Chief Delphi
Page 6 of 14 < 12345 6 78910111213 > Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

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)

efoote868 14-02-2012 21:13
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madison (Post 1126788)
!

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.
The original question had no context of balancing the bridge.

If the question was, "Since the ball ramp is considered part of the bridge assembly, will a robot sitting under the bridge on the ball ramp count as balanced?" The obvious answer is "No, stop lawyering the rules."

cgmv123 14-02-2012 22:41
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madison (Post 1126788)
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.
If the GDC had known that teams were thinking about driving under the bridge (which I don't think they were, this only came out a few days ago), they would have given a different answer. They made a mistake, but they also can't see into the future. They had no idea what kind of ramifications their answer had. They can't anticipate every single possibility.

jason701802 14-02-2012 22:44
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swampdude (Post 1126681)
It's got its own troll face at the 12 sec mark

Chris is me 14-02-2012 22:53
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgmv123 (Post 1126891)
If the GDC had known that teams were thinking about driving under the bridge (which I don't think they were, this only came out a few days ago), they would have given a different answer.
That's stupid. If that's what the GDC was actually thinking, then they're defining the game based on their guess of what teams would do when they read the manual rather than creating a set of specifications and allowing actual creativity and risk taking.

How can anyone blame a team for taking two Q&A answers and using that as design criteria?

Quote:
Originally Posted by efoote868 (Post 1126807)
If the question was, "Since the ball ramp is considered part of the bridge assembly, will a robot sitting under the bridge on the ball ramp count as balanced?" The obvious answer is "No, stop lawyering the rules."
"Obvious" is an imprecise term.

IndySam 14-02-2012 22:58
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris is me (Post 1126903)

How can anyone blame a team for taking two Q&A answers and using that as design criteria?
Because the obvious point was to be balanced on the bridge. Not search for a easy way to get around the problem.

In real would engineering relying strictly on customer specifications and not listening to their desired intent will get you in to big trouble every time.

Katie_UPS 14-02-2012 23:01
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by IndySam (Post 1126912)
Not search for a easy way to get around the problem.
Try designing a robot that can effectively play the game and be 7 inches tall. Its not easy.

cgmv123 14-02-2012 23:04
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris is me (Post 1126903)
That's stupid. If that's what the GDC was actually thinking, then they're defining the game based on their guess of what teams would do when they read the manual rather than creating a set of specifications and allowing actual creativity and risk taking.
It's impossible for the GDC to interpret every single scenario. That's why we have Team Updates. They gave the best possible answer at the time, based on the information they had, while keeping it concise due to the nature of Q&A.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IndySam (Post 1126912)
In real would engineering relying strictly on customer specifications and not listening to their desired intent will get you in to big trouble every time.
Couldn't agree more. The intent was to have 2-3 robots cramming themselves on the top of the bridge, not under it. The answer they gave is consistent with the GDC's vision for the season.

Madison 14-02-2012 23:16
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgmv123 (Post 1126891)
If the GDC had known that teams were thinking about driving under the bridge (which I don't think they were, this only came out a few days ago), they would have given a different answer. They made a mistake, but they also can't see into the future. They had no idea what kind of ramifications their answer had. They can't anticipate every single possibility.
The subject of this thread isn't exactly far-fetched. We talked about this possibility as soon as the Q&A response was given and I am absolutely certain that we are not alone. If Jared's post here is the first you're thinking of this possibility, it's not because we lawyered the rules, it's because you didn't explore all ways of playing this game.

If the GDC cannot write a rule set that is comprehensive and clear and if figuring out ways to circumvent, break or otherwise take advantage of edge cases is not part of reviewing the rule set, they should be willing to accept the ramifications of their oversight and learn to do a better job in the future.
Anyone that pretends to have ANY insight into what the GDC intended is deluding themselves and, frankly, I don't care at all what they intended for me to do. They gave me rules and I'm going to follow them. I am not, however, going to make up arbitrary new restrictions so everyone else can feel better about failing to achieve a unique, viable strategy.


FRC rules have become increasingly focused on dictating how things should be done on the field instead of defining a solid set of criteria and letting teams flex their muscle.

waialua359 15-02-2012 00:46
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madison (Post 1126927)
The subject of this thread isn't exactly far-fetched. We talked about this possibility as soon as the Q&A response was given and I am absolutely certain that we are not alone. If Jared's post here is the first you're thinking of this possibility, it's not because we lawyered the rules, it's because you didn't explore all ways of playing this game.

If the GDC cannot write a rule set that is comprehensive and clear and if figuring out ways to circumvent, break or otherwise take advantage of edge cases is not part of reviewing the rule set, they should be willing to accept the ramifications of their oversight and learn to do a better job in the future.
Anyone that pretends to have ANY insight into what the GDC intended is deluding themselves and, frankly, I don't care at all what they intended for me to do. They gave me rules and I'm going to follow them. I am not, however, going to make up arbitrary new restrictions so everyone else can feel better about failing to achieve a unique, viable strategy.


