Chief Delphi - Why go over the bump

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)

- General Forum (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

- - Why go over the bump (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=101574)

Re: Why go over the bump

Quote:

Originally Posted by XaulZan11 (Post 1125176)

I don't see any rule that prohibits a robot from sitting in its own ally while in contact with no balls as long as the robot makes no attempt to contact an opposing robot.

Per the blue box in G22 (see below), a robot is 'trapping' and thus controlling balls only when the ball is pressed up against their robot and the wall. Blocking opposing robots from getting access to balls is not trapping nor controlling.

"Moving or positioning a Basketball to gain advantage is considered actively controlling. Examples are “carrying” (holding Basketballs in the Robot), “herding” (intentionally pushing or impelling Basketballs to a desired location or direction) and “trapping” (pressing one or more Basketballs against a Court element in an attempt to shield them)."

With all due respect, let us make a Socratic inquiry - how many examples (pro and con) are necessary to perfectly clarify G22? 3 (as above), 13, 133?... the pro and con examples in the blue box are NOT exclusive, they are one or three of many. So back to intent - the first sentence clearly, in my opinion, conveys the intent. Further, the second Q&A above leaves no room for interpretation. In my humble opinion, anything else is a tortured interpretation.

Lets agree to disagree. Perhaps week 1 will reveal the referees reaction to such strategies.

Re: Why go over the bump

Q. Do balls positioned behind a robot but not touching it, previously put there by the robot or an inbounder, count as being controlled?
A. Hypothetical game situations are highly context dependent. It is not practical for us to provide definitive answers for all individual situations which may be presented.

I understand the GDC's reasoning behind this answer, and as it stands right now, situational calls like this will be very much at the discretion of regional (and district) head referees. I don't think it's something we'll see often, but it will happen and I'm curious as to how it will play out.

Re: Why go over the bump

Quote:

Originally Posted by slijin (Post 1125216)

I'd say that one of the most extreme examples of this was 469 in 2010.

I don't think he was referring to machines, though obviously much of the brilliance of 469 was the necessary-and-perfect starvation strategy via their mechanical design.

If you look into 2009, 2010, and 2011, all of the games placed strategic importance in game piece management and "starvation".

In 2009, ball management was the (non-human player) key to the game. You could see this with the mid-season development of the human load autonomous - a far more reliable way for many teams to convert 20 balls into 40 points than simply letting human players take shots. Balls on the ground were in no team's control, and at the highest levels of competitive play, everyone that year had the same intake style by nature of the rules.

In 2010, it was highly advantageous, nearly as much as actually scoring, to move game pieces into your protected zone. Only one opposing robot could handle any game piece in that zone. Combine that with the limited number of game pieces and you can see why many teams started the match in the back and advanced gradually to the front as the match continued. Redirectors were simple additions that made MANY teams dramatically more competitive just by sitting in front of their ball return, preventing scored balls from returning to neutral territory.

2011 didn't play out exactly as I thought it would, primarily with teams that trained human players to the point of throwing past midfield. But listen carefully to the words of Blair on Einstein Semi-Final 1. "Looks like the starvation strategy..."

It's going to happen as much as the rules, referees, and teams allow it to. Prepare.

Re: Why go over the bump

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leeland1126 (Post 1124862)

I can definitely understand why someone thinking designing only for the bridge and not for the barrier would be totally okay. It's something else to design for, and realistically, will probably only add a few second (if that many) to your trips across field, which, unless you're making frequent trips, isn't really that bad. However, I see only crossing the bridge as a "Well, what if..." situation. There are things that, if you can only cross the bridge, could hurt you.

Well, what if...

Both of your alliance partners can only cross the bridge: If your match strategy dictates all of your alliance partners (or even just two of you) to be crossing the bridge, it's going to get crowded at times. And unless two of you have a REALLY thin robot you feel comfortable running side by side on the bridge, it's going to cost you valueable seconds of gameplay.
One of your partners takes a spill on the bridge: Say one of your partners it crossing the bridge and they tip and fall. Not off the bridge, but they fall and block the bridge on one side. Then, not only can you maybe not balance in the end game, but you can't traverse the field via alliance bridge. You can still use the coopertition bridge and the opponent's bridge, but you're not protected by your bridge and alley, and you risk penalty by using the opponent's bridge, especially if you happen to be crossing close to end game time.
Something malfunctions: Most team's bridge manipulators (from what I've seen, and admittedly partially through assumption) will probably be some kind of arm that swings down and pushes the bridge into position to drive on. And nothing ever breaks :rolleyes: If a part of your robot snaps, comes unplugged, or just gets stuck, you suddenly are without a bridge manipulator. While I've yet to see/come up with a passive bridge manipulator, there is at least one way to traverse the bump passively (i.e. with the right kind of wheels, you can just cross the barrier).
You ARE making frequent trips: Teams like 1114, 254, 217, etc. will probably be looking to make frequent trips across the field if they don't have a good feeder bringing balls to their side. Say they are sinking all 3 shots (entirely possible), not leaving any rebounds to get. If they want to make 5-10 trips a match (just throwing out numbers), say crossing the bridge takes 3 seconds and the barrier only takes 2 seconds a match. Overall, the bridge takes 15 - 30 seconds, while the barrier only takes 10 - 20. As the match progresses, the bump with allow more time for scoring. These are, of course, hypothetical numbers. In practice, we'll actually see how things turn out. Conversely, if these elite powerhouse teams can only cross the bridge, maybe you don't want to use the bridge, for risk of getting in their way? Just a thought.

These are all very real possibilities and, though you may not see them happening every match, even just happening once can cost you. Being able to cross the barrier may not be a necessity, but having the added versatility will almost definitely come in handy several times at a competition.

One the other side, however, designing for the bridge ONLY does have it's advantages.

Less to design: If you're a team with limited resources, you're almost definitely going to want to design a simple robot at possible. Adding design for the barrier can take valuable time and resources, as well as adding wait and, depending on the method, complexity.
Focus on one thing: If you take the attention that could be divided between bridge and barrier, and focus only on one of them, then you should have a bridge or barrier manipulator that is doubly effective. With the major impact of the end game this year (either by being able to use the co-op bridge, or getting the points for your own bridge), having an effective bridge manipulator can make an alliance successful, as well as making you highly desirable in alliance selections.

So only being able to use the bridge may not kill you. Just having the added versatility can help you out a lot.

I hope this helps!
-Leeand

Thank you! I totally agree with you. My team spend almost 2 weeks brainstorming and strategizing. We decided we wanted to be a 100% self reliable, meaning picking balls from the ground, going over the bump and the bridge, being able to balance and shoot from different places and angles, that way we had a better chance of playing defense and moving everywhere whenever we wanted to.

It's important to remember that there's only 1 bridge and 3 robots... wouldn't it be nice that someone in your alliance could go over the bump? One must always be a step ahead of the game. Things break, batteries die, robots will not always have balance. STRATEGY is the key... within the rules there's always a different way to play the game, you just gotta keep your eyes and your mind wide open;)

"Scientis study the world as it is; Engineers create the world that has never been" Nerdy&Proud<3

Re: Why go over the bump

because bridge ball deflectors may not actually deflect balls like it has been happening at competitions for the past 2 days :ahh: