Team 39 building 469 stopper solution (Available in Las Vegas)

[Frank Neuperger]

Guaranteed 2 on 2 solution available for purchase at regionals ;) (just kidding but read post 10 or all for some additional constructive countermeasures).

==============================================

CIM driven ducted fan package with on board jaguar and pig tailed wiring for quick attachment to your robot. Free Labview VI or programming support to control it. Unit weighs 5.8lbs including CIM motor.

Fan has optimized exit duct with wide vertical aperture to ensure maximum dwell time of the falling ball in the airstream.

And yes, the balls end up in opposition home zone but not in their goal.

If you feel that your robot needs the edge to defeat these endless loop robots, this is the solution for you. With easy attachment, and sure deflection this is your ticket for helping those alliances in need of serious defense.

If you are interested, please respond.
(Available for prompt purchase and return at the Las Vegas regional for teams interested. There will be a $5.00 restocking fee.)

Patent Pending.

[robostangs548]

That sounds like a great idea Frank, it would be very easy to implement, and we could literally put it on any team trying to duplicated 469 that is going to Vegas. Even a not so good robot could attach this thing and be a great contender. Great job. I can't wait to see these things in the shop. Seams fairly simple and effective.

[samir13k]

Sounds like a solid plan, but i believe FIRST does have rules against teams selling items like this to other teams... (Not Positive, but pretty sure)

There was some drama about this when team 221 llc came out, but they are not directly affiliated with the team i think, they are like a mini andymark.
However, you can make a whitepaper and show others how to do it, or just stick it on your alliance partner before elims reinspection?

Or you could have just not been serious this whole time and I cant pick up sarcasm? Im good at missing things like that :)

[Frank Neuperger]

We figured this would be a productive outlet for some of the serious fan technology developed during lunacy.

I recall a CIM solution on our field in Atlanta with 7 lbs of thrust. For an orbit ball deflector, we had tested but eventually decided not to use a FP motor swinging an 8 inch propeller. Perhaps even a FP coupled correctly with its 185 watts output might even be enough for this disruptor. The lower speed CIM is a better candidate for the bigger fans as it's speed is 3x slower than FP and requires no gearbox.

The key to deflecting the soccer balls enough to disrupt accurate scoring will be high air velocity and some vertical aperture to the airstream. This could be an attractive strategy for those robots lacking ball handling mechanisms. Built right, it is a sure ticket to finals against an endless loop bot.

Not sure this really needs a white-paper as the concept is fairly simple. Put fan low and run lightweight duct up to the 51 inch mark. Lots of RC aircraft calculator programs on the web for matching motors to props.

[Lil' Lavery]

469 needs to trademark their name and number as quickly as possible. They could cash in on all the hype surrounding them.

[Don Wright]

469 needs to trademark their name and number as quickly as possible. They could cash in on all the hype surrounding them.

I'm even sick of hearing about us...

[sashboy226]

Or teams could just prevent them from locking onto the tower...I already know of several teams making anti-guerilla autons

[JesseK]

I'm even sick of hearing about us...

Then quit now before it's too late! :yikes: :ahh:

[ExTexan]

That sounds like a great idea Frank, it would be very easy to implement, and we could literally put it on any team trying to duplicated 469 that is going to Vegas. Even a not so good robot could attach this thing and be a great contender. Great job. I can't wait to see these things in the shop. Seams fairly simple and effective.

Mason, Mason, Mason....you move to the Left Coast and immediately start thinking like them! ::ouch::

Don't forget your MI roots and don't fear....The contraption was invented in MI and the countermeasures will be deployed in MI. So hang tight and watch what we do! :yikes:

64 teams at States.....only 2 will be their partners....that leaves 61 of the best MI teams that will want to have a defense. (PM me the cost of your fan :) )

[Frank Neuperger]

Good to see everyone on both right and left coasts picking up the gauntlet on this.

Our post was in reaction to the doom and gloom outlook over this at the time I made the original post. Our team was even pondering doing a variant within the 65lb hold-back but that is largely scuttled.

The fan and several other schemes can deal with this. The real trick is how to come up with a scheme that will not just simply convert a total annihilation situation into a sure defeat with two 469 partners on on 1 opposition but with less points margin for 469ers. The trick is to level this to a 2 on 2 or a 1 on 1 and have a fighting chance.

The fan scheme is deployed when 469 has engaged to the tower possibly irreversibly. Not clear that the 469 can un-deploy the mechanism in order to abandon the tower if they find themselves ineffective. That leaves a 2 on 2 scenario unless one or both of the 469 partners tries to dislodge the low geared high traction fan bot.

The fan bot is preferably a "wide drive" and parked wide side against the tower. Bid side against 469 presents less of a moment arm opportunity for 469 partners to push a distant fan bot corner corner and dislodge the fan bot. The wide drive scheme presents transverse wheel friction to minimize probability of being moved when pushed on its narrow end. Lastly, the ideal fan bot would drop high friction roughtop pads on the floor to make them really hard to move in any direction. Lastly the ideal fan bot would be able to swivel the fan turret slightly to tweak aim as the dislogers are working on pushing the fan bot around.

In qualifications however , it is probable that a lone fan bot will never meet 469 and thus never be tested against them.

Another countermeasures strategy specific to 469 is that with the correct timing of slamming into their back end, you can put significant movement on the top part of their tower exactly when the ball is seemingly stationary or near stationary for a moment. This would catapult the ball far enough towards the end zone so that the ball guides will be ineffective. Remember that they can have only 3 inches of ball penetration in their mechanism so even an inch of movement forward largely disenegages the guiding effect and 3 inches of movement has that ball in free fall without guides.

It was frustrating to watch one after the other of the one sided matches and not see 469's opposition exploit this simple shaker scheme.

Drivers that are to face 469 could practice by watching the 469 videos while driving their bot in the pits against a dummy target. Figure out far far back you need to be with full throttle to make the hit at the exact correct time. Pick a station for the rolling ball on gantry to pass to give it full throttle.

An alternate shaker scheme just has you against the 469 bumper and punching the throttle to get the entire 469 gantry into resonance. Like trying to rock a van. Just repeatedly punch the throttle with some good eye hand coordination timing. Let it bounce you back and punch again. In 10 to 15 sec, you should master this just like you do when you rock van. .

A loop bot that grabs the tower higher up to stabilize their ramp will not be as susceptible to the shaker schemes.

Note that on many but not all balls, the ball appears stationary for a moment at the moment of catch on the 469 mechanism. Any rules on this? Videos were not closeups so not sure on this

===========================================

469 came up with a novel and legislatively risky scheme and developed it. Hats of to them. I am glad that the concept (not the execution of it) did not get legislated out by a late rule change. 469 surely had many problems to solve to make this work right. I think the game may end up one sided in some venues but the FIRST community will be better for it. It demonstrates the real world possibility that your technical endeavor or business can come up against great odds and you need to rise to the challenge of countering it. Legislation and lawyers are one way in the real world to deal with this (Car racing, sailing, in business..... ) but in FIRST I hope this drives more of a technical innovation route. You can invent around seemingly insurmountable obstacles.

Hmm perhaps intelligence to GDC of the existence of loop bots drove the increase of hold-back to 65 lbs. I had wondered why they did that at the late stage and perhaps this was the reason.... so that teams could make countermeasures changes or do their own loop mechanism. Anyone think of a better reason for that late rule change. With 65 lbs, you can almost build a full robot.

Discussion/debate is invited.

[The Lucas]

Hmm perhaps intelligence to GDC of he existence of loop bots drove the increase of hold-back to 65 lbs. I had wondered why they did that at the late stage and perhaps this was the reason.... so that teams could make countermeasures changes or do their own loop mechanism. Anyone think of a better reason for that late rule change. With 65 lbs, you can almost build a full robot.

Discussion/debate is invited.

Team Update #11 (http://usfirst.org/uploadedFiles/Robotics_Programs/FRC/Game_and_Season__Info/2010_Assets/Team_Updates/Team%20Update%2011.pdf) increased the Withholding Allowance to 65 lbs in response to the record snowstorms in the Mid-Atlantic Region. Many teams lost a week plus of build time near ship day as schools closed and states of emergency were declared.

[Frank Neuperger]

Team Update #11 (http://usfirst.org/uploadedFiles/Robotics_Programs/FRC/Game_and_Season__Info/2010_Assets/Team_Updates/Team%20Update%2011.pdf) increased the Withholding Allowance to 65 lbs in response to the record snowstorms in the Mid-Atlantic Region. Many teams lost a week plus of build time near ship day as schools closed and states of emergency were declared.

Thanks for the clarification. I was not aware.

I suppose we can be thankful for the storms in triggering the additional hold-back mechanism.
This will surely allow more effective countermeasures against loop bots.

[Lil' Lavery]

Not clear that the 469 can un-deploy the mechanism in order to abandon the tower if they find themselves ineffective.

They can, and have, left the tunnel after deploying their mechanism.


All this apocalyptic talk of 469 and their ilk running rampant and destroying the competition is a little premature, don't you think? We've only played two weeks and seen one of these bots dominate. Perhaps we should let the game evolve a bit, first? :rolleyes:

[topgun]

The 469 strategy is pretty effective, but it is beatable. I posted here: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=937311&postcount=42 basically saying that they can't do anything without soccer balls. The videos I saw were showing some pretty ineffective defending robots that could not clear the ball out of the zone.

There are some physical limitations to just how fast the trident can be used to feed the balls in. Also, a good coach will have the defense driver over there letting them know when balls are coming in. It does require a strong robot with a kicker.

The shaker strategy would have been an easy one to try at Cass Tech. It would be a good way to test out the robustness of their mechanism.

- T

[PAR_WIG1350]

An alternate shaker scheme just has you against the 469 bumper and punching the throttle to get the entire 469 gantry into resonance. Like trying to rock a van. Just repeatedly punch the throttle with some good eye hand coordination timing. Let it bounce you back and punch again. In 10 to 15 sec, you should master this just like you do when you rock van. .

A loop bot that grabs the tower higher up to stabilize their ramp will not be as susceptible to the shaker schemes.



A loopy robot that grabs the tower higher is asking to be made into a pendulum. the worst loop bots will have multiple attachment points. Then you would have to match the resonance of the tower. <and risk field damage?>

Any tests on how tolerant the tower is to rosonant movement with a robot locked onto it?

[Frank Neuperger]

They can, and have, left the tunnel after deploying their mechanism.


All this apocalyptic talk of 469 and their ilk running rampant and destroying the competition is a little premature, don't you think? We've only played two weeks and seen one of these bots dominate. Perhaps we should let the game evolve a bit, first? :rolleyes:

Agreed that this will not destroy the competition and should not be seen as an apocalypse . Loop bots will hopefully be copied enough to make finals less of a one sided scenario. Effective countermeasures may be the deciding factor with multiple loop bots in a competition.

I am excited about 469's development and feel that it will make the learning experience better by providing a few additional weeks of late stage tasks and excitement to the builders and designers to develop countermeasures within the hold-back rules and countermeasure strategies. More than anything, as Dean and Woodie keep on saying, "it is not about the bot or the game.....". It gives a more realistic glimpse of real life in the technology industry. I hope this excitement and challenge inspire more undecided students to enter the field.

My thread was started when many people were watching 469's opponents drown on You-tube and in my opinion spending far more forum space describing the water than how the drowning alliance may save themselves.

This thread content was intended mostly to provide constructive light at the end of the tunnel for teams that are about to face this type of opposing alliance in Troy and Nationals. The glass is half full. Now fill it the rest of the way.

I hope some others contribute better ideas than mine and share them with the community. I would love to see a rookie team develop the most effective countermeasure.

Frank

[GaryVoshol]

The videos I saw were showing some pretty ineffective defending robots that could not clear the ball out of the zone. That's a rather unfair characterization. The lone defender bot also had to defend against balls rolling off 469, try to stop 217 from racing about cleaning up missed balls, while 2960 hassled the defender. A daunting task.

[Frank Neuperger]

A loopy robot that grabs the tower higher is asking to be made into a pendulum. the worst loop bots will have multiple attachment points. Then you would have to match the resonance of the tower. <and risk field damage?>

Any tests on how tolerant the tower is to [resonant] movement with a robot locked onto it?

Both the robot director mechanism and tower move. Not at the same frequency. For resonance info , see the videos of 469. There are a couple high res videos and some really low res ones. I wish that the low res could be recoded by the person that posted them or more high res can be posted. With frame by frame playback, and knowledge of frame rate you can exactly work out the rate at which you need to deliver stimulus impulses (hits) to the bot. Getting tower into high enough amplitude resonance may be real difficult and need much more energetic impulses and risk field damage or disturbance penalty.

Smart loop bot design will isolate (not necessarily separate) the upper mechanism from the bumper section and make all of this shaker stuffharder to do.

Aloop bot grabbing high (as well as low) may get a bit of pendulum effect, but you don't care if bottom of bot is swinging (undulating not hanging) a bit more than the top mechanism as long as the ball gets guided and loses contact higher up on the mechanism where it can be moved less by resonance inducing impulses.

Clever counter measures will install a hybrid mode for the shaking of the loop bot and have a pot at the DS to adjust the frequency of the impulses. This way it is not up to the driver skill to maintain periodicity and to get the initial frequency close. Get the starting period/frequency close by analyzing video and then in game play tweak the frequency while hitting the bot with the hybrid mode shaker. Similar to the tree shakers for dropping fruit and nuts where the operator can compensate the frequency for the stiffness of tree and mass of the branches.

Reconciled that they have 20 seconds to score at the end but you can keep them out of the game as long as possible with these schemes. If the shakers work, the loop bots will have meticulous coaching to hold back those last balls a bit if they have them available. They will risk penalties for that strategy.

[RRLedford]

Team 3135 came close to choosing a loop bot design at the brainstorming stage. We finally bailed on it because it seemed too risky with respect to the rules.
We had already completed a similar concept in FTC Chicago that caught 15 balls right out of the drop chute, and even caught the yellow ball later. Our shooter was just too weak and erratic though, so we only took second place.

With FRC, we could not clearly interpret whether a gravity powered ball re-director chute could be rotated for targeting to either goal (as 469's flipper does), without violating the rules. So, 496's stationary 2-way chute with a flipper to steer balls to either side works well - smart! Our team also felt that, beside risky, it was also in conflict with the "spirit" of the game, and so the idea got voted down.

Hats off to #469 for taking the risk and confirming the legality of this scheme - we were too timid to gamble. Meanwhile, the neutralizing concepts must be worked out. We did consider these thoroughly while we still entertained doing the looper scheme.
We had assumed that the bot's re-directing chute would have to remain stationary while "shedding" a ball toward one goal or other. We assumed balls would be "INSIDE OUR PERIMETER" by more than 3" at this stage, so any moving mechanism touching the ball would give a penalty. After "shedding" a ball from our static chute toward one goal, I had assumed the rules allowed us to then re-point our chute, just before next ball arrived, toward whichever goal seemed least defendable. Since 469 never turns their ball chute once it's positioned on the platform, they avoid the penalty of manipulating balls that are inside their perimeter. However, they do operate a flipper to route balls through either side of chute, as balls come down the 2-way chute. A moving mechanism while ball is above bot's base should be a penalty, since ball IS WITHIN THE BOT's (virtual) PERIMETER, which projects vertically up from base. Do they move the left-right flipper before ball drops onto bot, or after it starts sliding down the chute? Not clear from video?
Now as to defending this:
1) Can a fast defender bot sit centered in their zone and intercept balls based on anticipating which way 469 points their ball flipper? I think so, but I can't tell how long into their cycle they wait to commit as to which goal they are targeting? It seems to be VERY last second commit for diverting balls left or right on the chute. Plus, the defender must not only intercept balls, but also clear balls from their zone while two opponents are harassing them - not so easy!

2) can a hump navigator bot go up on (or adjacent to) the climber platform , latch on to a pipe, and obstruct the flow of the balls coming through 469's ball chute, or even poke it out of the air before it arrives on their their chute? Risky, as contacting 469 in any way could be a penalty. Perhaps a "wall bot" that's wide enough to block their trajectory toward either side? Not so easy though, as they (wisely) chose to drop balls onto the hump to gain better horizontal shot velocity, which also gives them a harder-to-block, wider angle of chute discharge. ***WOOPS, NO EXPANSION AT OPPONENTS TOWER NIXES THIS!! FORGOT.
3) My favorite idea at this stage it to "poke a stick" through their chute at the appropriate spot to stop ball flow through it. Perhaps even poke a stick right at spot where balls leave the return ramp. Can this be done so as to choke up all the returning balls in a queue on top of their ramp? Is it legal, as long as no contact with ramp is made? The max expanded height seems to allow this.***WOOPS, NO EXPANSION AT OPPONENTS TOWER NIXES THIS!! FORGOT. If so, it would be poetic justice for them!
-Dick Ledford - #3135 mentor

[Vikesrock]

However, they do operate a flipper to route balls through either side of chute, as balls come down the 2-way chute. A moving mechanism while ball is above bot's base should be a penalty, since ball IS WITHIN THE BOT's (virtual) PERIMETER, which projects vertically up from base. Do they move the left-right flipper before ball drops onto bot, or after it starts sliding down the chute? Not clear from video?


The mechanism is not moving when in contact with a ball. In one of the videos floating around they receive a penalty for actuating the mechanism too late and having it still moving when the ball hits it. A ThunderChicken (I believe it was Paul Copioli) mentioned that this resulted in push-ups for the drive coach.

[RRLedford]

The mechanism is not moving when in contact with a ball. In one of the videos floating around they receive a penalty for actuating the mechanism too late and having it still moving when the ball hits it. A ThunderChicken (I believe it was Paul Copioli) mentioned that this resulted in push-ups for the drive coach.

Well, my reading the rules made me think that any ball shedding/directing related component in motion while ball was anywhere within perimeter could result in a penalty - EVEN IF IT WAS NOT CONTACTING BALL WHEN IT MOVED. This appears to have been a more draconian interpretation, than was actually the intent of the GDC, since 469 is not getting penalties (except as you noted).
-Dick Ledford

[Vikesrock]

Well, my reading the rules made me think that any ball shedding/directing related component in motion while ball was anywhere within perimeter could result in a penalty - EVEN IF IT WAS NOT CONTACTING BALL WHEN IT MOVED. This appears to have been a more draconian interpretation, than was actually the intent of the GDC, since 469 is not getting penalties (except as you noted).
-Dick Ledford

I am not sure if they ever do actuate their mechanism with a ball in their perimeter or not. Someone who has studied the video closer or seen the mechanism in person would have to attest to that.

[Frank Neuperger]

Perhaps even poke a stick right at spot where balls leave the return ramp. Can this be done so as to choke up all the returning balls in a queue on top of their ramp? Is it legal, as long as no contact with ramp is made? The max expanded height seems to allow this. If so, it would be poetic justice for them!
-Dick Ledford - #3135 mentor

Dick,

469's mechanism appears to be entirely inside of their bumper zone. How do we penetrate their bumper zone without exceeding ours by the thickness of 2 bumpers. As such, it seems like non contact shakers and fans seem to be the only physical way so far that a single countermeasures robot can disrupt balls from going either way. Sitting on one side of hump covers only one side.

[Cory]

At first I thought this thread was a joke, but it seems like it's serious.

I don't see any value in redirecting the balls via a fan. 469 does not do their damage by scoring the balls themselves. While they do score a good portion of the balls they roll into the home zone, it doesn't do you an ounce of good to keep the ball from rolling in the goal, but still have it end up in their scoring zone.

If it's in their scoring zone, their partners are there to bat cleanup and push them in. That's how they scored the majority of their points.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

At first I thought this thread was a joke, but it seems like it's serious.

I don't see any value in redirecting the balls via a fan. 469 does not do their damage by scoring the balls themselves. While they do score a good portion of the balls they roll into the home zone, it doesn't do you an ounce of good to keep the ball from rolling in the goal, but still have it end up in their scoring zone.

If it's in their scoring zone, their partners are there to bat cleanup and push them in. That's how they scored the majority of their points.

I agree that preventing them from scoring does little, but I'm wondering if a ducted fan could be used to deflect the ball coming off of the return just enough to prevent them from aquiring the ball.

[sportzkrazzy]

What if your kicker has a short cycle time.. say something a little under 2 sec. Do you think you could grab a ball and blast it into them point blank to start this resonance? How stable is it?

[Bob Steele]

The way you stop this strategy is by getting more balls in your own home zone at the beginning of the match... 469 depends on its alliance partners to get the balls in the home zone.. If you noticed ... alll 3 robots are participating in this strategy... where are the other two blue robots... ?? they should be scoring on the other end...with no opposition...with no opposition... the other team should be able to score even faster...as long as they have a middle blocker to kick balls into the home zone...or to just block them back in...

While this is a super strategy... if another alliance can get more balls at the beginning of the match it can be defeated...especially if you have a defensive robot that can knock balls out of the defended zone quickly and efficiently..

In these matches... (notably the finals from Cass Tech) you can see loose balls in the midfield and no blue robot (or opposing robot) is sweeping them up and depositing them in their other home zone...)

If 469 or another robot like them parks like this... they are completely taken out of the mix to do anything other than direct scored balls back.....if the defender in the home zone can sweep balls out... or slow down the scoring enough to let his team mates score...

The way this game is won is by controlling the balls...
Team 469 has a great mechanism... but it can't help a team that hasn't scored.. or doesn't have balls to score with...

You beat this strategy by controlling the balls at the beginning of the match... and maintaining control...throughout...

A tall order I know... but you will see it in Atlanta...

[Rizner]

I have seen a robot at the Florida Regional build with a 'ramp' top made of surgical tubing which redirected balls after they had fallen, although I can't remember it's team number / name. If you had two of those, each on a side of a bump, able to stay in place when the balls dropped onto 469's mechanism the balls would drop from them onto the 'ramps' and back the other direction. Very unlikely alliance to be put up against 469, but an idea..

[sportzkrazzy]

Can't have more than one bot in the far zone rizner. I think it was 1649 though.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

The way you stop this strategy is by getting more balls in your own home zone at the beginning of the match... 469 depends on its alliance partners to get the balls in the home zone.. If you noticed ... alll 3 robots are participating in this strategy... where are the other two blue robots... ?? they should be scoring on the other end...with no opposition...with no opposition... the other team should be able to score even faster...as long as they have a middle blocker to kick balls into the home zone...or to just block them back in...

While this is a super strategy... if another alliance can get more balls at the beginning of the match it can be defeated...especially if you have a defensive robot that can knock balls out of the defended zone quickly and efficiently..

In these matches... (notably the finals from Cass Tech) you can see loose balls in the midfield and no blue robot (or opposing robot) is sweeping them up and depositing them in their other home zone...)

If 469 or another robot like them parks like this... they are completely taken out of the mix to do anything other than direct scored balls back.....if the defender in the home zone can sweep balls out... or slow down the scoring enough to let his team mates score...

The way this game is won is by controlling the balls...
Team 469 has a great mechanism... but it can't help a team that hasn't scored.. or doesn't have balls to score with...

You beat this strategy by controlling the balls at the beginning of the match... and maintaining control...throughout...

A tall order I know... but you will see it in Atlanta...

Most alliances cannot score 16 points, 469 only needs 3 balls in it's cycle to do so.

I see many teams trying your strategy in Atlanta ... and failing.

I truely believe that denying the 'priming of the pump' strategy will only work when 469s alliance partners are not adept at scoring.

[GaryVoshol]

I have seen a robot at the Florida Regional build with a 'ramp' top made of surgical tubing which redirected balls after they had fallen, although I can't remember it's team number / name. If you had two of those, each on a side of a bump, able to stay in place when the balls dropped onto 469's mechanism the balls would drop from them onto the 'ramps' and back the other direction. Very unlikely alliance to be put up against 469, but an idea..As long as one of them didn't mind getting a red card for their efforts.

[Chris is me]

As long as one of them didn't mind getting a red card for their efforts.

Not if they're still on the bump.

[GaryVoshol]

Not if they're still on the bump.

Then their rebounding surface would be above 469's chute outlet.

[RRLedford]

I propose that the rules be changed by the GDC to allow expansion of robot when in contact with EITHER TOWER.
This levels (or should we say ELEVATES) the playing field.
The 469 scheme effectively allows ONLY THEM to operate within an expanded (vertically) playing field, where no opponent can reach to defend or contest with them for the returning balls. Because they can lock into this position effectively and expand mechanisms into a game critical zone, while their opponents aren't allowed to expand to their size at this critical spot on the field, and because the single defending bot in their scoring zone can't defend two goals as fast as they can switch between which goal they target, it is near impossible to effectively counter this strategy.

I don't see any reasons why letting bots expand while touching opponents towers would cause any real problems, but it would certainly help to eliminated the one-sided advantage that 469 has shown is possible using this looping scheme in the well executed way that they have accomplished it.
-Dick Ledford

[Daniel_LaFleur]

I propose that the rules be changed by the GDC to allow expansion of robot when in contact with EITHER TOWER.
This levels (or should we say ELEVATES) the playing field.
The 469 scheme effectively allows ONLY THEM to operate within an expanded (vertically) playing field, where no opponent can reach to defend or contest with them for the returning balls. Because they can lock into this position effectively and expand mechanisms into a game critical zone, while their opponents aren't allowed to expand to their size at this critical spot on the field, and because the single defending bot in their scoring zone can't defend two goals as fast as they can switch between which goal they target, it is near impossible to effectively counter this strategy.

I don't see any reasons why letting bots expand while touching opponents towers would cause any real problems, but it would certainly help to eliminated the one-sided advantage that 469 has shown is possible using this looping scheme in the well executed way that they have accomplished it.
-Dick Ledford

So let me get this right. You want the GDC to change the rules because 469 has built an efficient robot that scores in droves, is legal, and that you cannot figure out how to stop.

Do I have that right?

[RRLedford]

So let me get this right. You want the GDC to change the rules because 469 has built an efficient robot that scores in droves, is legal, and that you cannot figure out how to stop.

Do I have that right?

No,change it because the rules currently allow an "exploit" that gives certain bot designs an unfair advantage to a degree that effectively undermines the possibility for matches to remain competitive.
What was the purpose of disallowing robots from expanding at opponent's tower? What benefit to the game's competition level does this give?
Why should there be ANY LOCATION on or above the field that NOT EVEN A SINGLE ROBOT from an opposing team can access without a penalty. The fact that this forbidden zone is at such a ball controlling critical spot makes it essential that the No Expand at opponents tower rule be rescinded. Then we will see some FAIR competition for the control of balls at this critical location.

-Dick Ledford

[Frank Neuperger]

I agree that preventing them from scoring does little, but I'm wondering if a ducted fan could be used to deflect the ball coming off of the return just enough to prevent them from acquiring the ball.

Hey, I like that even better. Have a nearly upwards airflow and have the ball float over the re-director. You need about 450 grams of lift on the ball to do that. Be careful not to cause physical lifting or backward rolling while ball is still on the overpass. Pretty sure that that is a penalty or worse.

No time to calculate right now to calculate terminal velocity of our ~ 1 lb (~450 gm) 27.5 inch circumference ball but I would guess at least 55 feet/sec airflow to make it float, probably more. And even more velocity needed if drag of loop bot structure is considered.

Be careful that flow cross-section gradient does not cause ball to stop and roll backward.

Start here: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/shaped.html


Hmm .... if the countermeasures bot takes station on the hump, it can avoid a lot of the risk of blowing the ball backwards. Do not however blow it sideways off the overpass. Staying on the hump would be near impossible but mention this scheme only to keep the ideas rolling. Also, I wonder if incidental altering the rolling speed of the ball on the overpass with airflow is legal. Any fan solution will do some of this.

An air vortex cannon impulse would not disturb ball till it leaves overpass but no idea of the scale required for an effective disruption nor energy efficiency.

[Chris is me]

No,change it because the rules currently allow an "exploit" that gives certain bot designs an unfair advantage to a degree that effectively undermines the possibility for matches to remain competitive.

"Man, they built a better bot than us! SO unfair!"

For what it's worth, you could have built this robot too.

[RRLedford]

"Man, they built a better bot than us! SO unfair!"

For what it's worth, you could have built this robot too.

Better at what? Exploiting a weakness in the game's set of rules that allows for gaining an almost un-surmountable advantage, ruining the competitiveness, and makes fans bored too!
As I have already posted, my team seriously considered this scheme early on, but they were afraid it would not be allowed. After a vote it was clear that we were too timid to risk going with this scheme - despite the obvious advantage it would offer. By the time we saw the rule clarification indicating it would be legal, were were too far along to go back to it., not to mention that many team members felt it was close to being a violation of the "spirit of the game" (their view, not mine).
Allowing expansion at opponents tower is still the best fix for this game exploit.
-Dick Ledford

[GaryVoshol]

and makes fans bored too!You weren't at Cass Tech to hear all those bored fans cheering. Including some of the fans of the losing alliance!

[RRLedford]

You weren't at Cass Tech to hear all those bored fans cheering. Including some of the fans of the losing alliance!

True fans cheer the most when the outcome remains uncertain right up until the match ends. The 469 looping exploit will not be likely to encourage very many such matches.
-Dick Ledford

[pfreivald]

True fans cheer the most when the outcome remains uncertain right up until the match ends. The 469 looping exploit will not be likely to encourage very many such matches.
-Dick Ledford

Dick, why not spend your time looking at how to defend against this? It's not like it's actually unstoppable, it's just the best we've seen so far...

[RRLedford]

That effort is also taking place in parallel to my suggesting the obvious fix for this game exploit of just allowing expansion at both towers.

The reason defending the 469 looping exploit is so difficult is because their opponents are forbidden from accessing this critical zone of ball control, in which 469 can place their re-director, but opponents can place NOTHING. What is the purpose of forbidding access to this zone by opponent mechanisms? No one has answered that question yet?
It is only by forbidding opponents from accessing this zone with their own mechanisms, that this looping exploit becomes so un-defendable. So why not just allow opponents to have same access to this zone? Good Bye exploit, hello competitive matches with 469.

-Dick Ledford

[Lil' Lavery]

The way you stop this strategy is by getting more balls in your own home zone at the beginning of the match... 469 depends on its alliance partners to get the balls in the home zone..

Actually, 469 kicks two balls into their zone (and often the goal) in autonomous. They start the cycle themselves, but obviously not as well as when their partners help.

As for the rest of your post, you're correct in many regards. In many of the high scoring matches they had 9-11 balls in "the cycle." 217 was moving 3 balls into the zone in autonomous, 469 was moving 2, and 217 would often chip another one or two in at the start of tele-op.

That being said, that many balls is not essential for their system. It was actually causing clogs and jams in goals and in the return chute. The limiting factor actually became how quickly the human players could return the balls, not the amount of balls.

The idea of removing balls is certainly a valid part of many counter-strategies, but I doubt that it alone could function as the only part if 469 has quality partners.

Better at what? Exploiting a weakness in the game's set of rules that allows for gaining an almost un-surmountable advantage, ruining the competitiveness, and makes fans bored too!

So, we've seen one robot execute this strategy successfully at one event (and mostly in the eliminations) and you're ready to call it un-surmountable? You've got to be kidding.

Let's not ignore the fact that 469 is far from the only team with a robot designed to deflect and/or redirect balls we've seen compete (1024, 79, 375, etc.). Just nobody else did it nearly as well and it resulted in them often pursuing other roles in the alliance.

Let's also not ignore that 469 was beaten in qualifications and was kept out of the tunnel more than once.

Let's also not ignore that there are many of the top strategists in FIRST devising plans on how to stop (or at least mitigate) 469 and similar bots.

Let's also not ignore that 469 will likely not be alone by the end of the season. I know of at least two other bots yet to play with very similar strategies, but who knows how successful each of them will be. I'm betting that one or two more bots emerge in a similar class to 469.



In short, stop overreacting. Las Guerillas made an outstanding machine and deserve the success they have. But the season is far from over.

And flat out lying about it boring the crowd certainly did not help your case.

[RRLedford]

So, we've seen one robot execute this strategy successfully at one event (and mostly in the eliminations) and you're ready to call it un-surmountable? You've got to be kidding.
I've only said what most of their scores (and videos) indicate - that it is a game exploit which is extremely hard to counter. Granted they must get into position before it can happen, and this is not a given for every match. However, once in position the match gets VERY BORING.

Let's not ignore the fact that 469 is far from the only team with a robot designed to deflect and/or redirect balls we've seen compete (1024, 79, 375, etc.). Just nobody else did it nearly as well and it resulted in them often pursuing other roles in the alliance.

Let's also not ignore that 469 was beaten in qualifications and was kept out of the tunnel more than once.
I am not suggesting they, or other teams using this concept, are always unbeatable. I only suggest that this looping strategy game exploit scheme is detrimental to the overall level of competition and entertainment of the game.

Let's also not ignore that there are many of the top strategists in FIRST devising plans on how to stop (or at least mitigate) 469 and similar bots.
Yes, and mostly just the elite teams will be capable of implementing whatever they devise as a counter measure.

Let's also not ignore that 469 will likely not be alone by the end of the season. I know of at least two other bots yet to play with very similar strategies, but who knows how successful each of them will be. I'm betting that one or two more bots emerge in a similar class to 469.
Great - more boring matches where weaker bots and alliances will have little or no chance of competing at all.


In short, stop overreacting. Las Guerillas made an outstanding machine and deserve the success they have. But the season is far from over.

I have given them their props for execution of design. We spent considerable time brainstorming the exact same scheme before we abandoned it. It is not them that is the problem - it's the hole in the rules that allows them uncontested access to the critical high ball return zone. All bots should have same level of acces to these two critical zones.

And flat out lying about it boring the crowd certainly did not help your case.
I never said any specific crowd was bored - only that an UNCOMPETITIVE MATCH GETS BORING!

[Rizner]

Can't have more than one bot in the far zone rizner. I think it was 1649 though.

Ahh, thanks for the heads up on the team number. I had forgotten (although I shouldn't have because we played a match with them...)

Not if they're still on the bump.

This is what I was trying to get at, but:

Then their rebounding surface would be above 469's chute outlet.

hmm, I didn't think about this being out of the range but it seems like it would be above the outlet.

[Lil' Lavery]

Dick,

You're horribly overreacting to a incredibly small sample size of data, and what is effectively an incredibly small problem. We have one robot who "broke" the game for all of six matches when paired with a team who's been to Einstein four of the past five years and had already won a regional event the weekend before.

Should we have handicapped 1114 in 2008 because they had often already scored more points alone in autonomous than the opposing alliance would the whole game?
Should we have added rules to eliminate 71's strategy in 2002?

Of course not. I appreciate that you were only a rookie last year, and don't really have any frame of reference for other years of FIRST competitions. But teams like 469 absolutely dominating a match or regional isn't something new, but rather a feat of engineering, strategy, and design.
But there simply isn't a perfect strategy to any game, and the best teams will come up with ways of countering it with or without rules changes. 71 lost matches in 2002 and got beat at IRI in 2001. 1114 lost matches in 2008. 469 already has lost matches in qualifications.

I think you'll be surprised at how the game evolves as the competition continues.

But, the bottom line is, you're flat out wrong about it being the correct decision change the rules. There's no other way to put it.

[billbcc91]

I agree with Sean. I looked at the entire match history and 469 lost 4 (including 3 shutouts) and had a scoreless tie. Heck, we even beat them once and from what my students tell me, our robot stunk on Friday. The role that 217 played was substantial. In fact, our role was to get 217 free to operate without interference. I'm not sure 217 completely knew what they were getting when they picked them, certainly not a robot that was going to produce 20+ point matches and jam the ball return! We certainly had no idea.

I can't wait to get to Troy in 2 weeks -- except we've got a lot of work to do between now and then. And seeing how creative these teams have been already, I wouldn't be surprised if something totally different happens then.

[pfreivald]

469 already has lost matches in qualifications.

More to the point, there are actually plenty of teams with qualification match W/L records and scores higher than 469's.

They're brutally good when paired with other brutally good robots, certainly. But that will be true of all really good robots.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Hey, I like that even better. Have a nearly upwards airflow and have the ball float over the re-director. You need about 450 grams of lift on the ball to do that. Be careful not to cause physical lifting or backward rolling while ball is still on the overpass. Pretty sure that that is a penalty or worse.

No time to calculate right now to calculate terminal velocity of our ~ 1 lb (~450 gm) 27.5 inch circumference ball but I would guess at least 55 feet/sec airflow to make it float, probably more. And even more velocity needed if drag of loop bot structure is considered.

Be careful that flow cross-section gradient does not cause ball to stop and roll backward.

Start here: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/shaped.html


Hmm .... if the countermeasures bot takes station on the hump, it can avoid a lot of the risk of blowing the ball backwards. Do not however blow it sideways off the overpass. Staying on the hump would be near impossible but mention this scheme only to keep the ideas rolling. Also, I wonder if incidental altering the rolling speed of the ball on the overpass with airflow is legal. Any fan solution will do some of this.

An air vortex cannon impulse would not disturb ball till it leaves overpass but no idea of the scale required for an effective disruption nor energy efficiency.

<G31> BALL RETURN and RETURN BARS Protection - ROBOTS may not contact the BALL RETURN or the RETURN BARS (black tape). Violation: PENALTY for inadvertent contact; plus a RED CARD for obviously intentional contact or damaging contact.

Actually, according to <G31> it is not illegal to remove the ball when it is on the ball return ... it's just illegal to contact the ball return (emphisis mine). Therefore you can knock the ball off of the ball return before it gets to 469 ;)

469 thought out of the box, and should be commended for that (not outlawed). Now we need to think out of the box to defeat them.

[Chris is me]

Actually, according to <G31> it is not illegal to remove the ball when it is on the ball return ... it's just illegal to contact the ball return (emphisis mine). Therefore you can knock the ball off of the ball return before it gets to 469 ;)

469 thought out of the box, and should be commended for that (not outlawed). Now we need to think out of the box to defeat them.

The main constraint is that the ball return is a minimum of 84 inches in the air, and extending higher than 90 inches is a penalty.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

The main constraint is that the ball return is a minimum of 84 inches in the air, and extending higher than 90 inches is a penalty.

Actually the constraint is 60 inches on that side of the field while not in FINALE CONFIGURATION.

Our discussion was about creating a jet of air to deflect the soccerball to prevent it from entering 469s ball director. This means shooting a jet of air 24" (84"-60") strong enough to move a soccerball. Not sure if it's feasible, but it would be interesting to test out.

[RRLedford]

This is my final post in this thread.
Those of you horrified by my suggesting the rule change of allowing bots to expand at either tower are also over-reacting when you say this would ruin the loopers design superiority. Wrong, it would just LESSEN their ability to totally dominate. My goal in suggesting the rule change, is to reduce the chances of loopers having total domination of matches. Even with this rule change, they probably would still totally dominate some matches, but the chances for this happening would be greatly reduced.
Time to focus on neutralizing loopers as best we can. See Ya!
-Dick Ledford

[ErichKeane]

This is my final post in this thread.
Those of you horrified by my suggesting the rule change of allowing bots to expand at either tower are also over-reacting when you say this would ruin the loopers design superiority. Wrong, it would just LESSEN their ability to totally dominate. My goal in suggesting the rule change, is to reduce the chances of loopers having total domination of matches. Even with this rule change, they probably would still totally dominate some matches, but the chances for this happening would be greatly reduced.
Time to focus on neutralizing loopers as best we can. See Ya!
-Dick Ledford

I definitely understand what you are saying. I think it is correct to say that 469 has 'exploited' the rules (completely within the rules, and I congratulate them on it!) to produce a bot that is nearly unstoppable. I think this is a fantastic feat of engineering and design, as well as legal analysis.

HOWEVER, it does seem to make the games uncompetitive. I was looking through their playoff scores, and saw them winning by 20+ points in multiple matches! The rules are set up in a way that defending them becomes nearly impossible within the rules, thus I think it wouldn't be terrible for the rules to make defense a little more permissible.

Moves like that are NOT unprecedented in sports. In fact, much more draconian and (in my opinion) foolish moves have been made in other sports/competitions to get rid of a dominating team.

I can think of 2 off the top of my head: The recent Audi R8 Diesel Spec B car (i think?!) where they basically cut out special rules for the diesel in order to make it pit more often.

The other more egregious example is the early '90s IMSA rules against Steve Millen's Nissan 300zx TT, which almost specifically made the engine illegal because it was dominating.

In this case, I think a simple rule change to permit some kind of defense would be a good idea, and would be in the interest of competition.

[pilum40]

We're sticking to a ghetto rookie solution..Keepin' it simple s2#$d! Our bot has two pieces of 3/4" plywood, coming down from the frame wide enough to keep the ball from coming under our bot. Yeah...no ducted fan, nothing complex, just ole' fashioned Texan engineerin'. Git er done!:eek:

See y'all in Big D Thursday!

[Lil' Lavery]

I definitely understand what you are saying. I think it is correct to say that 469 has 'exploited' the rules (completely within the rules, and I congratulate them on it!) to produce a bot that is nearly unstoppable. I think this is a fantastic feat of engineering and design, as well as legal analysis.

HOWEVER, it does seem to make the games uncompetitive. I was looking through their playoff scores, and saw them winning by 20+ points in multiple matches! The rules are set up in a way that defending them becomes nearly impossible within the rules, thus I think it wouldn't be terrible for the rules to make defense a little more permissible.

Moves like that are NOT unprecedented in sports. In fact, much more draconian and (in my opinion) foolish moves have been made in other sports/competitions to get rid of a dominating team.

I can think of 2 off the top of my head: The recent Audi R8 Diesel Spec B car (i think?!) where they basically cut out special rules for the diesel in order to make it pit more often.

The other more egregious example is the early '90s IMSA rules against Steve Millen's Nissan 300zx TT, which almost specifically made the engine illegal because it was dominating.

In this case, I think a simple rule change to permit some kind of defense would be a good idea, and would be in the interest of competition.

So, you looked at a sample size of 2 matches out of 18 that 469 played and out of more than 1500 played total this season and determined a fatal flaw in the game that must be changed? Give me a break.

Both of those wins of 20 or more points were with the same partners against the same opponents, no less. And one of their partners had already won a regional the weekend before and has been to Einstein four of the past five years (winning the Championship twice). And you're really suggesting that this is a large enough "problem" to change the rules? Honestly?

Common sense and basic statistical skills seem to have escaped you.

Beyond that, nowhere does it say you can't defend these robots. There isn't a rule say you have to let 469 run all over you. There just isn't a rule that allows you to expand on your opponent's tower (and Dick is suggesting). There's been no time for the game to evolve since 469's "unveiling," and you're already calling for them to be shut down. Let the brilliant strategic and engineering minds in FIRST do their jobs. There are teams more than capable of adapting without rule changes directly inserted to hamper the ability of teams like 469.

[ErichKeane]

So, you looked at a sample size of 2 matches out of 18 that 469 played and out of more than 1500 played total this season and determined a fatal flaw in the game that must be changed? Give me a break.

Both of those wins of 20 or more points were with the same partners against the same opponents, no less. And one of their partners had already won a regional the weekend before and has been to Einstein four of the past five years (winning the Championship twice). And you're really suggesting that this is a large enough "problem" to change the rules? Honestly?

Common sense and basic statistical skills seem to have escaped you.

Beyond that, nowhere does it say you can't defend these robots. There isn't a rule say you have to let 469 run all over you. There just isn't a rule that allows you to expand on your opponent's tower (and Dick is suggesting). There's been no time for the game to evolve since 469's "unveiling," and you're already calling for them to be shut down. Let the brilliant strategic and engineering minds in FIRST do their jobs. There are teams more than capable of adapting without rule changes directly inserted to hamper the ability of teams like 469.

Way to take what I wrote way out of context, and way to make assumptions. I saw videos for quite a few matches so far. I understand their alliance was a strong one. However, I also noticed their general scoreboard: http://www.thebluealliance.net/tbatv/team/469

They have multiple matches (particularly later in the schedule) where they absolutely dominated. 20-3, and 15-0 in a FINALS game is pretty absurd to me, I've only been watching these games for ~7 years, but that seems pretty uncharacteristic.

Therefore, there is 1 of 2 things wrong: 1- The teams that made the playoffs (that weren't on 469's alliance) were all scrubs that shouldn't have been there, or 2- the 469 team has a huge advantage.

I'm not looking to 'shut them down', just give other teams a reasonable opportunity to counter this. The current situation is like having a rule in football that disallows touching the running back when he has the ball. His position becomes nearly unstoppable. That is what is happening here, just about all reasonable and effective attempts to counter this are against the rules.

Now, I think a rule change would be what is best for competition, however I'm not sure that FIRST should do it.

[Lil' Lavery]

Way to take what I wrote way out of context, and way to make assumptions. I saw videos for quite a few matches so far. I understand their alliance was a strong one. However, I also noticed their general scoreboard: http://www.thebluealliance.net/tbatv/team/469

They have multiple matches (particularly later in the schedule) where they absolutely dominated. 20-3, and 15-0 in a FINALS game is pretty absurd to me, I've only been watching these games for ~7 years, but that seems pretty uncharacteristic.

Therefore, there is 1 of 2 things wrong: 1- The teams that made the playoffs (that weren't on 469's alliance) were all scrubs that shouldn't have been there, or 2- the 469 team has a huge advantage.

I'm not looking to 'shut them down', just give other teams a reasonable opportunity to counter this. The current situation is like having a rule in football that disallows touching the running back when he has the ball. His position becomes nearly unstoppable. That is what is happening here, just about all reasonable and effective attempts to counter this are against the rules.

Now, I think a rule change would be what is best for competition, however I'm not sure that FIRST should do it.

Once again, you're still examining a sample size that is miniscule in the scope of 2010 matches and small in the scope of 469's matches. You're dismissing the four times that 469 was shutout in qualifications, the multiple matches where they did not enter the tunnel, and the fact there were six matches where 469 did not win.

You're also ignoring the fact that there has been virtually no time for other teams to react to this strategy. Heck, that was the original intent of this thread, developing mechanisms that currently fit within the rules in order to defend against bots like 469.

You're tossing out the fact that 469 isn't the only team to attempt redirecting the balls as they fall off of the return chute. Yes, 469 is clearly the best at it (the rest have been met with marginal results at best), but that's just an indication of the quality of their engineering, not a flaw with the game.

And what about 1114? They beat their opponents 15-3 in the finals in Pittsburgh. Or 67, who was winning elimination matches by 14-0 and 15-2 margins. Or 217 and 2960, who increased 469's average score from 3.75 goals/match in qualifications to 18.67 goals/match in the eliminations?
Should we produce rules to produce "reasonable opportunities to counter" them?

Did you likewise complain about 1114 in 2008? They were winning finals matches with scores like 136-34. Should we have added rules that made it legal to possess the opponent's balls in 2008 instead of just your own because one team was able to win matches in dominant fashions?

[The Lucas]

The current situation is like having a rule in football that disallows touching the running back when he has the ball. His position becomes nearly unstoppable. That is what is happening here, just about all reasonable and effective attempts to counter this are against the rules.

So you're saying:
469 = Bo Jackson in Tecmo Bowl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bo_Jackson#Video_games)
Maybe we should all agree not to pick them :D

But seriously, their highest score in the Quals was 13-0 which is not unheard in this game.

[JGurnow]

Excuse me for saying this but we did have a dominant alliance at the regional. A majority of the robots at the event did not have successful autonomous, including several in the finals, our alliance had 2 robots with reliable autonomous. At the start of teleop period in the finals we had 7-8 balls in our zone because of our alliance's autonomous modes. We also had a defensive robot that prevented the other alliance from removing balls from our zone. We took control over a majority of the balls and maintained control. If maintaining control of the majority of the balls isn't a sound strategy I don't know what is. In my opinion we had the most powerful alliance at the event.

[ErichKeane]

Once again, you're still examining a sample size that is miniscule in the scope of 2010 matches and small in the scope of 469's matches. You're dismissing the four times that 469 was shutout in qualifications, the multiple matches where they did not enter the tunnel, and the fact there were six matches where 469 did not win.

You're also ignoring the fact that there has been virtually no time for other teams to react to this strategy. Heck, that was the original intent of this thread, developing mechanisms that currently fit within the rules in order to defend against bots like 469.

You're tossing out the fact that 469 isn't the only team to attempt redirecting the balls as they fall off of the return chute. Yes, 469 is clearly the best at it (the rest have been met with marginal results at best), but that's just an indication of the quality of their engineering, not a flaw with the game.

And what about 1114? They beat their opponents 15-3 in the finals in Pittsburgh. Or 67, who was winning elimination matches by 14-0 and 15-2 margins. Or 217 and 2960, who increased 469's average score from 3.75 goals/match in qualifications to 18.67 goals/match in the eliminations?
Should we produce rules to produce "reasonable opportunities to counter" them?

Did you likewise complain about 1114 in 2008? They were winning finals matches with scores like 136-34. Should we have added rules that made it legal to possess the opponent's balls in 2008 instead of just your own because one team was able to win matches in dominant fashions?

I think that if there is a strategy in ANY game that is absurdly effective (particularly a strategy that everyone else cannot do without a massive investment), that it is in the best interest of the game to find a way to mitigate it to a point.

I think we can all agree that when all is said and done, a bot capable of scoring ~10-15 on their own has a huge, nearly insurmountable advantage. In this case it is compounded by them effectively keeping balls out of the game.

[ErichKeane]

Excuse me for saying this but we did have a dominant alliance at the regional. A majority of the robots at the event did not have successful autonomous, including several in the finals, our alliance had 2 robots with reliable autonomous. At the start of teleop period in the finals we had 7-8 balls in our zone because of our alliance's autonomous modes. We also had a defensive robot that prevented the other alliance from removing balls from our zone. We took control over a majority of the balls and maintained control. If maintaining control of the majority of the balls isn't a sound strategy I don't know what is. In my opinion we had the most powerful alliance at the event.

Sorry to post 2x in a row, but this one came up in the meantime:
I don't see this as huge of an advantage as 469's strategy. Your team still had to deal with balls getting reintroduced in the middle (or on the other side) which is the point of the return pieces. 469 effectively 'takes' the balls out of the game, and uses them to score repeatedly. Between not being able to expand, and only having 1 bot in the defensive zone at a time, the opponent has very little chance to get any of the balls back.

[Lil' Lavery]

I think that if there is a strategy in ANY game that is absurdly effective (particularly a strategy that everyone else cannot do without a massive investment), that it is in the best interest of the game to find a way to mitigate it to a point.

I think we can all agree that when all is said and done, a bot capable of scoring ~10-15 on their own has a huge, nearly insurmountable advantage. In this case it is compounded by them effectively keeping balls out of the game.

So we should handicap 217?

It was pointed out by a member of 217 in another thread (now deleted) that in the 20-3 final match (21-3 before penalites) that 217 scored 15 balls and 469 scored 6.

Heck, 359 scored 11 balls in a match in Arizona. Should we also impliment a handicap on feeding balls to the offensive zone via a "midfielder" like the strategy that 359 has used to win two regionals as well?

[ErichKeane]

So we should handicap 217?

It was pointed out by a member of 217 in another thread (now deleted) that in the 20-3 final match (21-3 before penalites) that 217 scored 15 balls and 469 scored 6.

Heck, 359 scored 11 balls in a match in Arizona. Should we also impliment a handicap on feeding balls to the offensive zone via a "midfielder" like the strategy that 359 has used to win two regionals as well?

I don't see 30 threads on here complaining about them being overly dominant in a manner that prevents the other team from having much of a chance.

[Tetraman]

So we should handicap 217?

It was pointed out by a member of 217 in another thread (now deleted) that in the 20-3 final match (21-3 before penalites) that 217 scored 15 balls and 469 scored 6.

Heck, 359 scored 11 balls in a match in Arizona. Should we also impliment a handicap on feeding balls to the offensive zone via a "midfielder" like the strategy that 359 has used to win two regionals as well?

Agreed. Another way to think of it, is if there was a game where you gather and hold balls - would it be unfair if a team designed to hold 20 balls when most teams designed to only hold 10? Of course not.

[Lil' Lavery]

I don't see 30 threads on here complaining about them being overly dominant in a manner that prevents the other team from having much of a chance.

Nor do I see widespread complaining about 469. I see a handful of individuals almost as loudmouthed as myself trying to impede a strategy that was wildly successful at one event via legislation. I also see a large portion of the community defending the strategy and congratulating 469. I also see a number of individuals working within the rules to try and determine ways to legally defeat the strategy.

There were teams in Pittsburgh who complained about 1114's roller design. 1114 was dominant there in both qualifications and eliminations. Their roller was a key instrument in their strategy and it cannot "be done without a massive investment." How are they different then 469?

Many teams tried to build rollers as effective as 1114's, but only got marginal results. Many teams tried to build ball deflectors as effective as 469's, but only got marginal results. These teams should not be handicapped because they produced products superior to those of their peers.

[Vikesrock]

I don't see 30 threads on here complaining about them being overly dominant in a manner that prevents the other team from having much of a chance.

Which proves Sean's point that people are overreacting about 469 and suggesting rules changes as a knee jerk reaction.

469 has a fantastic robot, no doubt about it, but beating them is all about strategy just like any other dominant robot.

469 has built a robot that fulfills the midfielder role of forwarding balls up to the near zone and occasionally scoring them. Their method of accomplishing this has its strengths (and boy are they big ones), but it is not flawless; there are still weaknesses to the strategy they have chosen to go with. In the Cass Tech eliminations they were paired with two other robots that helped mitigate those weaknesses and their opponents lacked either the robots or strategy (or both) to combat their alliance. I doubt that will be the case for every event they attend, especially now that they have a target on their backs.

[sashboy226]

Heck, 359 scored 11 balls in a match in Arizona. Should we also impliment a handicap on feeding balls to the offensive zone via a "midfielder" like the strategy that 359 has used to win two regionals as well?

469 essentially IS a midfielder, just a far more effective midfielder than others. I have thought of two strategies to defeat them.

1)Double team midfield defense to A) prevent them from tower lock and B) put balls into your own home zone for a scoring robot.

2)Use a strafing bot with a kicker able to kick across the entire field on defense, facing down field, and send anything they do get down to your own scoring zone.

Guess who's *amazing* crab drive and kicker are capable of the second strategy?? hehe...

[Ian Curtis]

So we should handicap 217?

It was pointed out by a member of 217 in another thread (now deleted) that in the 20-3 final match (21-3 before penalites) that 217 scored 15 balls and 469 scored 6.

Heck, 359 scored 11 balls in a match in Arizona. Should we also impliment a handicap on feeding balls to the offensive zone via a "midfielder" like the strategy that 359 has used to win two regionals as well?

IMHO, I think that this year in particular "goals scored" is not directly correlated to "goodness of robot" or "importance to alliance." On the BAE winning alliance, 1073 scored the lion's share of the goals. However, it didn't appear to me that they won on this strength. Instead it was that the alliance really functioned as a cohesive team, with players who were really good at doing what they were supposed to. 1519 cleared out their opponent's zone and the middle zone in autonomous (occasionally scoring a goal or two, but this was icing on the cake, not the meat and potatoes of the strategy). Then they moved into hardcore defensive mode once teleop started. 1058 dutifully moved balls from the middle zone to the near zone, and were also good for the occasional long distance goal. 1073 then had their way with the plethora of balls ripe for scoring.

It's not to say that 1073 wasn't important, they definitely were. However were it not for the solid play of 1519 and 1058 moving balls forward, the alliance wouldn't have gone far.

TL;DR This is a team game. The team who scores all the goals may not be the most important. In my opinion, its the first game in my 7 years that really requires and rewards alliances who work as a unit.

[Lil' Lavery]

TL;DR This is a team game. The team who scores all the goals may not be the most important.

That was exactly my point. When you compare 469's results in qualifications against their results in the eliminations, this point is quickly driven home.

[pfreivald]

That was exactly my point. When you compare 469's results in qualifications against their results in the eliminations, this point is quickly driven home.

At FLR we did not score the majority of goals in most of our games. But we dominated the midfield.

The key to this game is *ball control*. 469 has an incredible amount of ball control when those balls have already been scored -- pretty much 100%. But they have no ball control over those balls scored by their opponents.

They have weaknesses. They can be beaten. Lots of smart people are thinking hard how to do exactly that -- just as I am sure they are thinking hard how to counter whatever we all are dreaming up.

P.S. Are you related to Dave Lavery, or is the last name a coincidence?

[waialua359]

P.S. Are you related to Dave Lavery, or is the last name a coincidence?

:p :p :p
He is the brains behind Dave!

[Rick Wagner]

Join them! I hope that many teams with robots that can already hang quickly use their 65 pound allowance to implement ball deflectors. I would like to have a variety of such robots to choose from for my team's alliance.

Then the game comes down to who can score most in autonomous mode and defend effectively by kicking balls out of the opponent's near zone.

[artdutra04]

From what we've seen, I'd say 469's 2010 robot joins the ranks of 190's 2004 robot and 71's 2002 robot. This is good; it's been far too long since I've seen a robot be so creative and inspiring. The idea of a super ball return robot did come up in our strategy meetings, but fears of mind-numbing "you're lawyering the rules!" accusations prompted us to go down a more conventional path. I'm glad at least one team pulled it off successfully.

Hopefully this will reopen the imagination of the FIRST community to accept such designs as the pinnacle of creativity and innovation and not something subject to a "she's a witch! burn her!" mob mentality.

[JGurnow]

469 essentially IS a midfielder, just a far more effective midfielder than others. I have thought of two strategies to defeat them.

1)Double team midfield defense to A) prevent them from tower lock and B) put balls into your own home zone for a scoring robot.

2)Use a strafing bot with a kicker able to kick across the entire field on defense, facing down field, and send anything they do get down to your own scoring zone. While needing to deal with the 3ft blind spot near the bump and a defensive robot.

Guess who's *amazing* crab drive and kicker are capable of the second strategy?? hehe...

I believe strategy 1 is a lost cause, it means the rest of the match is 1-2 in favor of the other alliance. Strategy 2 is what I though most people would think of as a counter for 469, move fast and kick hard. The problem is the blind spot is where most of the stopped balls go and its hard to grab it and kick it in the 5 seconds you have before 469s next ball comes.

I was really impressed by how well you guys drove during elims, you got around our blocker boat quite a few times but luckily they kept the balls safe. I have to say that your swerve was very nice. I still prefer out drive base, its just like in Goldeneye 007 for the N64, you go fastest at a 45 degree angle. Keep up the good work hammerheads, looking forward to seeing you again at Troy.

[sashboy226]

I believe strategy 1 is a lost cause, it means the rest of the match is 1-2 in favor of the other alliance. Strategy 2 is what I though most people would think of as a counter for 469, move fast and kick hard. The problem is the blind spot is where most of the stopped balls go and its hard to grab it and kick it in the 5 seconds you have before 469s next ball comes.

I was really impressed by how well you guys drove during elims, you got around our blocker boat quite a few times but luckily they kept the balls safe. I have to say that your swerve was very nice. I still prefer out drive base, its just like in Goldeneye 007 for the N64, you go fastest at a 45 degree angle. Keep up the good work hammerheads, looking forward to seeing you again at Troy.

Thanks, I'm looking forward to it as well.

I'm still gonna defend strategy 1 though. If you prevent another team from moving balls into their home zone they can't score and therefore cant start the 469 cycle. And with strategy 1, even if they score 469 wont be in position to begin the cycle anyways, so it works out nicely. Just a thought though.

[JGurnow]

Thanks, I'm looking forward to it as well.

I'm still gonna defend strategy 1 though. If you prevent another team from moving balls into their home zone they can't score and therefore cant start the 469 cycle. And with strategy 1, even if they score 469 wont be in position to begin the cycle anyways, so it works out nicely. Just a thought though.

Yeah but then you have to deal with us at the far and mid zones stealing your balls. This is a game where blitzkrieg strategies can work very well. Also make sure those balls you kick make it to far zone or we will get them to our zone when we do our bump crossing. If I remember right you guys only kicked the 1st ball out of the zone in auton, any chance of making a 3-ball auton? You know where the goal is, your robot, and the balls, as long as you don't clip any balls with your earlier kicks then you are fine.

I'm going to get to work with a 5-ball auton, most likely won't use it though because of worries about the robot flipping going over the bump without a human controlling it. Also need to get a dead reconing one done in case we lose sensors in elims. Time to do some motor throttle value logging.

[ThePeracha]

Although I wasn't there, my team saw them at Cass Tech. From the grainy video one our human players got on his cellphone, it appears that you can just sit a robot in front of and have it block the balls.

The other strategy I can up with was that the tower entrance in divided in half, where you can't cross the white line during autonomous. All you have to do is go there in autonomous, and just occupy your half so they can't get in. Then, because of the ramp they have, they don't appear well balanced so just push them over the bumps and they'll either tip over or if they don't they won't be able to get back without help. Only problem is that if it does tip over, then it'll damage the robot, the field and take up a lot of playing space.

[sashboy226]

Yeah but then you have to deal with us at the far and mid zones stealing your balls. This is a game where blitzkrieg strategies can work very well. Also make sure those balls you kick make it to far zone or we will get them to our zone when we do our bump crossing. If I remember right you guys only kicked the 1st ball out of the zone in auton, any chance of making a 3-ball auton? You know where the goal is, your robot, and the balls, as long as you don't clip any balls with your earlier kicks then you are fine.

I'm going to get to work with a 5-ball auton, most likely won't use it though because of worries about the robot flipping going over the bump without a human controlling it. Also need to get a dead reconing one done in case we lose sensors in elims. Time to do some motor throttle value logging.

We currently dont have an auton, the programmers are working on a couple for Troy. We thought about a 5-ball auton, but decided against it for similar reasons.

I conceded to my team mates last night what I'm about to concede now, neither of my strategies are the best way to fight a 469/217 super team in elims, but they could do well against 469 in ranking matches, and are probably the best we've thought of outside of using two robots to tip theirs on the bump, which would give you guys plenty of scoring time, and possibly earn us a penalty.

[johnr]

I'm sorry but could someone tell me which penalty might /wil be called if you were able to push any bot over bump or maybe into their own goal? I understand the whole," OMG,look what they did" reaction but if your in the finals you are there to win. Is this a legal tactic or would the entire alliance be dq'd? I will state again, fully understanding that this would most likely put that team in a bad light. This tactic, if no dqing, could be used in a tied final last match situation.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

I'm sorry but could someone tell me which penalty might /wil be called if you were able to push any bot over bump or maybe into their own goal? I understand the whole," OMG,look what they did" reaction but if your in the finals you are there to win. Is this a legal tactic or would the entire alliance be dq'd? I will state again, fully understanding that this would most likely put that team in a bad light. This tactic, if no dqing, could be used in a tied final last match situation.

While I see no real rules against these (assuming that the 'bot you are talking about is the opponent), <G36> may come into play if the 'bot you are pushing tips or gets damaged.

<G36> ROBOT to ROBOT Interaction - Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage, tipping over, or entanglement of ROBOTS are not in the spirit of the FRC and are not allowed. Violation: YELLOW CARD

[Chris is me]

While I see no real rules against these (assuming that the 'bot you are talking about is the opponent), <G36> may come into play if the 'bot you are pushing tips or gets damaged.

Not really. I mean, repeated ramming hasn't been called for intentional damage at all this year, regardless of any damage caused. Only the normal "robot almost tips and team xyz gives them a nudge".

(disclaimer: I don't think it should have been)

[ExTexan]

I'll take a shot at penalties that "might" be called....definitely won't touch "will" be called because that is subject to the head ref's decision and what they perceive. I don't think you can put this one in a box very easily.

MIGHT: <G36> ROBOT to ROBOT Interaction - Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage, tipping over, or entanglement of ROBOTS are not in the spirit of the FRC and are not allowed. Violation: YELLOW CARD (oops, didn't know they would tip!)

<G38> Prohibited ROBOT to ROBOT Contact - Except as permitted in Rule <G37>, contact is prohibited under the following conditions:
a. Aggressive or intentional contact outside of the BUMPER ZONE. Violation: PENALTY; plus a RED CARD if the offense is particularly egregious or if it results in substantial damage to another ROBOT. (oops, I tried to be gentle, they should have just gone on over!)


It is fairly easy for any robot with good traction to push another robot over the bump with these high bumpers so I'm betting it will be hard to get away without penalty.

On a slightly different note, I've not found a definitive answer to what happens if you are trying to keep a robot from getting to their tower in the Finale and they push you into their tower. Opposing alliances can't make you get penalties but if you hang tough you have stopped them from hanging. Any thoughts?

[EricLeifermann]

Although I wasn't there, my team saw them at Cass Tech. From the grainy video one our human players got on his cellphone, it appears that you can just sit a robot in front of and have it block the balls.

The other strategy I can up with was that the tower entrance in divided in half, where you can't cross the white line during autonomous. All you have to do is go there in autonomous, and just occupy your half so they can't get in. Then, because of the ramp they have, they don't appear well balanced so just push them over the bumps and they'll either tip over or if they don't they won't be able to get back without help. Only problem is that if it does tip over, then it'll damage the robot, the field and take up a lot of playing space.

You can cross the line in auton, you just can't fully cross the line.. so just straddle the line and go in the tunnel.

I watched them compete and if you come up with a way to prevent them from setting up their robot in the tunnel, they can still beat you with their more than adequate kicker. So you can either lose 26-1 or you can lose 10-5 its still a loss no matter how you look at it.

[johnr]

So would a g36 call make you lose the match being it is a yellow card but not a point penalty? I'm talking about the possible last match of finals.

[ThePeracha]

I still believe that the best strategy is that someone should stop them from getting there in autonomous, and once the match begins, you could just 'push' into a corner or something. Skyline had a good defensive robot that could do it. Only problem is that Skyline's robot tips over too easily without a wall behind it and doesn't go forward or back, just sideways.

[The Lucas]

I'll take a shot at penalties that "might" be called....definitely won't touch "will" be called because that is subject to the head ref's decision and what they perceive. I don't think you can put this one in a box very easily.

MIGHT: <G36> ROBOT to ROBOT Interaction - Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage, tipping over, or entanglement of ROBOTS are not in the spirit of the FRC and are not allowed. Violation: YELLOW CARD (oops, didn't know they would tip!)

<G38> Prohibited ROBOT to ROBOT Contact - Except as permitted in Rule <G37>, contact is prohibited under the following conditions:
a. Aggressive or intentional contact outside of the BUMPER ZONE. Violation: PENALTY; plus a RED CARD if the offense is particularly egregious or if it results in substantial damage to another ROBOT. (oops, I tried to be gentle, they should have just gone on over!)


It is fairly easy for any robot with good traction to push another robot over the bump with these high bumpers so I'm betting it will be hard to get away without penalty.


When you include bump into this scenario we get the into grey areas of
Does <G37> nullify <G38>? Yes IMHO
If so does <G36> still apply? Again yes IMHO
However, <G36> is only a Yellow Card and no Penalty as opposed to Red Card and Penalty with <G38>. Will that be an effective deterrent decisive elim match if an alliance has no prior Yellow Card?. Also pinning rules still apply if this takes a more than 5sec.

This is kinda like a YMTC (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=147) question.


<G37> Permitted ROBOT to ROBOT Contact - Breakaway is a highly interactive game. Robust
construction of ROBOTS will be very important in this high-speed competition. ROBOTS
should be designed to withstand the contact that will occur during the MATCH. Appropriate
contact is allowed under the following guidelines for which no PENALTY will be assigned:
c. Contact outside the BUMPER ZONE is an expected part of the game during the
following scenarios:
i. for ROBOTS on a RAMP or BUMP,


On a slightly different note, I've not found a definitive answer to what happens if you are trying to keep a robot from getting to their tower in the Finale and they push you into their tower. Opposing alliances can't make you get penalties but if you hang tough you have stopped them from hanging. Any thoughts?

<G13> (Causing Penalties) should nullify the protection penalties. If the robot that was pushed into the tower is pushing back, then a pinning count should be started on the opposing robot that pushed a robot against field element (Tower). I haven't really seen this count happen in matches but its hard to tell sometimes. Just because its the FINALE doesn't mean pinning rules no longer apply.

[yoda92]

sooo i watched the video and saw that the ball seemed to roll off their robot and then down a bump, why not just park in front of the tunnel and drive back and forth, directly stopping the balls instead of blocking the goals.
Also, a high traction robot such as 359 (if they could fit under the bump) could theoretically push them out from under the tunnel or at least mess up their angles so 469 can't score directly

[Chris is me]

sooo i watched the video and saw that the ball seemed to roll off their robot and then down a bump, why not just park in front of the tunnel and drive back and forth, directly stopping the balls instead of blocking the goals.
Also, a high traction robot such as 359 (if they could fit under the bump) could theoretically push them out from under the tunnel or at least mess up their angles so 469 can't score directly

The former's a good idea. The latter has been rejected several times, since 469 attaches itself to the tower in several ways.

[Lil' Lavery]

sooo i watched the video and saw that the ball seemed to roll off their robot and then down a bump, why not just park in front of the tunnel and drive back and forth, directly stopping the balls instead of blocking the goals.
Also, a high traction robot such as 359 (if they could fit under the bump) could theoretically push them out from under the tunnel or at least mess up their angles so 469 can't score directly

469 uses 2 bots in the offensive zone in order to stop the first strategy. One bot scoops up balls that didn't reach the goal and scores them, the other interferes with any opposition robots attempting to play defense. If you feel you had a robot capable of executing this strategy despite the efforts of two opposing robots, go ahead.

The 2nd won't work.

[ExTexan]

When you include bump into this scenario we get the into grey areas of
Does <G37> nullify <G38>? Yes IMHO
If so does <G36> still apply? Again yes IMHO
However, <G36> is only a Yellow Card and no Penalty as opposed to Red Card and Penalty with <G38>. Will that be an effective deterrent decisive elim match if an alliance has no prior Yellow Card?. Also pinning rules still apply if this takes a more than 5sec.

I concur with all. Final match, not holding a yellow card, it would seem a G36 call would be the most likely. But again I qualify....head ref decision.

<G13> (Causing Penalties) should nullify the protection penalties. If the robot that was pushed into the tower is pushing back, then a pinning count should be started on the opposing robot that pushed a robot against field element (Tower). I haven't really seen this count happen in matches but its hard to tell sometimes. Just because its the FINALE doesn't mean pinning rules no longer apply.

Also those are my thoughts. Thanks. As a ref I have counted down a dozen times and given perhaps 2 pinning penalties. Penalty of 1 is less than elevation score of 2.

[Chris is me]

469 uses 2 bots in the offensive zone in order to stop the first strategy. One bot scoops up balls that didn't reach the goal and scores them, the other interferes with any opposition robots attempting to play defense. If you feel you had a robot capable of executing this strategy despite the efforts of two opposing robots, go ahead.

The first strategy surrenders the middle and back zones entirely, so they better have 4+ balls in their cycle or they could be outgunned by just two robots and one annoyer.