FRC rules have become increasingly focused on dictating how things should be done on the field instead of defining a solid set of criteria and letting teams flex their muscle.
I see truth to both of your points in one sentence.
Perhaps the GDC is trying to do the latter, but in the process, team(s) find ways of doing certain things they could not forsee, and in the end making a change which in reality achieves the former.

I would hate to be on the GDC if given the chance for the following reason:
Seeing THE most frustrating part for teams building towards one solution and having to do a 360, because of updates whether its good/bad.

Andrew Schreiber 15-02-2012 00:57
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by IndySam (Post 1126912)
Because the obvious point was to be balanced on the bridge. Not search for a easy way to get around the problem.

In real would engineering relying strictly on customer specifications and not listening to their desired intent will get you in to big trouble every time.
No, the point should ALWAYS be to find the easiest way to achieve the goal at hand. If I do something because I think it was the "customer's intent" at work instead of doing it the most efficient way possible I am wasting my time.

No, in real world engineering the customer specifications are either their intent or you don't agree to the project until you get them to be their intent because otherwise you can't tell them how much it costs. Developing off spec is a terrible idea, engineers aren't mind readers and most customers are unclear about what they want. If you let them keep changing their mind as you build you will end up over budget REAL quick.

staplemonx 15-02-2012 01:20
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madison (Post 1126927)
The subject of this thread isn't exactly far-fetched. We talked about this possibility as soon as the Q&A response was given and I am absolutely certain that we are not alone. If Jared's post here is the first you're thinking of this possibility, it's not because we lawyered the rules, it's because you didn't explore all ways of playing this game.

FRC rules have become increasingly focused on dictating how things should be done on the field instead of defining a solid set of criteria and letting teams flex their muscle.
Agreed. The amount of prescriptive rules this year sort of makes the game no fun. They pretty much wanted a shooter that can go over at least the bridge. The rules need to allow more than a single design going forward.

Also the GDC should retract the answer making this strategy illegal. It is to late for the teams that have designed to this option to change.

Akash Rastogi 15-02-2012 02:27
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by IndySam (Post 1126912)
Because the obvious point was to be balanced on the bridge. Not search for a easy way to get around the problem.

In real would engineering relying strictly on customer specifications and not listening to their desired intent will get you in to big trouble every time.
Desired intent should not have to be extrapolated especially after two Q&As.

Quote:
Originally Posted by efoote868 (Post 1126449)
I don't see anything stopping a team from building a troll-bot, other than common sense.

Would the both of you also say the same things to 469 (2010) or 71 (2002)?

efoote868 15-02-2012 03:03
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 
"I don't see anything stopping a team from building a troll-bot, other than common sense."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi (Post 1127041)
Would the both of you also say the same things to 469 (2010) or 71 (2002)?
A robot that scores 10 or 20 points each match this year is not the same caliber as 469 in 2010 or 71 in 2002. While the strategy might be "creative," the implementation isn't much of a challenge.

Also, I'm not sure what that type of robot has to offer a team, especially if the bridge values are tweaked.

IndySam 15-02-2012 06:52
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber (Post 1127011)
No, the point should ALWAYS be to find the easiest way to achieve the goal at hand. If I do something because I think it was the "customer's intent" at work instead of doing it the most efficient way possible I am wasting my time.
Not if the easy way accomplishes the task set out in the specs but in know way does what the customer intended.

The GDC intended robots to be balanced on top of the bridge. Sitting on a piece of structure that is solely designed to help prevent problem with the balls getting stuck is obviously not what they wanted.

This update could have been seen coming from miles away.

wireties 15-02-2012 07:34
Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by IndySam (Post 1127060)
The GDC intended robots to be balanced on top of the bridge. Sitting on a piece of structure that is solely designed to help prevent problem with the balls getting stuck is obviously not what they wanted.

This update could have been seen coming from miles away.
Teams that proceeded to build a troll bot were taking a calculated risk. It was theirs to take. IndySam (and myself) thought the risk was very high, others in this thread thought the risk acceptable. It turns out that the risk (this year) was too high.

Identifying and mitigating technical risk is a classic engineering exercise. The older (and hopefully wiser) one gets, the more careful one gets (hopefully). I love to undertake risky novel design approaches but I NEVER do so w/o crystal clear guidance from my customer (which usually comes after a informed, precise query) and a contractual promise (more money and time) my efforts will not doom the project. The goal (professionally) is to deliver on time, under budget AND to get the customer to come back with more work.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:49.
Page 6 of 14 < 12345 6 78910111213 > Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi