![]() |
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
|
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
As one of the many non-engineers that don't think in engineering terms...
I find the loophole (when it was) of a wedgebot to be genius and worthwhile for a team to attempt. If the team I'm in suggested it, I would side against it simply for the sake of being scared the loophole would get closed, but I don't deny I was and still am incredibly jealous of a team with the bravery to spend their season working on a robot that utilized the rules advantage. My question would be...what if the GDC wasn't given that question? What if week one a wedgebot team walks into their regional and at the end of the match slides under a bridge. What would the referees do? Given everything inside the manual, its a perfectly logical case that the wedgebot would count. Then, would the GDC continue to allow that loophole to exist? Or would they retroactively end the season of many other robots that attempted such a wedgebot? Or what if the ref would deny the team the points because it's not "balancing on the bridge" even though it was, technically, in the rules as legal? |
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
While it hasn't been brought up in a few pages, I think there's a very important distinction between a "gamebreaker" and a "chokehold strategy." They are not the same thing, though not mutually exclusive, either.
Team Hammond in 2002 exploited a chokehold strategy. When their strategy worked, there was no possible way for them to lose a match. 469 in 2010 was as close to a chokehold strategy as we've seen since then, but didn't truly have a chokehold strategy. "Troll-bots" are decidedly not a chokehold strategy. For as good and influential as the strategy may be, especially in terms of ROI, in does not provide an advantage that cannot be overcome by the opposing alliance. They are "gamebreaking" in the respect that they "break the game" by exploiting a loophole in the rules. This is also not the first time the GDC has closed those loopholes (or clarified and enforced ambiguous rules). See 68 in 2003 and 190 in 2008 for other examples. Unrelated to above, I have a question to ask. I mean no disrespect or criticism by it. In fact, I aim to learn from your response to better understand how some of the designers I greatly respect think. But, to the experienced and capable teams that opted for this strategy (and I'm counting 3928 as an experienced team given their mentors), why did you chose this route? Aren, for one, has stated himself that 3928 acknowledged that the GDC could potentially rule out this strategy. Why did you chose the "risky" road to facilitating the ramp bonus points, rather than a different strategy? 179 has shown one viable alternative, and there are numerous other possibilities that exist and I'm willing to bet that some were discussed. I'm curious as to the logic that led these teams to pursue this design choice. |
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
|
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
|
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
Probability (Sliding scale 1 to 3, so you can have things like 1.5) 1. Low 2. Med 3. High Impact 1. No Impact 2. Moderate 3. Severe Risk Factor is Probability * Impact If the Risk Factor is 1 - 3 (Green), I just watch it to see if it changes If the Risk Factor is 4 - 6 (Yellow), I develop contingency plans If the Risk Factor is 7 - 9 (Red), I avoid So if the probability was Med High (2.5), and the impact was Severe (3) - that would be a risk factor of 7.5. I would avoid that risk, and make alternate decisions. Those decisions could just be a modification, so that that the impact, for example, was reduced. If the Probably was High, and the impact low/moderate (3 * 1.5), which would be a risk factor of 4.5, I would want to have contingency plans in place prior to pursuing that action. |
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
|
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Bravo, Steve. Now couple that with my semi-serious suggestion that the 2013 rules be rated by the probability we think they will change. A risk factor for depending on "iffy" rules may just emerge.
|
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
|
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
We believed that we needed a way to get a 3rd robot on a bridge. It would make us better in eliminations. As you've mentioned, 179 accomplished this without trolling, but they were constrained size wise as well. Perhaps more than us. One of our earlier designs had us 10" tall and flipping up on end to make room for other robots on the ramp. With the GDC's straightforward definition of the bridge in the early Q&As we saw trolling as a more reliable and more efficient solution. We saw our early concepts similar to 179's as a potential issue with the unclear definition of grappling. We're not trollin' just to troll. We believed it was the best strategy. Now it's bitten us in the rear and makes us do more mechanical work after the robot was wired. |
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
Speaking only for myself, I am in full cognizance that life does not have a rewind button, and that it is always better to take a situation for what it is rather than what we wish it was... It was with that spirit that I have said (in both threads) that going with the obvious spirit of the game is a safer and more reliable bet than trying to find a loophole or end-around. An idea can be insightful, clever, smart, even brilliant -- but still be unwise. I don't think it's arrogant or mean to state that pursuing this strategy was unwise; as with all things without a rewind button, it should be filed away in the future as a lesson learned. Quote:
|
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
I actually have more detailed criticisms, but since the thread has moved on somewhat, I'll refrain from expressing them all—here's a summary instead. Quote:
Contrast this with the situation in FRC. By participating, teams agree to follow what the rules say—teams cannot negotiate. As such, there are implicit, though nebulous, expectations that the rules won't be overly capricious or incomprehensible at face value. Quote:
(Incidentally, jurisdiction was not the example I offered in the previous post; I was talking about contracting with the government, for which my analogy holds true as well, for other reasons.) Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The trolling strategy is like the hidden ball trick. It's legal because it conforms to all of the rules, even if it was not envisioned by Abner Doubleday2 or the GDC. Now imagine that someone changed the rules of baseball, the week before the playoffs: the hidden ball trick is now illegal. It doesn't matter to most teams, but that's not to say that to say that the rule change process met with their approval. 1 Strictly speaking, another factor could create that need, but I think my point is clear enough that further precision would not be helpful. 2 Not the inventor of baseball, but a useful proxy for same. |
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
Still, I wouldn't say we're an "experienced" team by any shot; sure, we have superb mentors, but as the only programmer, I do not see that as being a vast advantage when I've been forced to learn everything about FRC programming (and Java, and C++) in scratch over the course of six weeks. I'm sensing a bit of an attitude that Aren controls 3928, but as a member of that team I feel the need to point out that, while he's useful, but every one of our eight or so students on the team are working our rears off making this robot competitive, and in no way is our team "the second coming of Aren Hill." We're a new team with an experienced mentor. That's all. Rant's over. :] |
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 20:13. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi