![]() |
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
|
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
G40: When the final score is assessed per [G37], a Balanced Alliance Bridge will earn points based on the number of Alliance Robots completely supported by the Bridge, per Section 2.2.5, as follows[...] The Q&A Question, asked under G40 was: A: What physical parts make up the bridge by definition? Essentially, where does the bridge begin and end? For example, does the welded structure under the bridge that the top connects to count as the bridge? Does the lateral bar that rotates with the bridge that count as the bridge? The answer, as we all know: The Bridge consists of all components included in the Bridge Assembly drawing, GE-12017. I agree they didn't mention every non-top-of-bridge surface directly, but where is the ambiguity in the direction of that question? G40 is about balance and complete bridge support, the question asks 'what parts make up the bridge?', and the GDC answered 'all of them'. In all seriousness, what did they think the question was about, if not balancing on parts other than the one the GDC apparently intended? Disclaimer: I have to say I view the FIRST challenges more as sports than engineering assignments in this regard. This is probably because I in no way see the GDC as my client--that place is reserved for my students with the GDC as mere facilitators. I really don't care about the GDC's intent after they give a ruling, but I understand that apparently leaves me in the minority. (I am in no way implying that anyone who disagrees with my sentiments doesn't view the students as their goal/client/whathaveyou. Most of the guys on the other end are absolutely excellent mentors and engineers. I'd venture they probably don't view the GDC as just facilitators, though.) |
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Looks like GDC just broke this game breaker with an answer to Jared's question:
Quote:
Nice strategy, Jared. Way to look through the field construction docs, I read that answer and moved onto next Q. However, just like most game breaking strategies it is not what the GDC intended (some they leave legal anyway). I had a great deal of fun going for the game breaker in '02 (grab 3 goals), and tried to go the 469 route in '10. I understand the that if a strategy is dominating a game, it is natural to want to level the playing field (or lower the pitcher's mound). Unfortunately, the risk of the strategy becoming illegal (190 in '08) outweighs the reward for all but the most daring teams when considering game breaker strategies. I personally didn't like that form of bridge manipulation (jam ball ramp), but I love what Swampthing is doing. While I see strategic value in a class of small 3rd bots (cRIO in wheels) for balancing 3 during, I don't think it will be very fun to watch them during quals (since 3 bot balancing is worthless). |
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
|
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
For all of the future engineers reading this thread - you give me an answer like that quoted above in an interview and I will NOT hire you. Time is money and I will assume you are likely to waste both. |
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:
Quote:
Furthermore, for those arguing it takes away "innovativeness", look at 179's robot. Perfectly legal, and is one of the most innovative robots I've seen in my life. I'm not saying you shouldn't go innovative and stick to the plain rules, but going as far as to say it's unfair you can't drive onto the lexan and call it balancing is just going too far. Don't get me wrong, I want to make an innovative design and robot as much as the next guy, and like everyone else I spend my time reading through the rules, trying to find any possible loophole that will be viable for my team's advantage. However, one does not simply drive onto lexan and call it balanced. These are just my views, and I understand others have their own views on these things, and I respect that. -Andrew |
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
I always evaluate all the options. I just don't take the risk of building something I might not get paid for. I make SURE the customer will accept and pay for my solution (the equivalent here is the GDC and the inspectors). And if the customer is not wise enough to know it will not work, I still will NOT build it because I want the customer to return. We focus a lot on the mentor to student relationships in FIRST, rightfully so. But there are also older mentor to younger mentor relationships, both within teams and between teams. In that context (I'm an older successful engineer/manager/scientist/inventor) I'm advising younger mentors that troll-ish ideas (in FIRST and in the real world) do not merit a lot of consideration (notice I do not say zero) and certainly do not merit a lot of complaining when the GDC (or your boss someday) cuts one off. There are exceptions, some people get paid to entertain off-the-wall ideas and that is a great gig - but not most of us. |
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
If you needed a job, (with all due respect) does it matter what you think or intend? |
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
I don't have access to official bridge or mathematical skills to figure it out, but is that ball ramp 5 degrees or less? If it is 6 degrees it wouldn't count. Just wondering.
|
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
|
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
My biggest question is, why on earth do we keep having Q&A answers and Team Updates being at odds with each other? Why not merely answer in the Q&A that the bridge is defined as the parts X,Y,Z from the drawing 123 and then follow that up with updating the manual to state that? I guess that is what I'm most angry about. That being said, I am in the industry of getting paid to find the interesting solutions to problems. It is my job to think of different ways of doing things. |
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
|
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
Quote:
Good luck this year! |
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
|
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
I'd rather learn about creativity and thinking outside the box in an environment that has little repercussions towards the safety or livelihood of another human (FRC) than come up with plain and safe solutions to problems or clients' needs in the real world where I have less opportunities to screw something up and possibly endanger a life (eg: Boeing engineer). Not all of us think the same way you might about how to handle an FRC design because we think that this competition is probably one of the last times before entering the "real world" of engineering that we can take risks that won't really affect anyone but our own teams. Hope you understand what I mean by that. |
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
We've decided to rebuild our robot to better reflect the GDC's intent. Since my team doesn't have any telepathic mentors -- at least, none that can read minds on the east coast -- our only insight into what they wanted us to build is the animation.
At this late stage, would anyone be willing to share what size boot your team is using to kick balls? Normally, we'd prototype this and try to find the very best boot for the job, but we have no time left and want to make sure we get it right this time. Do members of the GDC prefer Doc Marten's or Red Wings? ![]() |
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:
|
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
As usual, if you're designing your robot to take advantage of a single definition that's not even in the rules, and you have to ignore the common sense meaning of several aspects of the rules to do it, then you're setting your team up for a high risk of a big disappointment.
Most robots are designed to balance on top of the bridge. 179 designed a robot to balance under the bridge. They thought outside the box, but within the stated intent of the rules. The trollbot does not balance on or under the bridge. I guess that's a subtle difference? It's very obvious to me. |
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
|
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
Seeing that the same answer was given twice, one would think that it's a safe bet to bank that the answer will hold true - but this isn't the case, since the GDC has once again gone back on one of it's answers in the Q&A with a team update. Can we really even trust the GDC anymore? In any case, we might just be beating a dead horse. The troll bot that I've seen should still be quite competitive even with a traditional balancing strategy. Oh, and something to lighten the mood a bit. Stumbled across it in my internet travels: http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/364ww4/ |
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
You can kiss that customer goodbye though - ;o) |
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:
But I think you are missing (some of) the point of FIRST. They do not give us 6 months to try all kinds of cool ideas (which I would like). Why is the build season only 6 weeks? - to put the design teams under "quick turn" pressure like that seen in a "real-world" environment. They impose serious design constraints and rules/requirements - again like the real world. So (though I love to tinker and try wild new stuff also) I do not frustrate the students by advising such an approach given a 6-week window. |
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
[2008 - EngiNERDs - Team 2337] ![]() -Clinton- |
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Hey guys I want to add two things to this discussion.
1. If you want to use common sense thinking instead of the rules 179 is clearly not "balanced" like most people expected at the start of build season. The only difference between their out of the box thinking and "troll-bot" out of the box thinking is that troll-bots would aggravate the game design (and lots of teams that didn't think of them) by having a really sweet ROI. Whereas swamp thing is different, but not particularly better, than other designs. 2. Here's one more thing to think about. If there were teams that built troll-bots, the GDC just bilked them out of $5000. This isn't just fun, they payed to be able to play the game they were given. |
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
I guess we too can agree to disagree. |
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
Good luck this year! |
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
We can argue, agree to disagree, split hairs, compare philosophies, but what's done is done (unless it is undone once again...). We don't have to be happy (or sad, depending on your design) about it, but all this enthusiasm and energy could be powerful. I want to know what the new "gamebreaker" is. Or, if I designed and built a trollbot what suggestions the community might have with only 6 days left?
