View Full Version : Here's the problem with the minibot
Stephen Liggett
09-04-2011, 23:18
I just returned from the Michigan State championship, and here are my thoughts on the minibot. First the good:
This is the best endgame in the nine years I've been involved with FIRST (In my opinion.)
It was a very difficult "challenge" that many teams succeeded in meeting.
...and now the bad:
Keep in mind that in many cases the outcome of a match was based on the minibot.
Assuming that the switches at the top of the pole were flawless in every match ever played, there was a clearer problem. when did the minibot deploy? Did they go early? did they cross the plane? I know that there was a referee at each pole trying to keep a close eye on this; however, this is flawed when your talking tenths and hundredths of seconds (which we are.)
.
My team spent over $1,500 on parts for the minibot.
After a mentor asked Direct drive minibot output diameter, JVN writes (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=93684&highlight=minibot),
"Obviously after the first 2 weeks of competition the secrets are all out.
If you're going to use a design that is "heavily inspired" from one you saw on the field, at least take the time to iterate the design and figure out the details yourself.
You can make this into a positive design experience for your team with some methodical experimentation..."
He's right! but short sighted, considering not every team can trash $30 motors chasing the right shaft size.
Even though minibots themselves are cheap enough ($200 or so). developing a competitive minibot takes money. I feel to really compete in the minibot race you had to pay another fee to the LEGO corporation. My team gladly paid and used "methodical experimentation" to developed a 1.4 second minibot.
.
The race was the problem! Most every team in FIRST could have successfully developed a simple "slow" minibot with accurate deployment. I feel many teams have become discouraged and ran out of resources competing in the minibot arms race. If teams were allowed to focus on consistency instead of speed, I would have expected see beautiful latching mechanisms and really explored the limits of the Tetrix systems. What the race gave us, was stripped down motors with batteries and magnets attached to them, all in spite of the tetrix's capabilities. Innovation was was focused on how to misuse the tetrix system, not using it for what it was designed to do. (I hope the FTC teams that lent out their kits, hadn't expected much back)
My Solution:
I like the days that if you could get on a ramp or climb a pole you received the points. the minibot race could have been a flat rate challenge. you make it to the top, you receive the points.
Stephen Liggett
13-04-2011, 21:02
This Post took 4 days to Show up, Strange.
I agree with all the things you said that you think is bad. I do not find anything good about it though. However I like your solution.
Our team is a little bit more thrifty. We only spent $1335 on the minibot. That is a ridiculous amount of money spent. Quite a bit was "wasted" early on when we thought we need the Tetrix Motor Controller, additional Lego Mindstorm touch sensors, big wheels and Tetrix motor mounts etc. Then more money was wasted to find the "legal" switch.
Many teams spent more money on the minibot than other teams spent on their whole robot. That is just wrong for FIRST to design an end game like that which in most cases determine the winner of the match. Less resourceful teams and less established teams have a big disadvantage. Rookie teams already have to overcome a lot of obstacles, both financially and technical know-how. This is just not fair. And it is not a good way to welcome new teams or try to retain them when it is so hard for them to compete with some success.
ChristopherSD
13-04-2011, 21:56
Point-wise, it's just too valuable in my opinion.
Kevin Sevcik
13-04-2011, 22:02
Nevertheless, good points all. The extreme premium placed on finishing first in the minibot race is driving everyone towards a very small number of designs. A flat rate for minibots would definitely leave room for different designs and reduce the numbers of "heavily inspired" designs. Bonus points if you can tweak your flat rate endgame to encourage usage of the NXT brain and sensors to encourage actual partnership with FTC teams, since they're more likely to know how to accomplish the task. My proposal:
Slightly fancier towers with multiple scoring zones marked along the length.
15 pts for triggering the tower.
10 pts for stopping the minibot in the correct, randomly determined scoring zone.
Depending on the difficulty you're aiming for, the random zone could be told to teams at the start of the match, told to the robot through the fms, or indicated on the pole via lights, an electromagnet placed inside the pipe, or something else.
I also think the rules were a bit restrictive. Sure, there was variation in what the minibots looked like, but once you get down to the 1-2 second minibots, there wasn't much variation. Yes, cutting out restrictions bring up safety issues and how teams can simply out-buy other teams but it also invites teams to make the best of what they have availiable to them.
maverickfan138
13-04-2011, 22:10
I agree. The endgame is absolutely awesome this year. It flows with the game and it leaves people sitting on the edge of their seats. It's just what an endgame should be.
Team 573 has two minibots this year. Our first minibot was developed during weeks two and three of build season. It was made mainly of Tetrix parts and it vertically clamped to the pole with the help of a trip lever and surgical tubing. It wasn't the lightest(4.5lbs) and it wasn't the fastest(4 second climb), but it was sufficient for our first competition. Our deployment system was basically a cradle on drawer slides pushed by a lead screw. We headed to Waterford and we were finally able to do some real testing with our minibot and deployment system. I can say that our minibot was the reason for our success at Waterford. It climbed the pole 14/16 times, and even though it was slow, it earned us a ton of points. I believe that this is what FIRST intended with the minibot portion of the game.
After scouting more competitions, we realized that our reliable minibot wouldn't be able to compete at later competitions, so we built a new one. It's the standard minibot design now - it has a lexan chassis, two motors direct driving a single shaft, a battery, and two limit switches. We did some slight modification to our deployment, but it worked well on our pole in the room and at the Michigan State Championship, where were finally able to use it. Our new minibot can beat many minibots up the pole. Now our problem is our deployment system. We are fearing that we won't be competitive in the minibot race due to our deployment. We noticed very quickly that our lead screw deployment system took as much time to get the minibot to the pole as it did for the minibot to climb.
FIRST's challenge was to build a minibot that can be deployed to a pole and successfully climb it, and either minibot did just what it was built to do. Both minibots and our deployment were reliable as well.
On the other hand, changing the race to just making it to the top would drastically change the game. It would devalue the minibots and it would add more value to the tube hanging. Also, changing the endgame would eliminate all of the iteration and tweaking that we and many other teams have done. I guess the real question is what is more important, being competitive, or completing the challenge?
Team 288
13-04-2011, 22:11
If I calculate correctly, We've spent about $750 for 6, ~1 second, minibots.
The biggest problem was we ruined around 4 or 5 motors in the process, but the minibots are about $100 worth of parts each.
(BTW if anyone would like to burrow we've only got 1 potential burrower so far, that leaves 4 more up for grabs! If interested there's a thread in this subforum named 931 Minibots)
Chris Hibner
13-04-2011, 22:23
I agree with all of the points about the end game.
However, I disagree about the necessary cost of development.
Sometime around week 2 Richard posted results of a dynomometer test of the Tetrix motors with the gearboxes removed. Using those test results it took us about 15 minutes of calculations to come up with the correct shaft size. The only motors we smoked were due to bad switch placement.
While I'm sure the above story sounds like "look how smart we are", that's not the point of sharing it. Engineering is about using calculations to come to a solution, and coming to the solution as cheaply as possible.
Message to the students: math and physics save a lot of money!!! Pay attention in school - this is why your teachers are torturing you with this stuff.
GW Kalrod
13-04-2011, 22:32
Anyone else feel like this was an attempt to push FTC parts? I mean, just thinking skeptically, the whole cost thing then makes sense. /cynic
Also, I think it's a great endgame idea, just a little to restrictive.
Stephen Liggett
13-04-2011, 22:48
The biggest problem was we ruined around 4 or 5 motors in the process, but the minibots are about $100 worth of parts each.
The motors are $30 and the Batteries cost $50. The starting point is $110.
Tom Line
13-04-2011, 23:07
All told, we smoked 10 tetrix motors *so far*. We used the dyno data to put together the correct shaft sizes. A couple of our motors smoked when the switch failed to work, a couple more when the modified trannies on our 2 second bot weren't perfect and locked up. Several broke tabs during minibot suicides, and the rest were destroyed by eager students learning about motor torque curves.
I'm proud that we have not copied a single thing. Design and build is 100% ours. I did not enjoy the cost, and the regular calls of "order more motors". In one case we smoked a motor because our grenade pin got knocked out and the bot ran through the entire 2 minute match. I will not cry when this minibot madness is over.
Peyton Yeung
13-04-2011, 23:33
I feel like this years end game decides more matches than most of the actual tube scoring. In the past two regionals I've attended (Boilermaker and Midwest) it seemed that matches we won due to the fact that some teams had effective minibots and some didn't. At boilermaker we were in an alliance with a team who only had a drive train and a minibot vs a fully functioning robot who was proficient at scoring tubes. Due to mechanical issues only 2 robots worked in that round, our alliances minibot robot and the opposing alliances scoring giant. The minibot robot went to the tower and stopped until the end game where it deployed the minibot and the other team spent the entire match scoring tubes. In the end we tied 30-30. So robot wise our alliance didn't exert much effort or work but still managed to tie with an alliance who was scoring constantly. I just feel like the reward of the race is a little high in comparison to the actual scoring of tunes
I like the idea that Stephen proposed about a flat rate challenge. You made it, you get the points. Last year, you hang, you get the points. Two years ago, scoring a supercell is 15 points no matter when you scored it. Three years ago the big ball on the overpass score the bonus points no matter when you scored it. I don't think it is any less exciting. It eliminates all the problems with deploying too early, crossing the plane etc.
For those who have been around longer, were there a game in past years with end game that gives more points to the alliance that did it first?
It seems to go against FIRST values. We should celebrate when a robot can do a certain task. We don't build battlebots. We don't try to beat the other guy directly. We should try to use the robot we designed to score as many points as possible and use strategy as an alliance to win.
pfreivald
14-04-2011, 00:04
Uhhh, FIRST's challenge is about building robots that perform better than everyone else's robots, not just building robots that can perform a task *at all*.
....and while we don't have a 1.4 second minibot, we have a 1.8 second minibot, and with the FIRST Choice program we spent a total of about $80, $60 of which was on spare motors we didn't need.
Would it have cost us a lot more to optimize out that extra half-second? Perhaps. Perhaps not, if we fused things properly so we weren't smoking the inductors in the motors during our experimentation.
A lot of sound and fury, methinks, has accompanied the poor, maligned minibot this year.
LightWaves1636
14-04-2011, 00:12
The head ref at Alamo said he learned from someone on the GDC that the minibot race was going to be the last minibot wins instead of the first one but then they changed their minds last minute over it.
I found that to be interesting.
Stephen Liggett
14-04-2011, 00:25
The head ref at Alamo said he learned from someone on the GDC that the minibot race was going to be the last minibot wins instead of the first one but then they changed their minds last minute over it.
I found that to be interesting.
That would be interesting! I'd bet most teams would still build the fastest possible minibot and play chicken at the last second.
Andrew Lawrence
14-04-2011, 00:32
We made two minibots from pieces in the FTC kit of parts, a piece of PVC we already had, one extra motor, and an extra battery. We never had a sub 1 second minibot, nor one that would win every race. But when we DID deploy, we got our minibot to the tower before the 9 second mark, and hit the top every time. We made it up in around 3 seconds, but unless we were rammed during deployment, our minibot went up. Money wise, we only bought the extra battery and motor. The rest was made from the FTC kit of parts. While I think FIRST was encouraging creativity in the minibots, I think they also wanted to see what we would do with the parts we were given, and how we could manipulate that to our advantage.
Personally, I think this year's endgame was alright. Not bad, but not the best I've seen. On the down side, it's the only endgame I know of where an opposing alliance can legally stop you from receiving points. On the up side, it gave teams something new and different to consider when designing their robots, with the whole deployment and rules effecting deployment.
PayneTrain
14-04-2011, 07:12
To design, test, improve, and enter the best series of minibots and win the Coopertition award at the VA Regional, we spent ~$2,700 dollars for minibot construction.
For non-KOP robot construction: not even half that.
That's my gripe about it. Unless your team made more than one, younger/smaller teams can be screwed out of victories simply through money.
2010 could have pizza boxes on wheels and be competitive. Not anymore.
If only they had made the minibot race to be the last one to reach the top before the end of the game, now that would have been interesting :D
Edit: Shoot didn't see LightWave1636 post above. We must have talked to the same people ;>
JohnBoucher
14-04-2011, 07:31
Same points for all teams finishing is a very interesting twist.
Chris Hibner
14-04-2011, 08:02
I like the "complete the task - get the points", but I would like to add a twist: once your minibot scores the points - your hostbot is disabled (also, you must trigger the tower before the match expires).
One thing I haven't liked over the past few years is the defined endgame: "thou shalt only play the end game after the sound comes from on high". I like the old end games that require a little gamesmanship (like 2000/2003/2004).
Getting the points for a minibot regardless of time but disabling the hostbot would be a really fun twist to the game.
1) It would benefit FAST minibots since the hostbot could continue to score until the last second and then go deploy.
2) I would benefit SLOW (but repeatable) minibots since the team could theoretically deploy it with 30 seconds to go and then continue to score tubes until their minibot scored and their hostbot gets disabled.
Deploy too late and you don't hit the target until after the match ends: too bad - you cut it too close.
Jared Russell
14-04-2011, 09:40
There are many issues with the minibot competition this year, and I fear we haven't seen the end of controversy yet. On both ends of the minibot race, there have been documented problems. Even in week 6, there were issues with towers failing to trigger. And we are relying on human eyes to decide whether or not you deployed early by 1/100th of a second. On Einstein, where there are sure to be several ~1 second minibots, an early deploy can mean the difference between 1st and 4th.
In our second to last qualification match of the Philly Regional, a ref decided that we deployed early. It was freeze-frame close - I maintain (as do all of the spectators I spoke to from a number of teams who saw it) that the driver simply timed it perfectly. But the tower was disabled, and the 40 point swing (-30 for us, +10 to opponent) cost us the match and the #1 seed. The referees watching the towers (at least at Regionals) are not head referees, and have had little formal training. Yet they have the power to make a judgement call in 1/100th of a second that can decide an event.
Ultimately, you cannot blame referees for not having perfect vision and timing. But a game whose outcome can be almost completely decided by such calls is fundamentally flawed (and the higher the level of competition, the more likely such an event becomes).
It is what it is, and I know I will not be disappointed once Logomotion is over (though I know LEGO/Tetrix will be).
The head ref at Alamo said he learned from someone on the GDC that the minibot race was going to be the last minibot wins instead of the first one but then they changed their minds last minute over it.
I found that to be interesting.
That would be a terribly boring endgame. The 7 elementary/middle school kids I had at DC were excited because the minibots were FAST. I don't think I'd like to watch a "last place wins" race, ever.
My proposal:
Slightly fancier towers with multiple scoring zones marked along the length.
15 pts for triggering the tower.
10 pts for stopping the minibot in the correct, randomly determined scoring zone.
Depending on the difficulty you're aiming for, the random zone could be told to teams at the start of the match, told to the robot through the fms, or indicated on the pole via lights, an electromagnet placed inside the pipe, or something else.
I love this idea.
Any offseason events thinking about going to a flat rate for the minibot race?
Team 288
14-04-2011, 13:11
The motors are $30 and the Batteries cost $50. The starting point is $110.
Ah! I forgot about the batteries! (We have three FTC team so we already had 12)
So it's about 150 per minibot =)
thefro526
14-04-2011, 13:20
I think this is a very good thread full of very good insight and I sincerely thank the OP for making this.
My biggest problem with the Mini-bot is that it was created in an attempt to spur the growth of Tetrix. Essentially FIRST created an unnecessary burden on teams, both financially and in the thinning of resources within teams, because they wanted us to build "FTC robots." Anyone who has made or seen a sub 1.5 second Mini-bot, heck even a sub 2.5 second Mini-bot knows that they're EXTREMELY far from being FTC robots, or even Tetrix Robots.
IMO, I think FIRST shot themselves in the foot on this one anyway. I've yet to hear anything positive about the Tetrix Kit from the FRC teams that I'm close with.
It is what it is, and I know I will not be disappointed once Logomotion is over (though I know LEGO/Tetrix will be).
Jared, I fear that the end of Logomotion will not be the mini-bot.
I fear that the end of Logomotion will not be the mini-bot.
I too fear that the MINIBOT concept will not die with Logomotion in a few weeks time. I'm afraid we will very likely see a return, probably again with the same political BS surrounding it (no VEX parts, etc).
The feature of this season in FRC that blows me away how little its been talked about on CD is the departure of BOTH Dave Lavery (after 10 seasons) AND Woodie Flowers (after all 20 seasons) from the GDC. Both are still listed as part of the executive advisory board on usfirst.org, and still very much a part of FIRST. I wonder how much their departure has to do with the political squabbling that went on.
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90538
PayneTrain
14-04-2011, 14:11
The minibot idea will most likely be a part of the endgame for the foreseeable future. The challenge will be different, but the parts will be the same restrictions.
However, I'm waiting for the game rules in 2012 to tell us that we can't use modified Tetrix motors from before 2012 build. That would be disappointing.
pfreivald
14-04-2011, 14:33
The feature of this season in FRC that blows me away how little its been talked about on CD is the departure of BOTH Dave Lavery (after 10 seasons) AND Woodie Flowers (after all 20 seasons) from the GDC.
Perhaps this isn't much talked about because naked speculation about peoples' motives founded upon a near-complete lack of data isn't particularly professional or gracious?
Independently, both Woodie and I made the decision to resign from the GDC last week. I will not speak for Woodie and his reasons why. I will just say that I felt it necessary to reconcile actions and decisions that were being attributed to the GDC with my personal standards for professional behavior. When I perceived that I could no longer be an effective advocate for the teams in a way that would maintain my personal integrity, I felt it was appropriate to remove myself from the committee. End of story.
-dave
.
I don't know that this constitutes a "near-complete" lack of data. What I read from this quote, is that Dave had personal integrity issues with something associated with the interaction between advocating for teams and his duties on the GDC.
thefro526
14-04-2011, 16:03
I too fear that the MINIBOT concept will not die with Logomotion in a few weeks time. I'm afraid we will very likely see a return, probably again with the same political BS surrounding it (no VEX parts, etc).
For the record, I used a Vex Part on 816's mini-bots.
pfreivald
14-04-2011, 16:50
I don't know that this constitutes a "near-complete" lack of data.
I do.
What questions can you answer from it that aren't insanely vague? What specific details can you give based on that data point? What were the issues? Who was involved? Who were the negative instigators; other members of the GDC or people who were being big meanies *to* the GDC? Why did it compel Dave to leave the GDC? What about Woodie -- same or different reason?
You can't answer any of these questions. What we have here is a near-complete lack of information, absolutely. If you think otherwise, I think you're a little too confident in your reading of that paragraph.
It's just as easy to interpret Dave's message as "we on the GDC take a lot of unfair crap, and I am unable to respond to all the crap we've taken in such a way that it would be both professional and honest, and yet personal conviction means that I can't go on NOT responding to all that crap if I stay on the GDC, so I'm outta here before things get ugly."
---------
So, yeah, I know what Dave said. I just don't think anything of any substance can be taken from it except a confirmation that they resigned from the GDC and an unwillingness to talk about it.
Thus, this speculation should be left right where it has been: nowhere.
Madman503
14-04-2011, 17:06
Personally I believe that the minibot is a perfect end game challenge. I don’t think that most teams took the proper amount of time designing the minibot deployment device, or understanding the rules associated with the minibot deployment for that matter.
The team I mentor, 3547, spent more time designing and building a minibot deplorer then any other aspect of the robot. I believe that we only spent $160 on our minibot development, not including the starter kit which we chose for our FIRST Choice parts. Our first minibot took about 2 hrs to build and for the first 2 competitions netted us around 600pts total; it wasn’t fast or special in any way except for being reliable. Once our first set of motors burned up, we replaced the inductor in the motor with wires and used them for testing all of our other minibot developments. As it stands now, our minibot deployment time (clime time included) is between 1.5 and 2 seconds. Also our minibot has deployed 32 out of 35 times. And of those 32 deployments our minibot scored 31 times, often in first place.
It seems like teams are busy trying to make the absolute fastest minibot, instead of the absolute fastest deployment with a respectable minibot. The race is really just about making sure that the other team is NOT first. If you consider that if an alliance has the first and last place minibot they will have scored 40 pts, while the other alliance with 2nd and 3rd place minibot will have scored 35pts. So if you notice, all you have to do is just make sure one of the minibot on your alliance comes in first place and you will always go away with more pts then your opposing alliance. I AM NOT SAYING THAT YOUR MINIBOT HAS TO BE THE FASTEST. I am simply pointing out that if the 3rd robot on your alliance interfered with one of the other minibot during the time that the bases are flashing yellow. That team, most likely will not be able to realign to the pole by the time all the other teams have launched there minibots.
My team successively accomplished this at the Michigan state competition 5 times, without penalties I might add. Often changing the minibot race outcome significantly. In some cases it changed the overall alliances race score from 40 to 35, with the opponent alliance winning. Into 50 to 25, helping our alliance receive an extra 25 pts without ever even touching our minibot pole.
In summary, care in the engineering challenge itself and strategy during the end game are what can really change the outcome of the game. Not that 25 millisecond faster than normal minibot climb time. I have yet to see a minibot race that couldn’t be judged visually. Deployment and driver reaction times are where the races are almost always won and lost.
Wayne TenBrink
14-04-2011, 22:30
One thing I liked about the whole minibot thing - especially in conjunction with the withholding allowance - is the way that we managed to cram an entire product evolution cycle into such a short period of time. In week 1 there was a huge diversity of designs & performance. By CMP, most will conform to a few basic types and perform within a few tenths of a second of each other. This may not be what we wanted to see, but its the way the world works. The crowd copies success and that forces the leaders to go the next step. Eventually everything homogenizes and gets boring. It was a fun and educational challenge to live through, but I certainly hope they move on to something else next year.
If the GDC intended that the minibot endgame should promote and celebrate the existence of FTC teams, it failed to do that. An essentially watered-down requirement to use FTC (Tetrix) parts only vexed (pun intended) FRC teams about the challenge of LogoMotion's endgame without appreciable FTC involvement. Perhaps the only way to insure FTC involvement would have been to require that the minibot be built by an existing FTC team. It doesn't take much imagination to believe that the hue and cry among FRC-dom would have been loud and long. "We don't have a FTC team in our area!" To which the GDC should have replied "That, my dear FRC, is the point. Go make one."
This is not to say that the current rules did not inspire a great deal of innovation for the minibots and deployment mechanisms. A great deal of the "unfairness" sting could have been mollified by reducing the seemingly immense scoring differential for minibots. So some teams would have been able to abandon mini-bot attempts at the expense of, say, a mid-height tube logo or two by concentrating on making their tube game better.
We will probably never know what the GDC was thinking about minibots. Complicating the FTC picture is the fact that most of the existing FTC teams were already in a build/compete season. They would have been hard-pressed to do design and build work for a FRC team or two in that time period. As good as it might have been for FIRST and for collaboration experience in both FRC and FTC, an effective cross-program promotional strategy seems to be an elusive goal.
Now my FLL team, on the other hand, designed and built a pole-climbing robot of FLL-legal parts in two or three meetings. They got the chance to show their robot to the Hartford Regional audience, thanks to the CT FIRST volunteers, Mike Gentry in particular. I think FIRST missed a good to great opportunity for cross-program promotion, not that FLL needs much of that.
PayneTrain
14-04-2011, 23:10
Not to mention FTC teams are more restricted in their rules than we were. Here is a list of things on the most successful minibots that come in a Tetrix kit:
2 Tetrix Motors (with detached gearboxes)
1 Battery
1 or 2 switches
And they use wiring, so I'll include that.
What we made:
3 pieces of beautifully cut channel aluminum
Custom Axles with surgical tubing
Anderson PowerPole Connectors
Not typical FTC materials, but we used them because we could. The point of the minibot was never explicitly stated, so its purpose may have died before ship day, or even before the infamous Team Updates.
I like the idea that Stephen proposed about a flat rate challenge. You made it, you get the points. Last year, you hang, you get the points. Two years ago, scoring a supercell is 15 points no matter when you scored it. Three years ago the big ball on the overpass score the bonus points no matter when you scored it. I don't think it is any less exciting. It eliminates all the problems with deploying too early, crossing the plane etc.
For those who have been around longer, were there a game in past years with end game that gives more points to the alliance that did it first?
It seems to go against FIRST values. We should celebrate when a robot can do a certain task. We don't build battlebots. We don't try to beat the other guy directly. We should try to use the robot we designed to score as many points as possible and use strategy as an alliance to win.
07 there was a 2 tier end game: pts for 6" off the ground and pts for 12"
06 there were points (i believe it was 30) for getting on top of a tall platform
05 i forget...
04 there were 50 points for hanging from a bar
03 there were points for being the king of the hill.
i believe 07 was the only tiered one, but your opponents scoring didnt influence your potential end game bonus. And the task of lifting 2 of your teammates up a foot proved to be a pretty difficult challenge. Easier that lifting a teammate in '10 though.
Jack Jones
15-04-2011, 08:24
07 there was a 2 tier end game: pts for 6" off the ground and pts for 12"
06 there were points (i believe it was 30) for getting on top of a tall platform
05 i forget...
04 there were 50 points for hanging from a bar
03 there were points for being the king of the hill.
i believe 07 was the only tiered one, but your opponents scoring didnt influence your potential end game bonus. And the task of lifting 2 of your teammates up a foot proved to be a pretty difficult challenge. Easier that lifting a teammate in '10 though.
'06 was 5-10-25 for robot(s) on the platform
07 there was a 2 tier end game: pts for 6" off the ground and pts for 12"
06 there were points (i believe it was 30) for getting on top of a tall platform
05 i forget...
04 there were 50 points for hanging from a bar
03 there were points for being the king of the hill.
i believe 07 was the only tiered one, but your opponents scoring didnt influence your potential end game bonus. And the task of lifting 2 of your teammates up a foot proved to be a pretty difficult challenge. Easier that lifting a teammate in '10 though.
My question was that was there another year that the first robot to do something get more points?
My question was that was there another year that the first robot to do something get more points?
Both '03 and '04 offered advantages for the first team up in that they could potentially defend the position. However, they did not get more points than other teams that made it up.
pfreivald
15-04-2011, 11:53
I like strategic rewards more than explicit point awards, though both certainly have their place.
Travis Hoffman
15-04-2011, 14:08
Anyone who has made or seen a sub 1.5 second Mini-bot, heck even a sub 2.5 second Mini-bot knows that they're EXTREMELY far from being FTC robots, or even Tetrix Robots.
Exception (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtube_gdata_player&v=XEw0lmY9ykc) to the (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOjkTLDPGA0) rule (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/36790).
dudefise
16-04-2011, 03:00
My biggest problem with the Mini-bot is that it was created in an attempt to spur the growth of Tetrix.
I think thats absolutely right. They are trying to establish Tetrix by having FRC teams buy their parts and further FTC.... it seems like its heavily political, by disallowing vex parts and *only* allowing ftc motors...
I think thats absolutely right. They are trying to establish Tetrix by having FRC teams buy their parts and further FTC.... it seems like its heavily political, by disallowing vex parts and *only* allowing ftc motors...
It does seem a little political, but this discussion has been beat to death in other threads, so I won't get into it.
The only thing they showed us is how junky the tetrix motors are. I like the end game challenge, but if they're going to restrict parts so much, at least restrict us to that are of half decent quality.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.