy.

[Mike9966]

So, how about if a bot has a net that sticks up 3-4 feet and when the balls leave the chute they hit the properly placed bot and at least roll toward the tunnel into their alliances side?
It's passive, but if it's in the middle of the bot the balls would hit it more than 3 inches in the frame perimitter.
I don't see this as a sole stragity, but as something availble to help the alliance if needed.
What do you think?

Mike

[Zack247]

You can't touch the balls once you're up on the tower.

[Chris is me]

You can't touch the balls once you're up on the tower.

Says who? Which rule prohibits this?

[Kingofl337]

I think the only question here is, The GDC want's teams to play soccer, more or less, is doing something other then playing soccer going end up becoming illegal via a clarification week 6 or between events? Basically, teams are scared of ending up like 190/1519 in 2008.

[Chris is me]

I think the only question here is, The GDC want's teams to play soccer, more or less, is doing something other then playing soccer going end up becoming illegal via a clarification week 6 or between events?

The GDC has surely seen this thread, and posted Team Updates about above bumper zone passive ball manipulation mechanisms in response to proposals much like this one.

Basically, teams are scared of ending up like 190/1519 in 2008.

Multiple aspects of 190's hurdling approach were deemed either illegal or against the intent of a hurdle only a week or so into build season. 1519 is sketchier territory.

I don't think a lot of teams are scared of their robot designs being ruled illegal.

[Carol]

Judges are there to enforce the rules...


Not to pick on Dan, but I want to clarify the roles. Judges are there to select awards (Chairmans, etc.) Referees and Inspectors are there to enforce the rules. Very different roles among the three positions.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Not to pick on Dan, but I want to clarify the roles. Judges are there to select awards (Chairmans, etc.) Referees and Inspectors are there to enforce the rules. Very different roles among the three positions.

I stand corrected.

;)

[Racer26]

Multiple aspects of 190's hurdling approach were deemed either illegal or against the intent of a hurdle only a week or so into build season. 1519 is sketchier territory.

I don't think a lot of teams are scared of their robot designs being ruled illegal.

IMO, 190's hurdler, while certainly playing the edge of the rules, I think should have been allowed. As for 1519, I don't see how it was sketchy at all. They had a movable control board, which was the ROBOT, since it had the ROBOT CONTROLLER on it. Fezzik and Speed Racer were simply two MECHANISMS it could be attached to. I always thought this sort of thing was EXACTLY within the spirit of the interchangeable MECHANISMS but have to be within 120lbs all inclusive rule.

In any case, I dont think that theres going to be many (if any) teams trying this tactic, as its very difficult to do it within the rules as written now.

[sircedric4]

I think the only question here is, The GDC want's teams to play soccer, more or less, is doing something other then playing soccer going end up becoming illegal via a clarification week 6 or between events? Basically, teams are scared of ending up like 190/1519 in 2008.

Last time I played soccer, which was quite a few years ago granted, I could "trap" the ball with my chest and drop it at my feet to dribble down the field. All I see this approach doing is the same thing.

You obviously can't POSSESS the balls over the bumper (using your hands in soccer) but I see nothing in the rules, now that they clarified them with the update that would disallow passively directing the ball with the top of your robot (your chest) like you do in soccer.

[EricH]

As for 1519, I don't see how it was sketchy at all. They had a movable control board, which was the ROBOT, since it had the ROBOT CONTROLLER on it. Fezzik and Speed Racer were simply two MECHANISMS it could be attached to. I always thought this sort of thing was EXACTLY within the spirit of the interchangeable MECHANISMS but have to be within 120lbs all inclusive rule.If you wanted to go by the spirit of the rules, 1519 was not legal. If you wanted to go by the letter of the rules, then they were (unless possibly their bumpers weren't). (To quote a Q&A for that year responding to a question about something else, "That would be a violation of the spirit, but not necessarily the letter, of the rules.") ROBOT that year was poorly defined; something about whatever a team places on the field that has passed inspection, if I recall correctly.

The next year, the definition of ROBOT was changed to include a mobility system, control system, etc. and it hasn't changed.

[sircedric4]

And another ruling which makes the "god-bot" perfectly useable just got posted on Q&A.

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=13831


We cannot review specific ROBOT designs. However, it is noted that a BALL that is in the process of transiting freely up or down a ramp (i.e. not actively controlled) does not satisfy the definition of POSSESSION and is therefore not being CARRIED. But in addition, if thereafter the BALL comes to rest of top of the ROBOT, no matter how it got there, it would satisfy the conditions required for POSSESSION and CARRYING, and would then be PENALIZED accordingly.

This means that any robot with a ramp being used to divert the ball to either the other zone off of the ball return, or down in front of their own kicker should be perfectly legal. The carrying issue was the only thing keeping it from being viable, as I see it, and that has now been clarified. So we will probably see a couple teams try this strategy.

[Chris is me]

This means that any robot with a ramp being used to divert the ball to either the other zone off of the ball return, or down in front of their own kicker should be perfectly legal. The carrying issue was the only thing keeping it from being viable, as I see it, and that has now been clarified. So we will probably see a couple teams try this strategy.

The only thing keeping it from being legal. I bet the debate of whether or not it is viable to give up a robot in exchange for a return ramp for your own scored balls will rage on.

[AHughes94]

I may have found something that may be too good to be true... but i have not found anything in the rules that would make it illegal.

Immagine a robot... it cant go over the bump... it cant go under. It starts in the middle zone. in autonomous it uses a very basic pnumatic kicker to get those 2 balls just over to its home field... no aiming into the goals... just getting the balls to the right side of the field. very basic.

As soon as tellop starts, it goes in front of its tower, it touches the tower, and then deploys 2 gravity powered guides that physically attach the robot to the sides of the tower, and keep it level. then, using a very basic winch-and hook, it begins climbing. It reaches the top. the top of this robot is shaped in such a manor that the balls that fall off the ball return hit the top of this robot, and the balls are redirected straight back into the goal... a simple servo connected to a bar directs the balls either to the left goal or the right goal.

basicly, a bot that all it does, is that as soon as a goal is scored, it returns the balls straight back into the goal... every one of the 12 balls the other 2 robots place into the goal means that as soon as that ball is placed back on the ball return, 5 seconds later its right back in the goal. if a robot trys to block the goal... this "god bot" simply directs its payload towards the opposite goal. and as an added bonus, you got a minimum of 2 points for hanging.

any thoughts about this?

the only thing that perhaps could be questionable would be the server that redirects the balls to the right goal or left goal... but there are many ways... to use a properly designed lifting mechanism to till the frame one way, and the balls go left, till the frame the other way the ball goes right.

Just want to say that a game breaking robot would be a robot that can do everything and very well, causing the other teams to have to play differently when against that bot.

[AHughes94]

Just want to say that a game breaking robot would be a robot that can do everything and very well, causing the other teams to have to play differently when against that bot.

The robot would have to be able to aim very well, go over or under, and score from several areas on the field.

[Jstack14]

You've obviously read the current manual, but in this case, I think you may want to look at it again. See <R19-B>, which I've highlighted in your post.

There is still debate about what "3 inches inside a mechanism...above the bumper zone" actually means, but I think the common consensus on CD is that that means that the ball can't go more than 3 inches into whatever mechanism/feature is used for the deflection, not that the mechanism must be no more than 3 inches from the frame perimeter. The GDC may wish to look at tweaking the wording of <G46> to match the current version of <R19>.


Thank you for pointing this out, it makes some of my other ideas seem possible for deflecting balls the opposing team kicked. Still the first rule i stated would prevent controling the balls placement activley although you could make a fixed design that would deflect the ball into the desireed direction.

As everyone else has said though it doesn't seem like it is in the spirit of the game, and although i am new to FIRST i understand that loopholes aren't the way to go.

Thanks for pointing out the (potential) error in my understanding of the rule and thanks to the person who posted this to get some good creative ideas going.

Joe Stack
1710

[Matthew2c4u]

Im gonna summarize what we have so far.
If you build a robot which can effectively climb up to the top of the tower and use a non active mecanism that can deflect balls from the ball return back into our goal is completely legal as long as the ball does not go more than 3 inches into that mecanism.
You could build a robot which could easily change the course of the game.
Now im going to point out the major flaw with this tactic, and the reason that it wont be a winning strategy.
Flaw: When not in the finale period, it is 100% legal to reach up and knock that robot off the tower.
Also, if you do your job too well, it will be difficult to get all the balls back into play on time, if you had more than 5 balls cycling @ once it could be difficult to get them back into game @ sure.
I for one, am planning for both parts of it and i will love to see some of what you guys pull off.
-Matt B

[EricH]

Flaw: When not in the finale period, it is 100% legal to reach up and knock that robot off the tower.

If you do damage, and especially if it happens more than once, I'd guess that you get a few yellow cards under <G36>. It's possible, if you're blatant enough (read: stupid enough in how you do it), that you get a penalty and/or red card under <G38-A>, <G37-C-V> notwithstanding.

Worse, if you really didn't plan for it, you're going to get a robot slamming into the top of yours. They can't be penalized, either--YOU knocked them down onto you! If you aren't strong enough to deflect them off of your robot, or agile enough to dodge them as they come down, you could be in a world of hurt.

Yes, it is legal to try to do this. Yes, you'd probably get away with it if you didn't do damage. Yes, you'd draw a penalty if you didn't do it right, and even a red card if you really messed up your try at knocking them off. Yes, you could damage your own robot if you really, really messed up. Do the risks outweigh the benefits? You decide.

And, knowing that teams are going to try this, teams that try this will design to be, shall we say, tough to get off the bar unless they want to come down.

[Chris is me]

I've got to say there are much better counters to this strategy, if it ever appears in a game, than to focus on the robot that isn't doing anything. It's a 3 on 2 match, I'm sure you'll figure something out.

[Jstack14]

Flaw: When not in the finale period, it is 100% legal to reach up and knock that robot off the tower.
Also, if you do your job too well, it will be difficult to get all the balls back into play on time, if you had more than 5 balls cycling @ once it could be difficult to get them back into game @ sure.
I for one, am planning for both parts of it and i will love to see some of what you guys pull off.
-Matt B

The biggest flaw is it requires your team to score...
and as stated below it will be 2 on 3.

I think the biggest challenge will be getting balls in your goal first, then after this will dominate,

[Matthew2c4u]

If you do damage, and especially if it happens more than once, I'd guess that you get a few yellow cards under <G36>. It's possible, if you're blatant enough (read: stupid enough in how you do it), that you get a penalty and/or red card under <G38-A>, <G37-C-V> notwithstanding.

Worse, if you really didn't plan for it, you're going to get a robot slamming into the top of yours. They can't be penalized, either--YOU knocked them down onto you! If you aren't strong enough to deflect them off of your robot, or agile enough to dodge them as they come down, you could be in a world of hurt.

Yes, it is legal to try to do this. Yes, you'd probably get away with it if you didn't do damage. Yes, you'd draw a penalty if you didn't do it right, and even a red card if you really messed up your try at knocking them off. Yes, you could damage your own robot if you really, really messed up. Do the risks outweigh the benefits? You decide.

And, knowing that teams are going to try this, teams that try this will design to be, shall we say, tough to get off the bar unless they want to come down.
I think Team Update 4 shows us the tolerance for that strategy.
I think that attacking the climbing robot is going to be given alot of leeway, but i dont know how it will be called honestly.
Most likely overpowering that team will be possible, but someone who does this well will be worth the loss of an active robot.
<G-37 C V> offers alot of blatent protection, but you definitly need to be aware of what your doing.

[cooldude8181]

This is an amazing idea, and i hope someone will try it so I can see it in action.

[IdaNeStr3088]

Great Idea!!
I was thinking about the same idea my self during thr kick-off. I wanted to do a "roof" to the robot that will return balls to the direction you want to and also will help other robots to climb on you so they will be able to get to the tower. Now we are tring to develop this system so we will be able to use t if we want to but we are not counting only on this, we are also conting on the other systems we want to develpo - this will be a system for backup.

-Idan KOB #3088::safety::

[EricH]

I think Team Update 4 shows us the tolerance for that strategy.
I think that attacking the climbing robot is going to be given alot of leeway, but i dont know how it will be called honestly.
Most likely overpowering that team will be possible, but someone who does this well will be worth the loss of an active robot.
<G-37 C V> offers alot of blatent protection, but you definitly need to be aware of what your doing.
Exactly. It's legal, unless and until you deliver damage. Once you start damaging them, you're pretty much gone.

It's worth it to defend them, as long as you aren't totally stupid about doing it.

[ThirteenOfTwo]

Keep in mind that this isn't going to be able to score on its own, at least not with a passive mechanism. Unless, of course, you can build a ramp that can turn a ball around and imbue it with enough momentum to go 22 feet diagonally and then up 8 inches on the ramp in front of the goal. So, if you're just passing to your front field bot, you give away any shot at scoring balls that they score, while they will likely return at least a few of the ones that you try to (by kicking balls back to midfield). Over time, this becomes less effective. Also, you have a problem with the poles being out of the way.

[kborer22]

people keep referring this a "loophole" strategy and saying that this is not how the game is "intended" to be played; i personally think this is where innovation and thinking outside the box can take really take flight. Not only are you thinking about different types robots but also different ways to approach this difficult engineering problem. IF FIRST wanted everyone to build kicking (or robots of similar type) then they would have said so, that's the beauty of this program, leaving the door open for anything that is within the rules, which in this particular case have been given the go-ahead by FIRST/GDC.

[Tom Bottiglieri]

If I had come up with a chokehold strategy, I wouldn't talk about it on Chief Delphi.

That's just me though. :cool:

[Hagar Topeka 1]

:confused: Here's a question: What if you designed the gripper(s) on your "god-bot" to include a rotating mechanism such that the robot was capable of swinging itself on the tower? Is that use of an "active mechanism" if you intentionally use it to provide momentum to the falling balls?

:confused: Will you be penalized if your robot, attempting to climb, initiates some accidental falling action, its erratic swinging then shooting a ball and scoring you a point?

:confused: In addition, no one has commented on an earlier post which questioned the appropriate definition of "above the bumper zone," posing the question, "what if you flip your robot and have a mechanism on the bottom?"

[RoboticBohemian]

That was one of the ideas put on our brainstorming board. We used a piece of Lexan and redirected the ball flawlessly into the goal. One of our mentors however came in and mentioned a rule stating that it isn't illegal but if there is any "damage" to the tower it is a penalty on you. And also keep in mind that if you are up there before finale, you are open game to get hammered. And we all know that if there is someone up there and within reach of ramming, they will get hit...hard.

[EricH]

:confused: Here's a question: What if you designed the gripper(s) on your "god-bot" to include a rotating mechanism such that the robot was capable of swinging itself on the tower? Is that use of an "active mechanism" if you intentionally use it to provide momentum to the falling balls?
Technically... the contacting part is not in motion relative to the robot, so it wouldn't be illegal.

Practically... Your entire robot is intentionally an active mechanism, so if I was your friendly neighborhood ref, I'd call it. Not to mention calling you for field damage if the tower went over.

:confused: Will you be penalized if your robot, attempting to climb, initiates some accidental falling action, its erratic swinging then shooting a ball and scoring you a point?You're going up, slip/swing, and somehow hit a ball into a goal. Not intentional, so no penalty. Now, if you did that every single match, I'd start calling it intentional. At that point, the penalty would depend on exactly how you did it whether it was a penalty or a card.

:confused: In addition, no one has commented on an earlier post which questioned the appropriate definition of "above the bumper zone," posing the question, "what if you flip your robot and have a mechanism on the bottom?" If you flip your robot and have your standard kicker mechanism do the hitting, I'd start calling it. Below the bumper zone? Yes, before the match. If the bumper zone is defined from the active bottom of the robot on a flat surface, that's definitely out; if it's defined in initial configuration and remains the same way the entire match, it depends. That's a Q&A one, but I think you'd get the same result as if a soccer player began running on his hands and using his feet to hold the ball above his head.

[Durza16]

As long as the balls dont get stuck on top of your bot I don't see how this couldn't be legal...

[Norman J]

My team also came up with this, we call it the "ski jump" idea. Has anyone put something like this on Q and A yet?

[hipsterjr]

469 That's all I have to say.

[sparrowkc]

469 That's all I have to say.

Yes, I was just thinking about digging this thread back up.

Well then, let's get to it!

I haven't found any video or pictures of the robot-- do they get an appreciable number of balls in themselves, or do they rely on a great teammate like the thunderchickens to clean each one up?

[1902_Battery_SGT]

Yes we need photo and video of this robot in all of its awesomeness.

[ttldomination]

Yes, I was just thinking about digging this thread back up.

Well then, let's get to it!

I haven't found any video or pictures of the robot-- do they get an appreciable number of balls in themselves, or do they rely on a great teammate like the thunderchickens to clean each one up?

When the ball return got jammed, they unhooked and then proceeded to kick in a couple of goals. They can hold their own, but with a good kicker, they definitely spell a championship alliance to me.

[BHS_STopping]

Yes, I was just thinking about digging this thread back up.

Well then, let's get to it!

I haven't found any video or pictures of the robot-- do they get an appreciable number of balls in themselves, or do they rely on a great teammate like the thunderchickens to clean each one up?

On their own, 469 is pretty formidable. In auto they pop a few balls out of midfield and then maneuver into position, going into the tunnel while their ball handler unfolds above them. However, they have a good kicker and a good drive base, and would surely be an offensive threat if for some reason they couldn't recycle balls.

Edit: For those of you who were wondering, I don't have a picture of 469, but I do have a crude MSPaint drawing of what their robot does. Hope it clarifies things!

http://img705.imageshack.us/i/469i.png/

[JGurnow]

It is also worth mentioning that 469 actually latched onto the tower from underneath the tunnel. They can choose which side to go to as well. On a clear field with no obstacles or uncirculated balls 469 can score probably 70-80% of their returns. They do rely on a teammate to get the cycle going, but with the right strategy and robots they can easily cycle balls as fast as the human players can return them. I think the time taken to score a single ball after getting the cycle going is about a ball every 4-5 seconds. Still, a game breaker robot is limited by the trident player, you need to give the ball the right speed repeatedly and do it quickly as well.

[Peter Johnson]

Video of the 217, 469, 2960 26 point match: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJh_tb9Ox6A

[leftylink]

Hey guys,

So I did some digging on youtube, and there are a few videos on 469. They're kinda low quality, but you take what you can get...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJh_tb9Ox6A - Semis #2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXTSVZJcaYc - Finals #1

[sparrowkc]

Hey guys,

So I did some digging on youtube, and there are a few videos on 469. They're kinda low quality, but you take what you can get...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJh_tb9Ox6A - Semis #2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXTSVZJcaYc - Finals #1


I find that my initial feelings of disgust towards a gamebreaker have been replaced by awe and amazement. That is beautiful.

[Radical Pi]

I'd love to play against that bot if just for the huge number of Qualification point's I'd get from them :P

[Adam Freeman]

I'd love to play against that bot if just for the huge number of Qualification point's I'd get from them :P

Unfortunately, this type of robot usually does not produce a large amount of qualifing points since it is unlikely to be paired with dominant robot such as 217 at a standard regional/district during qualifing matches.

Not saying it can't happen, just that it is unlikely. This design is best suited for eliminations.

[JGurnow]

Funny thing is that in qualifying, they could just play the middle zone and score and be quite successful. In a match where they got blocked they played mid-zone and scored a healthy 5 points.

They don't need a dominant robot to get a good score, there highest was I believe 13 in qualifying. As long as their alliance had a robot that could push balls into the goal 2-3 times in the match, they would win. They had a match where they had only a single ball cycling and scored 6 points that way.

[jspatz1]

Looks like they actually used the back sloped side of the bump to gain horizontal speed and eliminate most of the bouncing. Am I seeing that right?

[Radical Pi]

Yeah that's what I saw too. The bump is used as an extension of the ramp. No idea how they can line that up so well for direct goals

[Thuperscout]

lol, thanks someone for already saying it, if you wanna be a God bot just be 469, screw the hanging hehe

[LegendOfSteve]

I'm still in awe over 469. Amazingly simplistic design, yet SO EFFECTIVE.

[sashboy226]

I find that my initial feelings of disgust towards a gamebreaker have been replaced by awe and amazement. That is beautiful.

You didnt fear the oncoming threat of the 217 and 469 alliance all through elims at Cass Tech....unfortunately we didnt make it to finals, but still.

[pfreivald]

That's an incredible robot. It looks like to defend against it you must:

A. Block the tunnel in autonomous, just long enough to get any balls scored out of the ball return. (And incidentally, do they have a way to stop themselves from going over the center line and incurring a penalty if they glance off of an opposing robot during autonomous?)

B. Clear their zone of balls very, very quickly. (This will require a good defensive bot with the ability to kick balls, preferably two zones).

If you can manage those two things, and then play relatively typical ball denial in the middle zone for the rest of the game, you should be able to pull off a win.

If you can't...

[bobrenjc93]

Just curious, has any robot tried pushing 469 out from the other side?

[Wildcat]

Just curious, has any robot tried pushing 469 out from the other side?

i guarentee now that you said that teams are gonna be trying to do this this weekend @ mich. state championship if it hasnt been tried

[Josh Fox]

i guarentee now that you said that teams are gonna be trying to do this this weekend @ mich. state championship if it hasnt been tried

I'm fairly certain it's been established that pushing them has been deemed near impossible once they're locked in the tunnel.

[pfreivald]

Just curious, has any robot tried pushing 469 out from the other side?

We have videos of teams trying this to no avail. They don't just drive under, they lock themselves under. (Brilliant, I say!)

[bobrenjc93]

We have videos of teams trying this to no avail. They don't just drive under, they lock themselves under. (Brilliant, I say!)

Eh? When you say "locking", do you mean an actual locking mechanism, or just the locking produced by the friction force? From the videos I've watched, it looks as if all 469 does is drive under the tower and raise their arm. I noticed that most teams try ramming them from the middle zone. My idea is to have a robot push from the defensive zone. Here is an example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tf4SRK7Whm8 (Skip to 1:25 if you don't want to watch the whole thing)

It seems to me that with good traction wheels (like the ones 148 and 217 use) and a high gear ratio, a robot should be able to push 469 out from under the tunnel.

[sashboy226]

They lock underneath the tower, I cant explain it because I dont completely understand it, but they do, I watched it happen a few times out of curiosity.

[hektormagee]

I may have found something that may be too good to be true... but i have not found anything in the rules that would make it illegal.

Immagine a robot... it cant go over the bump... it cant go under. It starts in the middle zone. in autonomous it uses a very basic pnumatic kicker to get those 2 balls just over to its home field... no aiming into the goals... just getting the balls to the right side of the field. very basic.

As soon as tellop starts, it goes in front of its tower, it touches the tower, and then deploys 2 gravity powered guides that physically attach the robot to the sides of the tower, and keep it level. then, using a very basic winch-and hook, it begins climbing. It reaches the top. the top of this robot is shaped in such a manor that the balls that fall off the ball return hit the top of this robot, and the balls are redirected straight back into the goal... a simple servo connected to a bar directs the balls either to the left goal or the right goal.

basicly, a bot that all it does, is that as soon as a goal is scored, it returns the balls straight back into the goal... every one of the 12 balls the other 2 robots place into the goal means that as soon as that ball is placed back on the ball return, 5 seconds later its right back in the goal. if a robot trys to block the goal... this "god bot" simply directs its payload towards the opposite goal. and as an added bonus, you got a minimum of 2 points for hanging.

any thoughts about this?

the only thing that perhaps could be questionable would be the server that redirects the balls to the right goal or left goal... but there are many ways... to use a properly designed lifting mechanism to till the frame one way, and the balls go left, till the frame the other way the ball goes right.

469 does exactly this, minus the hanging.

[Alan Anderson]

Eh? When you say "locking", do you mean an actual locking mechanism, or just the locking produced by the friction force? From the videos I've watched, it looks as if all 469 does is drive under the tower and raise their arm.

They also raise a piece inside the tunnel. This wedges the robot firmly in place. It braces against the pipe across the tunnel entrance.

Short of literally breaking the tower, nobody is pushing that robot out of there.

[eyu100]

They also raise a piece inside the tunnel. This wedges the robot firmly in place. It braces against the pipe across the tunnel entrance.

Short of literally breaking the tower, nobody is pushing that robot out of there.

Well, breaking their mechanism would also do it...

[Daniel_LaFleur]

469 does exactly this, minus the hanging.

Look at the date of his post (01-14-2010, 08:27 PM). A month and a half before the 1st regional and a week after kickoff ;)

Long before 469 built their robot.

[MCahoon]

seems to me that you could probably get the deflector configured in such a way that the energy of the ball coming down the return is enough to push it forward and hit the angled part of the hump, which, if positioned right, could give it the required energy to go directly into the goal. now sure, a defensive bot could try to get in the way, but if you're able to change the direction the ball goes, then what can they do? the ball is smaller and faster than a 120lb robot.

Post #46 on 1-15. 469's design seems to implement virtually every significant feature as discussed in the two threads which addressed this idea, with the addition of driving under the platform rather than hanging, which allows them to disengage and play (though at the cost of the 2 hanging points). Major props to their designers.

[Racer26]

I certainly thought it was possible and within the rules to do it. 469 did. Kudos.

[theprgramerdude]

Well, breaking their mechanism would also do it...

Or climbing on them.