My suggestions would be to try and decrease my footprint as much as I could, or perhaps devise a 179 inspired method of getting on the bridge, or have a ramp appendage. As many have said, many teams planning on building trollbots may lose little if any value to their alliance even with the changes. |
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
I wonder ... now that the ball shield isn't part of the bridge ... can I somehow use that area to keep my opponents off of thier bridge? |
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
This entire thread (minus the side discussions) boils down to one simple question:
Should we build robots based upon the intent of the GDC or should we build robots based only upon the rules written by the GDC? While the latter is easy to determine/judge legality of a design if the rules are written clearly, the former is much more difficult. What is the actual intent of the GDC? Unless you're on the GDC, it's nearly impossible to know for sure. We can take educated guesses, but different people will likely think the GDC had a different intent when reading the same rule (As evidenced this year with this team update). If the GDC decided to add another set of footnites to the manual, such as a green "Intent Box", I'd be concerned that all teams could follow the intent and come up with very similar robots and strategies. |
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
Although there is no way to say for sure what the GDCs intent is, one could argue that 179's bot goes against the GDCs intent of the game because the robot is not on top of the bridge when it is balanced. Following the intent of the rules would seem to allow 179's bot because it is fully supported by the top of the bridge, but wouldn't allow a troll 'bot, whereas following the rules exactly (before the update) would allow a troll 'bot. Hopefully this is a good enough example to show the distinction between following the GDCs intent for the game, their intent for the rules, and the rules as they are written. To me, the first option is kind of boring because it limits some of the greatest ideas (179 this year, 469 in 2010...), and the last option is only going to make the teams who didn't notice a loophole jealous of the teams who did. |
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
In my unimportant honest opinion:
Whoever built a trollbot: You took a risk knowing that the rule could get overturned by the GDC at pretty much any time. Obviously you would hope it wouldn't, but it has, and you took that risk. Its quite obvious what they intended you to do with the bridges. Deal with it, just as you would have to in the real world. To the GDC: Next time, don't wait until week 6 to pull something like this. It clears up what you intended the bridges to be used for/as, but this should have happened at maybe week 3 at the latest. To both: The Q&A is a unspecific mess, thanks to the "We wont comment on exact robot design" rule that I heard somewhere from the GDC. Sometimes, you have to see an example to see where the poster is coming from. This probably would not have helped much in this case, as only a "What makes up the bridge?" question was asked, but if the question was more specific they most likely would have flat out given you a "No, you can't do that" on the spot. As long as the poster doesn't supply detailed drawings and such, it really should be allowed. My 2c |
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If one needed to hire some engineers, doesn't it make sense to hire at least one who is willing to point out when the spec might be ambiguous, or when the customer's expectations might not correspond with the contract language? By arguing the point, that's exactly what Andrew is expressing to you. Is it cheaper to hire him now (and waste a little time/money now and then), or to wait, and hire a lawyer later? |
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
I can forsee a new adjunct activity for FIRSTers that maybe goes along with Fantasy FIRST (FF) or maybe it will be a sidebar in that popular game. It involves assigning a probability to each and every rule in the 2013 manuals concerning whether it will be changed during the season by team update or Q&A. Tiebreaker points for those guessing the update or distance into the season at which the rule is altered. Nolo contendere applies for obvious spelling errors.
Of course, there will have to be a point in week 1 when the parimutuel window closes but I think there's a good chance it will have the effect of EVERYONE taking a good hard look at the rule book before much metal gets cut or even before too many CAD electrons are spun into fruitless webs. I made a post (somewhere) about my observation of teenagers' reaction to hearing about rules they hadn't read well enough to know if they could be ignored. I will find it again when I click on my name in this post. ;) :D |
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
I think it could be done. But I'd do more of a pick-em style, where you could choose whether or not to make predictions on a rule. Such as: # of Q&As, # of posts on CD discussing the rule, if there would be a change (and if so, when), and whether the change would be made by Q&A or Update. :D Points awarded by accuracy (0 for fail, 2 for full accuracy on any one prediction (within reason), 1 for being "in the ballpark, but you're in the stands part of the ballpark"). Bonus points for predicting what change will be made. No making exactly the same prediction as someone else on a given rule. |
