Chief Delphi

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   Rules/Strategy (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102697)

wireties 16-02-2012 15:46

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by 1075guy (Post 1128191)
I don't think its fair to chastise a team for taking a calculated risk, no matter what it is.

I totally agree and that is a good point. But can I ask you - how did you calculate the risk? What was the risk factor (in percentage for example)? I apologize if that seems like a leading question but I'm a math guy, I really am looking for a number. That was our dilemma, the risk (absent good data) seemed unknowable - could be nothing or infinite.

wireties 16-02-2012 15:55

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Aren_Hill (Post 1128215)
And with enough effort, we "risked" very little, hence why my initial disgruntledness with the GDC is much smaller than how angry I am with the ignorance of some CD members.

I've no doubt you had a good backup plan, your reputation as a great robot designer is well-deserved.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aren_Hill (Post 1128215)
But trying to defend them with what you view as "common sense" and calling me naive does not make you or them correct in how they handled it.

If I used the word "naive", I apologize. I did not meant to and certainly should not have used that tone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aren_Hill (Post 1128215)
Nope, I'm competing in FRC, and happen to know some amazing things are capable of being accomplished if you merely take the leap.

I generally stay out of the student decision making process - purposefully. I beg the team not to use the "head mentor" label and i never coach the drive teams. I just labor in the pits. But I do place huge value on the contributions of our sponsors money and the volunteered time. Perhaps I am too zealous in this regard, making sure everyone sees "something for their money/time". I will take your comments to heart and endeavor to be more understanding on CD and elsewhere.

Tetraman 16-02-2012 16:17

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?

Lil' Lavery 16-02-2012 16:23

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.

wireties 16-02-2012 16:29

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tetraman (Post 1128261)
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?

Who knows? - and that, in essence, is the point. Several mentors have defined this as a "calculated" risk. I don't outright disagree but my trouble is exactly how does one calculate the risk? It can be mitigated (up to ship time - by building a second conventional design) but how does one calculate the risk?

Nate Laverdure 16-02-2012 16:43

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by wireties (Post 1128274)
...how does one calculate the risk?

Risk = probability * consequence

SteveGPage 16-02-2012 17:01

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nate Laverdure (Post 1128286)
Risk = probability * consequence

Along these lines, I do a "Risk Matrix"

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.

Joe Ross 16-02-2012 17:11

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by wireties (Post 1128274)
Who knows? - and that, in essence, is the point. Several mentors have defined this as a "calculated" risk. I don't outright disagree but my trouble is exactly how does one calculate the risk? It can be mitigated (up to ship time - by building a second conventional design) but how does one calculate the risk?

Socratic questioning works better in a closed environment where the answers come from a defined set of people, rather then a thread like this where people pop in and out at random.

Bill_B 16-02-2012 17:19

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.

wireties 16-02-2012 17:23

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveGPage (Post 1128298)
Along these lines, I do a "Risk Matrix"
.

Excellent and thanks - I was hoping for a hard answer and wasn't posing a socratic query (though I can see how it could be taken that way).

gurellia53 16-02-2012 18:22

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery (Post 1128267)
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.


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.

pfreivald 16-02-2012 22:28

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Karthik (Post 1128066)
Instead of offering constructive suggestions, we have a bunch of people piling on in two separate threads telling them about how dumb they were for not seeing this coming, how they should have used common sense, how they wouldn't hire someone who would think that way, and basically saying "I told you so". How is this helpful to anyone?

While I've seen some of that here, for the most part what I've seen are responses similar to mine: you take your risks, and you take your lumps if they don't pan out.

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:

Originally Posted by 1075guy (Post 1128191)
I don't think its fair to chastise a team for taking a calculated risk, no matter what it is.

I agree completely. Chastisement was not my intent, to be sure. If it was taken as such by anyone, I sincerely apologize.

Tristan Lall 17-02-2012 01:16

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by wireties (Post 1127879)
This is where you miss the point. It is NOT strictly possible for the GDC to create a foolproof "set of documents". There will always be some wayward engineer asking what "is" is (or thinking you can balance a robot under a bridge) . Common sense is an essential component. This is how the real world works.

I don't expect the GDC to have complete success. Of course they won't. That does not relieve them from the expectation that they make a good-faith attempt. To me, a good-faith attempt includes learning from past mistakes, actively validating their current assumptions, and lobbying for the resources they need to complete the task effectively.

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:

Originally Posted by wireties (Post 1127879)
The engineer and customer/client are not on equal footing. The party paying the bills has final say over all matters.

The relationship between equals is a concept from contract law. It means that, roughly speaking, each party can successfully represent its own interests in a contract negotiation. If you treat your clients too obsequiously, you're just doing yourself a disservice in the long run—especially because the law tends to see you as nearly equal, regardless.

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:

Originally Posted by wireties (Post 1127879)
And FIRST is nothing like "you and the government". FIRST is voluntary, one is compelled to do nothing.

If you're interacting in American society, you're subject to American law. If you don't like that, visit Canada, maybe stay a while. If you're participating in FRC, you're subject to the FRC rules. If you don't like that, there's always VRC. In both cases, you're compelled to do certain things, and your principal recourse is to leave.

(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:

Originally Posted by wireties (Post 1127879)
Your mistake is thinking common sense and precise thinking are mutually exclusive.

That's not consistent with what I wrote, and I do not hold that view. I asserted that one should not substitute common sense for precision, when precision is beneficial. If you can have both together, there's no need for an ill-advised substitution.1

Quote:

Originally Posted by wireties (Post 1127879)
Wrong - we disagree because we have lived it. We have made similar mistakes and learned from them. The mentors in the thread (who do not agree with you) are not expressing opinions but justified conclusions based on decades of experience. Is that to count for nothing?

The lessons that you've learned and others haven't are perfect examples of things that contribute to a "different worldview". And they count for something; I hardly implied otherwise. Equally, the decades of experience enjoyed by those who do agree with me count for something as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wireties (Post 1127879)
This is not a dumbed-down game for high school students. It is for students who want to step up and do college level work and/or entry level professional work. The whole purpose of FIRST is to introduce extraordinary students to a real world-ish engineering exercise (mentored by practicing engineers) and prompt them to consider to study engineering, physics or computer science.

It's arguable whether "dumbed-down" is an apt description (too pejorative for my liking), but it is inarguably a game for high school students, mentored by engineers and others. I wouldn't go so far as to say that's the "whole purpose"; it's broader and more nuanced than that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wireties (Post 1127879)
I have designed some innovative control systems in my career. I have to work hard at not straying so far outside the box that I can't see the box. And I can honestly say that I would not have derived the trolling strategy from the GDC queries. Even now I can't believe anyone would think this a valid strategy - what on earth were they thinking?

There's the hidden ball trick in baseball. Imagine an engineer trying to pull a stunt like that. It just makes no sense in the engineering paradigm. But it makes perfect sense in the context of a baseball game.

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.

nickwroyer 17-02-2012 09:33

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery (Post 1128267)
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?.

When people started suggesting "trolling," I was scared that the loophole might get closed, and now I'm a little disgruntled that the GDC, as I see it, screwed us over. However, I think that's a risk we took and one that we can bounce back from.

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. :]

pfreivald 17-02-2012 10:22

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by nickwroyer (Post 1128698)
We're a new team with an experienced mentor. That's all.

In an ideal world, all new teams would have experienced mentors!


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