Blocking the lane with an ubertube in autonomous

[Gary Dillard]

I am watching this strategy in the Alamo regional - it appears legal. One of the teams drove toward the opposing alliance's lane and dropped its ubertube into the lane during autonomous, blocking the path to the feeder station.

G33 (breaking the plane of the lane) only applies during teleoperated period.

Looks like a good strategy, if the opposing team can't pick game pieces off of the field.

[JesseK]

"Blocking the lane"

How specifically? Were the opposing teams encumbered at all?

[Nuttyman54]

"Blocking the lane"

How specifically? Were the opposing teams encumbered at all?

With any tube on the ground in the lane, it makes it difficult if not impossible for most robots to get close enough to the feeder slot to accept a tube. For robots that can't pick up off the ground, this is a disabling move, since they're unable to get the blocking tube out of the way. For robots who pick up off the ground, it's a minor nuisance if they prefer to pull from the feeder slot, but it's time wasted dealing with the offending tube if they want to accept from the slot.

It should be noted that the tubes are wide enough that you can't get around them in the lane, the only way to remove them is to pick them up and put them somewhere else.

[Cory]

Why would you not just drive through the tube and smash it?

[Nuttyman54]

Why would you not just drive through the tube and smash it?

We had some experience with this at the Nashua scrimmage, they don't give that easily. They do crush some, but they're very very resilient when they get between the wall and your robot, and for the most part they don't crush enough to allow easy access to the slot in that position, and they don't fly up and out of the way when hit hard like you might expect.

I'm willing to bet we'll see this happen a few more times at least (either on purpose or on accident) at this weekends' events.

[The Lucas]

Why would you not just drive through the tube and smash it?

I saw one team in Alamo spend basically the entire match ramming into a tube that was blocking its loading slot. They never succeeded in smashing it, or went to the other slot (probably the better strategy). Match ended 0-0.

[thefro526]

We didn't drop the tube in the lane, but we did start with the tube in such a way that once the robot moved in teleop the tube would go into the lane.

An unexpected tube on the floor of the lane will trip up a lot more teams than you think.

[nighterfighter]

After seeing this on the webcasts, we tried to test it with our robot.

The circles seem to be the biggest problem.

We can crush (almost pop) the triangle and square to get to our feeder slot, but the circle doesn't like to give as much.

What would the penalties be if a robot popped a tube by crushing it, because an opposing alliance purposely blocked their feeder slot?

[Lil' Lavery]

What would the penalties be if a robot popped a tube by crushing it, because an opposing alliance purposely blocked their feeder slot?

<G38> ROBOTS and HOSTBOTS may not intentionally deflate GAME PIECES. No violation will be assigned for unintentional deflation. Violation: PENALTY plus RED CARD for intentional deflation. Repeated unintentional deflation may result in a YELLOW CARD.

I see no reason why a game piece in your lane would be any different nor do I think placing a game piece in the lane would count as forcing you to take a penalty.

[TD912]

Interestingly, I saw this in a practice match yesterday (via webcast):
http://i53.tinypic.com/1zf4pa9.png

[Radical Pi]

Judging by the number of tubes being thrown completely clear of the lanes in FLR, I doubt this will prove to be an effective strategy during later regionals

[KC1AJT]

our team competed at BAE and didnt have much problem at all since we have tracks and can just power through

[DonRotolo]

Only a few teams were tripped up by a half-dozen or more tubes in the lane, most teams just went through them.

Actually MOST teams picked them up off the floor after their opponents tossed them right in front of their zone.

[jason701802]

I think that placing ubertubes in the feeder lane is a good strategy, but for a different reason. Because of how little the feeder stations are being used, with most alliances I don't think it'll make much of a difference. The reason I think it's a good strategy is because it's a place to get rid of ubertubes that are other wise in the way. If a team is able to score an ubertube in autonomous, I think scoring with it would be much more beneficial than putting it into the feeding lane.

[Billfred]

This sounds like an easy fix, though: remove from play any released ubertubes in the lanes at the end of the autonomous period. I don't see much need for a penalty here.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

This sounds like an easy fix, though: remove from play any released ubertubes in the lanes at the end of the autonomous period. I don't see much need for a penalty here.

I see no need for this 'fix'.

There is no penalty for (nor rule against) putting the Ubertube into the lane during autonomous, so why change the game now? ... unless you can't deal with the tactic?

[MagiChau]

Using uber-tubes for the lane I find a bad idea. Instead, a good human feeder could throw a logo pieces into the lane accurately with a reliable method to get a tube where you want. I find the 6 or 9 points resulting from hanging an uber-tube top row outweighing the benefits of using such a strategy. Good manipulation of game pieces by human players or the robots during teleop could create some hazardous obstacles. At Traverse City I noticed a lot of tubes getting in the way of robots already without purposeful rearrangement. Now imagine those tubes are purposely being pushed to get in the way of robots that are not allowed to pick up another tube.

[JesseK]

I see no need for this 'fix'.

There is no penalty for (nor rule against) putting the Ubertube into the lane during autonomous, so why change the game now? ... unless you can't deal with the tactic?

A change would mean the GDC never intended for the tactic to be used. In the same way that placing a tube into the lane would cause slot-loaders to adjust to the tactic, a rule change would cause the teams employing this tactic to adapt.

The tactic is a cheap shot against slot loaders that are already at an inherent disadvantage this year, imo, though it probably didn't effect even 1% of qual match outcomes. Furthermore, it probably significantly increases the frustration due to improbable success of slot loaders this year -- slot-only pickups are already disadvantaged (in practice) due to the early design decisions to NOT pick up off the floor. So why keep allowing the tactic if it only serves to frustrate those who have no other option, rather than actually impeding good robots that really NEED good tactics to play effective defense against? I think we all make mostly logical decisions in the beginning that we're inherently 'punished' for due to better decisions being made by competing designs.

[AllenGregoryIV]

I think this a perfectly fine strategy and one of the major reasons we made sure we could floor load.

I also think it should be fine for a robot to toss an unhung ubertube into the lane after autonomous. Failed ubertubes can block the rack for robots on your alliance why not just toss it into the lane next to you. As long as you are not holding on to it when it breaks the plane, it's not in your position and there for not a penalty. We never got around to doing this at Alamo but there were several times when our drivers should have cleared ubertubes into the lane just to get them out of our way.

[martin417]

I see no reason why a game piece in your lane would be any different nor do I think placing a game piece in the lane would count as forcing you to take a penalty.

<G38> ROBOTS and HOSTBOTS may not intentionally deflate GAME PIECES. No violation will be assigned for unintentional deflation. Violation: PENALTY plus RED CARD for intentional deflation. Repeated unintentional deflation may result in a YELLOW CARD.

I believe the important distinction here is "intentionally". The root word is intent. If you act intending to pop a tube, you get a penalty and a red card. If you act intending to get to your feeder slot, and inadvertently cause a tube to deflate, you are not intentionally deflating a tube, and should not receive a penalty or red card.

[Gary Dillard]

I guess it surprised me when I saw that this was legal since it seems to contradict the intent caveat on G33
<G33>allows ROBOTS to retrieve LOGO PIECES from the FEEDER without being hindered.
It certainly seems like a hinderance. Also the note in this rule regarding strategies is interesting
G61 does not apply to this rule, however strategies aimed at taking advantage of this exception will result in a PENALTY PLUS A YELLOW CARD.
I could see them extending that to other rules which contradict stated intent.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

A change would mean the GDC never intended for the tactic to be used. In the same way that placing a tube into the lane would cause slot-loaders to adjust to the tactic, a rule change would cause the teams employing this tactic to adapt.

The tactic is a cheap shot against slot loaders that are already at an inherent disadvantage this year, imo, though it probably didn't effect even 1% of qual match outcomes. Furthermore, it probably significantly increases the frustration due to improbable success of slot loaders this year -- slot-only pickups are already disadvantaged (in practice) due to the early design decisions to NOT pick up off the floor. So why keep allowing the tactic if it only serves to frustrate those who have no other option, rather than actually impeding good robots that really NEED good tactics to play effective defense against? I think we all make mostly logical decisions in the beginning that we're inherently 'punished' for due to better decisions being made by competing designs.

So you believe that week 1 regional teams should play a different game than all the others? Thanks, I enjoy being a guinea pig.

I don't believe that this tactic warrants a change in the rules. Just because some teams decided on a strategy that did not consider this tactic does not mean that we should change the rules.

... and since when is a tactic that is well within the rules 'cheap'?

[IndySam]

... and since when is a tactic that is well within the rules 'cheap'?

When it causes the posters team trouble.


The rule should stand as is.

Potential troubles with the narrow lane should have been part of a teams strategy discussions early on. If they weren't then why change the rules to correct their mistake?

[Gary Dillard]

So you believe that week 1 regional teams should play a different game than all the others? Thanks, I enjoy being a guinea pig.

Too late for that precedent - the GDC changed several rules last year after seeing what happened in week 1 was not meeting their intent (added points for winning, allowed incidental ball intrusion for example). See Team Update 16 (http://www.usfirst.org/uploadedFiles/Robotics_Programs/FRC/Game_and_Season__Info/2010_Assets/Team_Updates/Team%20Update%2016.pdf) from 2010.

[MagiChau]

The tactic I see it is perfectly within the rules. that <G33> allowing robots to grab tubes without being hindered seems to imply the hinderance being an actual robot or a game piece held by such robot. I cannot find anywhere an intent that using an unpossesed game piece being an obstacle is against the rules. I believe you are stretching the meaning of the rules if you say unpossesed game pieces cannot be obstacles.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Too late for that precedent - the GDC changed several rules last year after seeing what happened in week 1 was not meeting their intent (added points for winning, allowed incidental ball intrusion for example). See Team Update 16 (http://www.usfirst.org/uploadedFiles/Robotics_Programs/FRC/Game_and_Season__Info/2010_Assets/Team_Updates/Team%20Update%2016.pdf) from 2010.

Believe me ... I know. We only go to BAE GSR (unless we win).

Last year we designed our robot so that the balls could never intrude ... If we went to a regional other than a week 1, all that work would have been for naught.

Lets hope there are no such changes this year.

[WizenedEE]

Last year we just threw some surgical tubing to bounce balls away. I guess that did take a lot of work though, because people kept wasting time "stress testing" it by playing pinball.

I don't particularly like the idea of changing the rules mid-competition, but this really is unacceptable. We're supposed to be graciously professional -- we have build workshops on kickoff so that everyone can go to competition with something, and we all try to help each other out as much as we can.

However, if an experienced team makes the (flawed) design decision to not floor-load (which happens, we thought that no tubes at all would be on the floor), they would just waste all that work they did to make an arm completely? Seriously, it's a real shame if a team spends a ton of work on something and then can't use it, and because of this "cheap trick," it might have all been for naught (of course, not all teams will do it...)

Also to the people that are saying that this strategy is legal: Yes, that is the point of the thread. The author is saying that it IS legal and it SHOULD BE illegal. No amount of saying that they made a less-than-perfect design decision can negate the fact that they deserve to get something.

[martin417]

...However, if an experienced team makes the (flawed) design decision to not floor-load (which happens, we thought that no tubes at all would be on the floor), they would just waste all that work they did to make an arm completely? Seriously, it's a real shame if a team spends a ton of work on something and then can't use it, and because of this "cheap trick," it might have all been for naught (of course, not all teams will do it...)

Flawed in your opinion. Don't assume that a non-floor loading bot is an inferior bot. Many people on CD are saying that if a bot can't floor load, they can't win. I still think that it is possible for a bot to do very well as a slot loader only. Time will tell

[GaryVoshol]

The number 2 alliance captain at Kettering not only could not floor-load, but they had no tube carrying capability (no arm). They played a great game - defense, herding tubes on the floor, Minibot. Floor loading is not essential to the game. Desirable perhaps, but not essential.

[bduddy]

Last year we just threw some surgical tubing to bounce balls away. I guess that did take a lot of work though, because people kept wasting time "stress testing" it by playing pinball.

I don't particularly like the idea of changing the rules mid-competition, but this really is unacceptable. We're supposed to be graciously professional -- we have build workshops on kickoff so that everyone can go to competition with something, and we all try to help each other out as much as we can.

However, if an experienced team makes the (flawed) design decision to not floor-load (which happens, we thought that no tubes at all would be on the floor), they would just waste all that work they did to make an arm completely? Seriously, it's a real shame if a team spends a ton of work on something and then can't use it, and because of this "cheap trick," it might have all been for naught (of course, not all teams will do it...)

Also to the people that are saying that this strategy is legal: Yes, that is the point of the thread. The author is saying that it IS legal and it SHOULD BE illegal. No amount of saying that they made a less-than-perfect design decision can negate the fact that they deserve to get something.What in the world are you talking about? No team "deserves" to get anything during a competition. If the opposing alliance manages to implement a strategy that prevents their opponents from scoring, then they fully deserve to implement all the benefits of that strategy. This strategy has been legal within the rules since the beginning, and if someone gets taken advantage by it, then they failed to understand the game well enough.

[PAR_WIG1350]

Last year we just threw some surgical tubing to bounce balls away. I guess that did take a lot of work though, because people kept wasting time "stress testing" it by playing pinball.

I don't particularly like the idea of changing the rules mid-competition, but this really is unacceptable. We're supposed to be graciously professional -- we have build workshops on kickoff so that everyone can go to competition with something, and we all try to help each other out as much as we can.

However, if an experienced team makes the (flawed) design decision to not floor-load (which happens, we thought that no tubes at all would be on the floor), they would just waste all that work they did to make an arm completely? Seriously, it's a real shame if a team spends a ton of work on something and then can't use it, and because of this "cheap trick," it might have all been for naught (of course, not all teams will do it...)

Also to the people that are saying that this strategy is legal: Yes, that is the point of the thread. The author is saying that it IS legal and it SHOULD BE illegal. No amount of saying that they made a less-than-perfect design decision can negate the fact that they deserve to get something.

Even teams with less than perfect designs get something, often they learn something and try not to repeat the same mistakes in the future, but the teams with better designs will usually get more, of course they deserve it for working hard on a robot and succeeding. All designs are technically less than perfect, that is just how things work.

[Garret]

From this thread it seems apparent that some people here think that any team can build a great robot that is as good as their own and anything less is a design failure.

I have been noticing a trend in FRC that I find quite disturbing, that trend is how competitive it has become, with teams focusing on how to hinder an opponent's robot (this is different than defense) rather than optimize their own. To me this whole idea seems contradictory to Gracious Professionalism, simply because the intent is to inhibit other teams from doing well, not by building a necessarily better robot but by using a "loophole" in the rules.

I am sad to see that people now see FIRST as a competition to WIN by any means necessary. I don't understand how people in FIRST, especially mentors, can be so focused on winning.

It doesn't matter for my team (our robot floor loads), but if if I were on a team with a robot that couldn't floorload I would be upset to have people here are calling something I worked hard on a flawed or inferior design or even a mistake. I am appalled by this "new" culture that has developed in FIRST.

Maybe I am wrong for thinking so highly of FIRST's values and the people involved with FIRST. In my opinion such a tactic shouldn't even be considered, again that's my opinion

[Grim Tuesday]

From this thread it seems apparent that some people here think that any team can build a great robot that is as good as their own and anything less is a design failure.

I have been noticing a trend in FRC that I find quite disturbing, that trend is how competitive it has become, with teams focusing on how to hinder an opponent's robot (this is different than defense) rather than optimize their own. To me this whole idea seems contradictory to Gracious Professionalism, simply because the intent is to inhibit other teams from doing well, not by building a necessarily better robot but by using a "loophole" in the rules.

I am sad to see that people now see FIRST as a competition to WIN by any means necessary. I don't understand how people in FIRST, especially mentors, can be so focused on winning.

It doesn't matter for my team (our robot floor loads), but if if I were on a team with a robot that couldn't floorload I would be upset to have people here are calling something I worked hard on a flawed or inferior design or even a mistake. I am appalled by this "new" culture that has developed in FIRST.

Maybe I am wrong for thinking so highly of FIRST's values and the people involved with FIRST. In my opinion such a tactic shouldn't even be considered, again that's my opinion

I disagree. I consider blocking the lane with an ubertube to be a smart strategy.

It is similar to saying that it is unfair for teams who decided not to do a minibot, while they fully knew how much the point value was. It's a mistake, learn from it.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

From this thread it seems apparent that some people here think that any team can build a great robot that is as good as their own and anything less is a design failure.


Great robots are rare. The discussion here is about a failure to account for a specific strategy.


I have been noticing a trend in FRC that I find quite disturbing, that trend is how competitive it has become, with teams focusing on how to hinder an opponent's robot (this is different than defense) rather than optimize their own. To me this whole idea seems contradictory to Gracious Professionalism, simply because the intent is to inhibit other teams from doing well, not by building a necessarily better robot but by using a "loophole" in the rules.


Competition, in and of itself, is niether good nor bad. It can sharpen peoples skills and inspire some to greatness. To not be competitive is to become stagnant.

You say hindering an opponent is different from playing defense, but both inhibit an opponents scoring. I'd like to understand what you consider acceptable actions that inhibit scoring and what actions you deem 'ungracious'.

The strategy proposed here is not a 'loophole' but rather an inevitability. There will eventually be tubes in the feederlane, what is wrong with planning for that (both happening to you and causing it to happen to your opponents?).


I am sad to see that people now see FIRST as a competition to WIN by any means necessary. I don't understand how people in FIRST, especially mentors, can be so focused on winning.


I have seen no 'win by any means' posts here.

This is a competition and the goal of a competition is to win. That said, it's how you go about attaining that goal that determines the measure of the person/team.

To not do my best shows dishonor to my opponent, thus I will do all I can (on the field) to best my opponent, and then help him overcome any difficulties off the field.


It doesn't matter for my team (our robot floor loads), but if if I were on a team with a robot that couldn't floorload I would be upset to have people here are calling something I worked hard on a flawed or inferior design or even a mistake. I am appalled by this "new" culture that has developed in FIRST.


I would be more upset losing matches because someone DIDN'T TELL ME my robot had a flaw. Knowing that my robot has a flaw allows me to start looking into creating a 'fix' for that 'flaw'.

I'm appalled that you wouldn't tell a team if you saw a flaw in their robot.


Maybe I am wrong for thinking so highly of FIRST's values and the people involved with FIRST. In my opinion such a tactic shouldn't even be considered, again that's my opinion

The tactic will happen. Discussing it puts it in the public spotlight so that teams can prepare for dealing with said tactic.

One last thing, Why should a tactic that is not barred by the rules not be considered? Had the GDC not wanted this tactic they would have disallowed it in the rules (or in the updates).

[Teched3]

This is a legal and viable strategy. However, if you have a manipulator that can "shoot" a Ubertube without breaking the lane plane, and program your robot in autonomous to do that, why wouldn't you just score on a high peg? there will be plenty of game pieces on the floor during teleop that could, and will, wind up in the lane. This game has been designed to emphasize offense. It's hard to be defensive when you're behind. Scoring during autonomous can give an alliance huge advantage at the start of a match. Then, there are two other partners to contend with as well that can help clear the lane. :) :)
PS The lead robot (175,1519, and 176) at GSR, didn't didn't pick up from the floor during quals or elims, seeded 3rd, and then went on to win the Regional.

[Gary Dillard]

I started this thread because I observed a strategy that I thought was illegal, but after reading the rules I saw that it was not. Perhaps the GDC intended it otherwise, but they were pretty specific in their rules and clearly did not address this.

We have a slot feeder. After watching this strategy I didn't consider that they should change the rules for me. I starting thinking about what we need to do to counter that strategy. Defense has always been part of the game, frequently limited to different degrees, but the one year that everyone was on the same team with no defense was IMHO the worst game that we've had. The game is not just to design a robot to perform a task; it is to design a robot to perform a task with other robots either helping you or hindering you. That is part of the requirement. It has nothing to do with gracious professionalism.

[Warren Boudreau]

I didn't have time to read the whole thread, but I have noted that if you have one round tube in a lane, it is a problem.

But if you have two tubes in a lane, they are easier to move. They kind of stand up when you hit them together.

If somebody puts one in your lane, put one of your own in the lane.

Then you can get closer to the feeder station.

At least it's worth a try.

Oh darn, there I go giving away the secret.

Enjoy.