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Fundamentally, we're not being asked 'build a robot that confirms our expectations about how robots can complete certain tasks'. The fundamental intent and the fundamental constraint is merely 'here are the rules, go play and maybe learn something about the value of engineering'. That encourages creativity and allows teams to try things that would never fly in a conventionally risk-averse engineering environment. That sandbox mentality is a big part of why it's fun. (And let's be perfectly honest: if this was a real engineering task, there are all sorts of things you'd rarely do—like spending time teaching the least capable members of the team new skills, or humouring bad ideas for educational value.) I say that because FRC is unusual, even among competitions: the game rules are freshly written every year, and there's little weight in precedent or unwritten convention. By choosing to create a new game every year, the GDC has both the enviable opportunity and the significant responsibility of creating an internally-consistent set of documents that describe all of the critical parameters of the challenge. Worse, when they resort to cop-outs like 'sorry, that's not what we intended', or 'use engineering common sense', they're betraying the essence of any competition—that the competitors are treated equitably so that any difference between them comes down to skill, preparation and the luck of the draw. Taking the role of the capricious god who strikes down his loyal subjects is no way to administer a competition. FRC is not about a relationship between equals like the engineer and client, both of whom are equally able to negotiate a contract on mutually agreeable terms. Instead, it's like a contract between entities of disproportionate power—like you and the government, for example. In those cases, the more powerful party bears an additional equitable burden to ensure that they are treating those who have no recourse in a reasonable way. In FRC, that means setting expectations and sticking with them, unless there's a compelling reason to do otherwise—and only then, with due consideration of the impact on the weaker parties. This situation violates that equitable expectation, because teams should have been able to rely on FIRST's past explicit statements. I of course realize that FIRST probably made an innocent mistake—and that has mitigating value. But FIRST missed other opportunities to mitigate the damage. They could have written the rule more clearly in advance, or labelled the diagram better. They could have explained that they surveyed all the teams, and if none were using this strategy, then the issue would be moot. They could have explained that the GDC had considered all of the issues, but upon reflection, decided that this was the best course of action. Indeed, I think it's that last one that's annoying people. Probably for eminently practical reasons, the GDC is like a machine where questions go in, and dicta come out. There's rarely any indication of what's going on inside. Did the GDC actually understand the question, but deemed it unreasonable? Did they misunderstand the question? Did they spend more than 30 s discussing what a team feels is a crucial and complex issue that doesn't easily lend itself to a fair resolution? Occasionally, we even hear that the GDC has rather heated arguments over points of principle—is the ruling the result of level-headed conversation, or a shouting match? Knowing these things isn't crucial, but it is beneficial, because it establishes a frame of reference for the team that was just told their robot is pretty much useless. It also dampens criticism, because the explanation crowds out alternative theories like incompetence or ulterior motives—theories that can spread unchecked when the only response amounts to 'it's week 6: now the rule means this'. The other factor feeding this discontent is the fact that the GDC had three perfect opportunities to get the definition right: once when they wrote the rules, and twice when teams asked for clarification. All three times it was an (understandable) oversight, but that doesn't change the fact that teams would desperately like to believe they can trust what the GDC has to say. And that brings me to risk. Having been involved with this competition for a very long time, in many capacities, I know a lot about how the organization operates, and how GDC decisions are implemented in the field. There's a substantial amount of variability (most of which is undesirable), and this makes for a lot of risk, when it comes to non-mainstream designs. Will your inspector pass you or fail you, based on their understanding of the rules, and their willingness to tolerate equitable deviations from the rules under extenuating circumstances? The same goes for the referees. This has to figure into your risk estimates, if you're trying anything even remotely controversial. Sometimes you make out well—like 190 in 2008, who managed to convince the officials (at one regional) that the rules referred to a robot-based co-ordinate system, rather than a field-based one. And sometimes you don't—like 1519 in 2008, who complied with all of the rules, but were dealt a mortal blow as a result of a dogmatic interpretation of the undefined term "robot". Another aspect of risk is based on the likelihood that the GDC itself will change the meaning or interpretation of something that a team relied upon. Again, in my long experience, this happens all the time in FRC. The examples are too numerous to count, but sufficient to say, all too often they occur late in the build season or even during the competition season, when the impact on affected teams is most severe. Now, I know about these aspects of risk, and because of that, I make contingency plans when I'm trying something controversial. I wasn't exactly surprised by this ruling. But the biggest problem with FIRST-induced risk isn't its effect on me, but rather its effect on less-well-prepared teams. If something isn't clear to a well-informed rookie (who has read the rules, but has no special insight into what the GDC is, much less today's definition of "engineering common sense"), it's not clear enough. Quote:
Quote:
We can say that it's common sense that driving under the bridge is not balancing it. But that presupposes a whole bunch of assumptions about what things are, and what terms mean. Since those terms are not all clearly and precisely defined in the rules (much less in common parlance), those assumptions are inherently open to debate. That doesn't make it not common sense—it merely demonstrates that nobody has a monopoly on common sense. If I disagree, based on my own self-consistent and reasonable interpretation, there isn't really much you can say to prove me wrong. We just disagree, because we have different worldviews. For that matter, isn't it also common sense to observe that a robot can be round (ever see a Roomba)? If common sense is so important, why did the GDC fail to employ it in that case? Could it also be true that common sense is not always obvious, even to our esteemed rule-writers? If they can't get it straight all the time (and why would we expect that of them?), why should we? Holding every team to their brand of common sense is untenable—and apparently unreasonable if they can't manage it themselves. Actually, the history of the rounded robot question is even more sordid than that. In 2009 FIRST actually said that a curved bumper was composed of an infinite number of corners, and thus each needed to be protected individually. (Again, that's something that a rookie wouldn't know, and therefore couldn't easily rely upon to assess the likely actions of the GDC.) They've said other nonsensical things, like plywood isn't plywood if you made it from plies of wood, or that the frame perimeter is necessarily a polygon (it's not: polygons are planar, the frame perimeter need not be). Give me a while, and I can go on and on—but the point is that I can say with some authority that many GDC interpretations do not reflect my understanding of common sense, and that they probably set off red flags for others as well. And as Bill noted, it should be pretty obvious that the average teenager has a different attitude toward common sense than people the age of their parents (like some GDC members). It's stuff like this that makes me adamantly opposed to the use of common sense as a crutch for bad specifications. |
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
No doubt the teams that started a troll bot are pretty upset but it was a risky design decision. No amount of rule parsing, pre or post GDC, is going to change that. So how about we all learn from this and pose less obtuse questions to the GDC next year? |
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
Quote:
And FIRST is nothing like "you and the government". FIRST is voluntary, one is compelled to do nothing. Quote:
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? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
The purpose of the bridge is pretty obvious. to balance. not to find loopholes to score more points. And I also completely agree, if someone flatout asked if it was legal, and they said yes, then overturned it, there would be a reason to be angry. But what is going on here is completely ridiculous. If you can figure out how to make a robot that small and still score 3 pointers you can suck it up and put a bridge manipulator on your robot. |
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
The purpose of the bridge is what the GDC said it was, nothing more, nothing less.
And of course they didn't post a clear Q&A. The public nature of the Q&A would make that require revealing their whole strategy. They had the GDC state regulations which made them perfectly legal according to the rules and that should have been enough. |
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
My first boss had a saying - "don't make big mistakes and don't make little mistakes twice". Trolling-gate was a big mistake that hopefully will not get repeated. |
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Spotlight took me to this:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=18309 What would you have said? |
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
|
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
I haven't followed this whole thread (read the beginning), so forgive me for being a bit out of context but...
It seems to me there should be an alternative way of submitting these types of questions to the GDC when it involves a unique strategy that you don't want to share with the world if it's legal. The reason the Q&A question was so ambiguous is likely because teams didn't want to tip their hands; but if they could ask the question and privately get approval that it is within the intent of the game, and if the strategy is denied then the private Q&A is made public so other teams are made aware of the ruling and subsequent clarification to the rules. I don't think world class teams should be forced to gamble their success on whether or not something is legal. If you decide a strategy probably isn't really "the intended game design", but it turns out to be legal, you'll be kicking yourself when you get schooled by someone who took that risk and "got away with it". To me it seems the only arguments for not having a privacy option to the Q&A would be to minimize the amount of work required and to protect the "not comment on a specific design" clause. |
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
This would allow for teams to be honest and forth coming with the GDC, yet not show their hand to all of the other teams. -Clinton- |
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
So it's a great idea, except for the things that make it a terrible idea. (That's meant to be somewhat ironic without being abrasive. One of my favorite quotes of all time is, "It's a wonderful idea, but it doesn't work.") |
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
|
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
Instead we have a system now that causes teams to be vague in their Q&A questions because they don't want to reveal their strategy. Then build a robot for 6 weeks that fits this strategy, only to be deemed illegal by the GDC because some one else figured out the same strategy six weeks later and asked the question that should have been asked at the beginning. -Clinton- |
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:
In general, I am "okay" with the fact that a disruptive strategy or concept carries high risk with it. You can either keep it on the DL to minimize imitation and hope that your strategy stands, or you can risk the novelty by asking a direct question. If you let teams ask their questions in private, you remove almost all of the risk and turn strategizing into 2500 private interrogations of the GDC looking for cracks. |
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
I just read the last two days worth of posts in this thread, and I have to say I'm appalled by the arrogance and lack of respect shown by some of the posters in here.
For all those who "knew this was coming", congratulations. Do you want a cookie with that? Seriously, right now we have a rookie team who's robot has been rendered somewhat useless, and the potential that many other teams have suffered the same fate. 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? The approach taken by teams who decided to build these little wedge bots (I refuse to call them troll bots, it sounds ridiculous) is definitely not one I would have taken, and there are lessons to be learned from this situation by all teams (i.e. If you're going to take a design risk ask on the Q&A. Granted they might not answer since they're unable to comment on specific designs, but you have to try). However there's no need for anyone to be using this thread to state how amazing their common sense is, while demeaning others. Finally, for anyone who feels need to discount Aren's abilities based on the decision his team made, I urge you to consider this: https://my.usfirst.org/myarea/index....ils&tpid=62757 He's been involved in the creation of some of the best robots in FIRST since 2006. He knows what he's doing, and frankly we could all learn a thing or two from him about robot design. (And now that I've said that, I'm never saying anything nice about him again) |
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
I'd like to offer some constructive suggestions, but I can't think of any....sorry. |
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
Direct queries like you suggest are not made to the GDC through Q&A, because the invariable response is along the lines of "The GDC will not comment on the legality of specific robot designs. Rephrase your question in a more general sense of its direct application to specific rules." Since the GDC refuses to comment when asked directly, we are forced to ask obtuse, somewhat tangental questions that may or may not transmit the concept of exactly what we're hoping to achieve. The GDC was asked what defined the bridge, for the purposes of its interaction with the specific rule, regarding supporting and balancing, and their response (to two different, similar questions) was that it included everything in that drawing. That drawing included the lexan anti-ball-jamming piece, and therefore, that piece was twice defined as part of the bridge, for the purposes of that rule. People designed their robots around that definition, having come from the GDC, not their own assumptions (what else are we supposed to use as definitions, if we can't trust the GDC to mean what they say, when asked a direct question). Someone pointed out a specific case of what the GDC's definition meant, and the GDC realized that they hadn't intended to create that situation as a viable solution to their problem. Were it early in the build, say week 1 or week 2, when those original questions were asked, nobody would have had an issue with the definition changing like this. Changing it now, nearly at ship date, when several teams had designed their robot to take advantage of an out of the box, but much simpler solution to the GDC's posed problem of balancing 3 robots, according to the GDC's definition of supported and balanced, is wrong. This doesn't affect me or any team I'm associated with or close with, but it irks me that the GDC has nixed a creative interpretation of a rule they clearly defined so close to ship. |
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
I read the beginning of this thread and was intrigued (like many of you) but advised our students not to jeopardize an entire season based on incomplete information. To a person who has suffered the consequences (of being too far outside of the box) in real-world engineering efforts, this was a no-brainer. And I don't expect "a cookie" for it ;o). I tried to convey wizened decision-making criteria and processes to students and to the younger (and awesome) mentors on this thread. But I can see how it is frustrating that you can't get a direct answer from the GDC. Many posters in the last page or so had good ideas to correct this, maybe the GDC will listen. Good luck to the teams affected by this process, I hope your season turns out well. |
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
In real-world engineering, you would have the ability to go to the client and ask "does this solution meet all of your requirements? as far as we can tell, from the specification given, it does. are we missing something? did you perhaps accidentally omit some other specification?" and get a straight answer.
Since the GDC won't do that, we are left in a hard place as engineers and designers. |
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
How does one explain the traditional decision versus a decision to build a trolling bot? It is not that I don't want to build kewl things - I have built some really wild systems in the "real world". I guess we thought the sponsor money, student time, teacher time and mentor time was too much too risk. My company put up the $$$ to go to a regional - I put in a lot of money and many hundreds of hours - the teachers and students put in huge amounts of time (more than the mentors) - it just seemed too much to risk. Is that so hard to understand? I tell you one thing - try starting a business (with your money) based on a product you develop. One learns to be (a lot more) prudent quickly and it is a good thing. |
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
...I have started a business, with my own money, AND made it profitable in less than 6 months.
Teams take risks in their design, going for something radical. Sometimes it pays off, see: 148 in 2008. Other times it doesn't, see: 1519 in 2008. My team, the first time we tried swerve, it was atrocious, didn't work well, and broke frequently. In 2004, 2007, and 2008, my team built multi-position pneumatics. In 2009, 2010, 2011, and now 2012, we've built swerves. They've gotten consistently better than that first attempt in 2006. In 2010, we were the first team to ever (so far as we know anyway), build a fully invertable swerve driven robot. It turned out to be unnecessary, as we thought flipping on the bump would prove to be a much bigger problem than it turned out to be. I don't think its fair to chastise a team for taking a calculated risk, no matter what it is. |
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
Wireties, We did know it was possible that this would be made illegal, as I've been around long enough to see other inane GDC rulings. 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. I base my level of risk by the task at hand, am I starting my own company? Nope, am I building something for a customer? Nope, I'm competing in FRC, and happen to know some amazing things are capable of being accomplished if you merely take the leap. |
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:
|
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
The people speaking well of me were mainly doing so to backup the fact I usually have a clue about robot design, which as they have not seen this years robot they have to base on past history of robots I've been involved in. I can push to be competitive all I want, but being surrounded by the right people to make it happen is a completely different matter. I've been lucky enough to have access to significant brain power on teams I've mentored/been a student on, that the group has turned out very competitive robots (usually). I urge everyone in this thread to stop by the Neutrino pit at Midwest (and hopefully champs), and meet all the people who have put up with me for the last season |
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
Many people on here and elsewhere in FRC have the utmost respect for Aren and the teams he's involved with - and many of us like to mess with him because he comes up with crazy concepts and weird ideas. Not to mention he's got a bit of a fan club. That being said, Aren is the first to tell people what he did and didn't do. He corrects me all the time when I give him credit for something he didn't do and or wasn't involved in. He speaks extremely highly of everyone involved with 3928 in private conversation. 3928 has built an incredible robot and it shows that there was definitely a solid team behind it. For a rookie team, you guys look like seasoned veterans from what I've seen and the fact that you were willing to Gamble on the Trolling Strategy just makes me respect you that much more. I hope you guys hand it to a few teams at Midwest, just to prove that you know what you're doing. |
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
|
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
In response to the topic that this thread was actually about, i believe that it's a worthwhile strategy to think about, but not something worth worrying about.
Loopholes like these are not fair in any way and in my mind shouldn't be exploited, because that ruins the fun of FRC. On top of that, 3 robots scoring vs. two will lead to a big lead in terms of points, and it isn't that hard to balance 3 robots on a bridge in the first place. that being said props to whoever discovered this loophole on their own it is indeed brilliant but at the same time extremely unfair. Just a word of advice to other teams, especially those having arguments on chief delphi. This is a forum, a place to collaborate with other teams, and keep up to date with everything FRC. If you have a problem with a member of your club, talk to them personally, not indirectly over a forum. -Matt FIRST Team 1378. |
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
I am rather bothered by the attitude displayed in some of these responses.
Ultimately, its FIRST's game, they can change things around as they see fit. If you took the gamble on this (im going to deem it) sketchy design, then its expected that you have taken the risks into account. Sorry it didn't work out for you guys who were sly in your rules analysis. Better luck next time. |
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
![]() what it used to look like |
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
-Mike |
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
Wait a sec, does that thing have swerve?! |
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:
|
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
The whole thing had a swerve drive (well, it still does) and we relied on appendages for ball manipulation.
|
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
I think saying "this thing has swerve" is the understatement of the century.
-Brando |
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
If I had to guess at a potential basket-scoring design, I'd surmise that there's some sort of external pickup that flips a ball into a low-lying catapult. Given the fact that balls need 2-3 seconds to clear a basket before the next ball comes in (or else risk a jam), even a 1-ball capacity could still be a powerful robot.
I guess my big question would be about the battery's placement outside the wheels on the left, which potentially reduces the traction that the opposite side's swerve module(s) have. But I suppose that's neither here nor there at this point since Aren's more recent posts imply a redesign. |
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
|
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
I can't believe you fit all that engineering in such a small frame. To have all the essentials and to have swerve drive blew my mind. RIP troll-bot.
|
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
Quote:
|
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
A picture of the troll-bot may have made it onto our website from Saturday's scrimmage...
|
| 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