Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

I was with you Madison until this sentence. The GDC has made it apparent in both the manual and external public literature (websites, promos, the animation, etc) that the point of this game is to shoot hoops and balance on top of the bridge. The GDC appears to simply have brought their definitions back in line with those two key points. The GDC still doesn't tell us how to balance on the bridge with this update except by some thin ipso facto arguments made by disappointed teams.

Though I do agree that the criteria this year aren't nearly as explicitly defined as they were in previous years.

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

You can add me to that list, too. Indeed, I'll go further and say that I would have been shocked had trollbots ultimately been allowed.

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

You know what the problem with obvious is? When the rules say SUPPORTED by the bridge my first question should be "what is the bridge and where can I touch it so I'm supported yet out of the way". Nowhere does it say on. If the GDC intended the word ON to be in there they should have put it in there. As it stood, the wording was ambiguous and their intent was not clearly articulated.

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

You try putting a robot that completes all aspects if the game mostly under 7" and tell me the implementation isn't a challenge.

If they wanted people on top only of the bridge they have had many places/opportunities to say just that, and should've done it when the manual was released. I judge the intent by the manual put jn front of me, not the animation (which is always declared unnofficial in terms of rules).The fact the gdc said twice in two official answers what the bridge was, then changed it weeks later is bad form and I expected more from them.

This essentially means all QandA answers are not fully official as they can go back on them at any time, just imagine how much they could change, maybe they could make one of your strategies illegal and I can pretend it was obvious in an ignorant fact ignoring way.

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

We have to supplement the rules with some common sense. it is not possible for the GDC (or anyone else) to be perfectly clear. The same is true in the real world, there is no such thing as a perfect contract. At some point both parties have to be reasonable. When the rules say SUPPORTED by the bridge (further reinforced by the points awarded by BALANCING), teams should start with the assumption that the robot is on top of the bridge. Any other interpretation is NOT common sense, carries considerable risk (doesn't mean its wrong) and should NOT be the basis for a design (especially with only 6 weeks) w/o crystal clear clarification from the GDC.

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

Does anyone else see the similarity between the "bridge problem" and the use of the term "vertices" for the frame? Some of the first words from my team members upon hearing the vertex-8-inch rule was "what if the robot is oval?" (having no vertices). Forget about how you might go about making 3/4" plywood bend around an oval, they were simply exploring what was meant by the given terms. The GDC has always been able to make their intention clear by specific wording to the desired effect. It is becoming apparent that the attempt to turn the rule book into some sort of street sign (word starvation) is doomed to failure. Particularly in a high-school context in which members are ALWAYS and constantly looking for imprecise statements and the way around rules. There's no furor about the vertex thing because no one is making a round or oval robot. Or are they? :yikes:

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

They gave a crystal clear definition of the bridge. Twice

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

From my experience, you can't be the best at every aspect of the game. In fact, the best robots in the past specifically ignored parts of the game to focus on others.
469 in 2010 couldn't hang. 71 in 2002 couldn't put balls into goals. 233 in 2006 couldn't load from the top, 25 couldn't pick up from the field.

When discussing a strategy like this, I assume that's the only thing the robot will be good at.

Sure, the GDC could've said that all robots supported by the bridge had to be above the plane of the top surface of the bridge, but then they'd void 179's style of hanging.

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

But they didn't.....

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

The bridge was repeatedly defined as to include the Lexan. Are people just supposed to ignore definitions when they don't seem right?

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

They were perfectly clear. Twice. The bridge was defined as everything in a certain drawing. The rule says supported. To me balanced and supported do not mean on top of. As an engineer my job is to be clear in unambiguous in the language I use.

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

Once, I might add, in exactly that context.

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:
[EDIT] I see now that this Q&A answer was already referenced in this thread but I am leaving it here so that future people who search the thread rather than read every post (like I did) can find it. I wish they would timestamp Q&A answers again[/EDIT]
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
 

If you can ignore the definition of the word "balance" also....

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

I don't know what to say Andrew, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

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.