Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

A single troll bot could be an advantage during eliminations. Two troll bots on opposing alliances would likely cancel each other out. Since the basic concept is relatively simple, they could be adapted from existing chassis' during the course of the season. The more there are, the less the advantage they offer. If teams develop successful conventional methods for balancing 3 bots (quite likely in my opinion), the troll bots will be left on the dust heap of FRC history like last week's minibot.

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

One of the great things about this game is that it is so easy to explain to "non-FIRSTers: "We're shooting hoops and balancing a teeter-totter bridge."

It would be absurd to see a "troll" bot drive under a bridge at the end of a match and then have the ref/emcee explain to the audience that this bot is "balanced" on the bridge because it is "fully supported by the bridge" and "this panel under here is part of the bridge".

The examples of "game-breaking" bots in the past are all jaw-dropping robots that made the audience (and other teams) you say "WOW!" and "We thought of that, but we didn't think it was possible!" and "Brilliant!"

I don't think this is what the audience would say about "troll" bots.

Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

- Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

FRC games are usually easy on paper, but as Bill Parcells said, "You are what your record says you are." Not your team in particular, but FRC as a whole. FRC as a whole has a fantastic track record of inspiration, but not a great one at scoring points.

I don't have access to unpenalized scoring data from before 2010, but looking at that does not paint a great picture of high scoring robots. In 2010 the mean robot scored 1.5 points per qualifying match. I think we can agree that the objectives that year were quite simple, if the details made them more challenging (the slope before the goal, and the fact that the goal did not extend all the way to the corner of the field).

Of course I can't find my files for 2011, but I believe the unpenalized score per robot per match was something on the order of 14 points. Hard to categorize this thanks to the minibot, but on average probably less than 2 "actions" for the mean robot.

Using a chart I made for Week 1, we see the mean score for 2006 qualifying matches was somewhere around 30. Again, penalties and the ramp make it hard to judge, but assuming the effects of penalties and the ramp balance each other out (this is a SWAG), then the average robot scored 3 and change balls. I'm not sure how you want to define an "action" for 2006, but this says if you got in position and shot all 10 starting balls, you still missed a two thirds of them! On a dump, you probably got all of them.

To underline this whole discussion, take a look at Jim Zondag's OPR distribution for 2011. The distribution is right skewed, meaning the mean robot scores more robots than the median robot. The median robot is more interesting to us, as it defines the 50% of the field, and at most events the 50% percentile is what gets you playing into Saturday. If you add up the percentages in Jim's graph, the median robot in 2011 scored between 0 and 5 points after penalties! Furthermore, since OPR is calculated using the sum of the alliance scores, it is likely that the real distribution is even more skewed than the OPR distribution.



When Woodie called FIRST "the hardest fun you'll ever have," he wasn't kidding. FRC is hard, really hard.

I think I got a little off topic, but back to to your original point. I think if you get two good robots on an alliance you can score those extra points, but I don't think the odds of drawing two good robots are that great. It would be interesting to do some further analysis of what score differentials have looked like in the past...

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

The ball ramp is no longer considered part of the bridge. This strategy is now out.

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? FRC2826 2012-01-17
A. The Bridge is defined as all components depicted in GE-12017, with the exception of the Bridge Base (GE-12022) and the Ball Ramps (GE-12064). Updated per Team Update 2012-02-14.

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

Q. 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?
A. The Bridge is defined as all components depicted in GE-12017, with the exception of the Bridge Base (GE-12022) and the Ball Ramps (GE-12064). Updated per Team Update 2012-02-14. The Bridge consists of all components included in the Bridge Assembly drawing, GE-12017.

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

I figured that a troll robot would likely go as a late first round pick or an early second round pick at most regionals and not have a lot of impact.

However, a box on wheels picked in the late second round that could turn into a troll robot by removing super structure could have been a game changer. +20 points for the 2nd or 3rd seed alliance could swing a regional.

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

Was I the only one that finds the name "troll-bot" appropriate since it was trolling everyone?

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

I'm obviously irked, but they may as well fix the answer to the 2nd QandA stating the definition of the bridge:

Q. Are the non-movable parts of a bridge considered part of the bridge for purposes of physical contact for rule G28?
A. The Bridge consists of all components included in the Bridge Assembly drawing, GE-12017.

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

What use is there in the Q&A as an official source of information if they can change their answers at will?

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

I should have put my post in the context of elims. You're right, the average robot can't do much in quals, but elims remove at least the (theoretical) bottom 50% of robots to begin with. I also suppose I have knowledge paradox in that I don't remember what it's like without a mostly decent autonomous mode. To me a scoring auton is just a given for my team. There's also a very large difference between this year and 2010: the top of the key. I expect scores (adjusted for penalties and goal values) to be at least slightly higher this year.

Personally, if I am against a pure troll bot I already know how to gain a very convincing point advantage by the end of autonomous alone without any fancy movements (our bot is setup for it, but most bots I've seen thus far cannot be the bot we can be in auton). If we assume that teleop penalties and scoring are roughly equal, then it simply comes down to one robot making sure it's full on balls before endgame. Then it goes unabated to the basket to score -- unabated because the entire opposing alliance is trying to balance. 12 points in auton + 3 balls during endgame > 20 points from the troll. So then the elims picking becomes "who fits our autonomous strategy", "who has the highest accuracy" and/or "who can deliver balls across the field" rather than "who scores the most". If the pick lists run dry and a 1st seed must pick a box on wheels, then perhaps I'd pick a troll bot. I'll hold that call for Weeks 1-2 though.

A match with 2 trolls during quals would be an amazing resource to a high-caliber team, however. So it's not like they won't have their place -- but they're more like pawns rather than game breakers. I'm simply being blunt by putting it that way.

edit -- hypothetically speaking as if troll bots were still valid --

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

At least its not after week 1

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

You lawyer the rules, they'll close the loopholes.

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

!

It isn't anywhere near lawyering the rules when you ask a specific question of the GDC and get a specific answer -- only to have them change their mind later.

It isn't as if we were all sitting around with our fingers crossed that nobody would realize this daft plan we'd come up with. Teams asked them for a specific definition and the GDC provided it! I don't know how much farther from lawyering you can possibly get than that, really.

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

Hilarious! Another great video from a great robot.