The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

So here we are. Week 6. One week until stop build day. By now we have all seen a slew of videos of teams shooting balls, picking them up, autonomous detecting the goals, and even a few of teams auto-balancing on bridges using nothing but sensors and code. We have all seen 179's incredible outside-the-box concept and the word Einstein came up more than once in their teaser thread.

But I am here to say that I believe there is a strategy/concept even more game-breaking than any we have seen (posted publicly on this forum) so far. At least in one aspect of this game. Potentially reminiscient of 469's legendary Breakaway concept (hence the title of this thread, an homage to this).

Anyway, here's the concept...

EXHIBIT A:
Okay, so a robot must be completely supported by the balanced bridge, per Section 2.2.5, in order to score bonus points.

EXHIBIT B:
Alright. Seems straightforward. Now all we need is a definition of what constitutes the bridge....

EXHIBIT C:
Alright, let's look there...

EXHIBIT D:
Take a look for yourself: http://www.usfirst.org/sites/default...wings_rev2.pdf

The drawing starts on page 22 of the PDF. Notice Item #9 on Sheet 1 of GE-12017.

The Ball Ramp Assembly.

Now put it all together.

A robot that is 8" tall at maximum (the minimum height from the carpet to the bottom of the bridge platform; see the next page in the Game Drawings PDF). Bumpers at the minimum height (2"-7" off the floor). All it has to do is drive under the bridge platform, park on the ball ramp, and it is considered "fully supported", given all of the information we have so far. On top of that, it is basicaly impossible for the bridge to come down on the side where the robot is now parked; you have a robot in the way!

QUESTIONS:
Does it meet all of the required criteria to be scored as a fully supported robot? I believe so.

Does it break any other rules? I do not believe so. The robot is not grabbing/grappling/grasping any field structure. The bumpers appear to be legal.

Is this what the GDC intended? I don't know, but I have submitted a Q&A question (albeit one with a couple of typos, sorry GDC!) in order to find out.

How many teams are planning on exploiting this? We'll find out. I am sure it is nonzero. My team is not one of them; we didn't see the loophole until we had already designed and built a shooter tower that is far taller than 8".

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

From my perspective Engineering drawings don't have grey area, so 100% legal.
If they change the definition of bridge it'll probably mess up other wording and make things nice and confusing, not like they haven't done that before though.

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

Jared, I have done similar research on the subject over the last week and here is what I've found.

-A robot in contact with the polycarbonate ball deflector and no other surface is indeed 'Fully supported' by the bridge.

-I don't believe that this robot would break any other rules as it is passively interacting with the field structure. I guess one could argue that the act of wedging oneself between the bridge and the ball deflector is some sort of 'grasp or grapple' or other method of attachment, but I doubt that'll hold true.

-I'm not sure if this is what the GDC intended. With their clear lack of a response to your Q&A, I'd imagine that they're having a lot of internal discussion as to whether or not this is in the spirit of the rules. If this strategy remains legal, I can see Robots with just drivetrains becoming hot commodities for those who know how to exploit this rule.

In any case, a Robot built to exploit this loop hole may struggle during Quals if it's only goal is to balance the bridge. The TRUE game breaker would be a robot that could play the first minute and forty five seconds of the game well and then wedge itself under the bridge for an essentially effortless bonus. I'm not sure what kind of wizard would build that robot, or if they'd be sane after doing so.

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

P.S.: Why am I posting this?

(A) It will be out in the open pretty soon anyhow.
(B) It will make for a pretty interesting discussion.
(C) I am curious to see if Chief Delphi can find something wrong with this strategy that renders it illegal.
(D) It is week 6, this strategy was first mentioned in this thread, and there haven't been any Q&A responses or team updates on the matter since. I personally hope that it is ruled illegal, as I feel it basically breaks an aspect of this game :)

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

I agree that as its written right now its legal. What I find funny is that there has been an obvious attempt by the GDC to mitigate "outside the box" ramping strategies. At least in the way I've seen the rulings come down (ie: no suction cups, no grasping, etc.). It would be almost comical to allow this through as a balancing strategy while ruling the others illegal.

-Brando

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

The only thing I can see that could make this boarder line is the potential of damaging the field elements. I am not for sure what this strategy will do to the cables and zip ties that hold the ball ramps to the bridge, after repeated abuse.

If this strategy stays legal, I can see a lot of rookie or chassis bots converting at the events. If done right there is nothing saying a team can't remove their shooter after the qualification matches. As long as they don't add anything else on or weigh in with all of their components.

We will have to see what the GDC says.

-Clinton-

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

As presented, the strategy seems legal. However, I really hope that this strategy is deemed "illegal" in Q and A. To me, a robot that purely wedges itself under the bridge seems like it would exploiting a loophole, not an innovative game strategy. Now, a robot as mentioned that plays the first minute and then goes under the bridge does seem more reasonable.

This reminds me of hanging on the tower in 2010. A number of teams realized that they could hang on to the side of the tower and still be defined as supported by it. However, these teams still played the rest of the game.

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

The tower was worth 2 points in 2010. Making a triple balance trivial is worth 40 in 2012.

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

I don't think this is game-breaking as it doesn't provide a serious advantage. Balancing on the bridge isn't all that difficult and wedging under would only save you a few seconds of effort. It would be nice for eliminations to get that extra 20 pts a lot more easily, but qualifications would be a mess. As mentioned by some others before, it would be hard to make this sized robot perform well during teleoperated mode.
I think if a team could fit this size without sacrificing any scoring performance, it'd be a very good strategy, otherwise it doesn't really seem worth it and I don't anticipate many teams actually doing it.

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

Yeah, we talked about this back when it first popped on the Q&A and noticed it as feasible about three weeks ago. I think it's entirely legal, and don't expect it to be ruled illegal at this point (nor should it be). However, I think it's going to take some care not to break the ball ramp, which is a G12. I'd like to see someone do it right.

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

I think this could be huge if done right, in fact I brought it up a few weeks back and the idea was met with a lot more questions of legality and general harassment of the idea. Most of that probably had to do with the fact that I saw no way to practically implement such an idea so I didn't take too long in wording my idea eloquently. If I remember right I referenced the dukes of hazard for better imagery. But then lack of sleep can do that to you...

I think a short robot with a flip out manipulator or a way to Oudh balls as a feeder that can also prop the bridge would be a huge benefit. 5 degrees is a pretty small target, this idea can guarantee that you make the 5 degree window every time. Makes it good for end game even out of eliminations...

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

There is a large difference between a 11-oz ball and a 50-lb robot. That polycarb probably won't hold up over the course of a competition.

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

Looks legal to me. I wonder how willing box bots will be to risk their robot under the bridge while their partner(s) attempt to balance. Could make for some interesting qualification match strategy discussions.

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

I don't know why people would consider there being risk to a robot under a bridge, if you build the frame so that it will hold the weight, all you need to do is ensure that your machine could hold up at least 120lbs or so and you'd be good. With thick axles and heavy duty wheels, I don't think there would be an issue. If the machine is less than 8" tall, I doubt anyone would have a weight issue to worry about.

I also feel the lexan would hold up just fine, the majority of the weight would be on the ground, there is one point where the lexan would be slightly off the ground that would see some strain, but probably not enough to break it. The key is making sure you know how high off the ground the mounting point is and building to ensure that you have no sharp edges that could possibly scratch or damage that lexan surface. We held a piece of lexan under stress for almost a year and the only thing that broke it was applying more force after bending it a full 270 degrees in a 2" radius curve. When it finally gave way it was exciting though...

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

How much of a risk is it, really? Back in Rack 'n Roll, teams had multiple robots on top of them all the time!

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/27516

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

I agree that if you designed your robot for this strategy, then there shouldn't be any risk to this strategy. I'm more concerned with the teams that show up at a competition with an electrical board on wheels. Those are the teams that can benefit the most with this strategy as they switch from almost worthless to a very popular 2nd round pick. Will you be able to convice them that they should risk putting 150+ pounds directly on their electrical board? Even if they have something on top of their robot, it may be a risk they are unwilling to take.

I'm well aware how easy it is to support a robot IF you plan to do so. Looking back at my team's robots, I don't think I'd want to put 150 pounds right on top of any of them.

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

The main possibility of field damage comes from the zip tie that holds the steel cable that holds the polycarb sheet to the bridge (zip ties can be seen at 50 seconds in the field tour movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AMaqqmoLgQ&feature=BFa&list=PL23DFAFBB434CDB79&lf= results_main). Depending on where the robot puts pressure on the polycarb sheet, those zip ties might wind up breaking.

We've termed this idea as "Trolling." This comes from the idea that trolls like to hide under bridges as found in the children's story of Three Billy Goats Gruff.

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

Like everyone else has said, its completely legal right now. Designing a robot to fit under the bridge would introduce huge restrictions on size. Heck, the cRIO probably wouldn't even fit.

I think its possible to go beyond electronics on kitbot with this idea, but probably not by much.

If they answer this Q&A by making it illegal, they probably ruin a few teams' strategies, introducing some distrust in the GDC.

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

Team 179's robot, in retracted mode with their ramp laid down, would appear to fit already.

They can shoot balls, allow other robots to climb up them onto the bridge....

Really not so hard to engineer (once you've thought of the idea).

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

We talked about this some after the Q&A clarification about what constitutes the bridge. And, while we really like to win and really want to win a Championship, we decided to stay on the course we were already heading down and build a more traditional robot.

Why? Well, because this is probably the most boring "game-breaking" robot design that could ever exist.

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

I've seen common kit frames support well over 300lbs of static weight. (2008 & 2009 robots with people standing on them)

I don't see this being a major issue, though we are considering bringing a few parts with us should we pick a box bot and modify them into a Troll-Bot. Hehehe.

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

Good point. While this a strategy that could work, you can't fit much in 7inches of robot to score an 8in ball or be useful in a match to help your partners make up the points you may not get while doing a triple balance.

Cool strategy but I doubt we will see it and if we ever did I smell a rules update or a referee with his own opinion about what constitutes a bridge.

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

Not just 50 LBS. The second robot drives onto your side of the bridge. Now it's 170 lbs plus what ever leverage working on breaking the under ramp.

The first time a bridge breaks, I'll bet it gets outlawed for all time...

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

I'd go with the first time the strategy is used, regardless of the bridge's broken/unbroken status. Anyone else remember the robots that started stacked in '07, and the immediate response from the GDC?

I would guess that any game-breaker robots, while they may not necessarily be "troll-bots", are ones that come up with something very unique for bridge balancing with 3 robots.

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

I feel like "trolling" requires a significant enough deviation from a standard robot design that teams doing it designed their robots around it. Week 6 is a terrible time for the GDC to nullify such a critical part of a robot's design. That puts the GDC in between two decisions they don't like. Firstly they can leave trolling legal and change what they visioned for bridge balancing. Second they can make some teams robots drastically less functional (or possibly non functional). IMO it causes less harm for them not to change the interpretation of the rules and they should leave trolling legal. Its too late in the season at this point to do otherwise. My guess is that we will find out tomorrow in a team update.

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

I would also expect this strategy to be quickly outlawed. The GDC made great pains to make this years rules simple. This kind of stretching the rules is why the rule book ends up so large.

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

As XaulZan11 said, the strength of the frame is not the part to be worried about, it is the electronics board that is often mounted unprotected on top of the frame of a box-bot that one should be worried about.

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

lol, we haven't thought of this but, we apparently sport a troll mode.... No charge!

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

In a strange twist our robot chassis is only 7" high. 6 bolts to remove the mechanism and troll on ;).

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

This stretches absolutely nothing, if you're taking a standard engineering approach to balancing first you must define "balanced" which they did in the manual, saying all robots must be supported by the bridge and it must be level. Second you look for what the define the "bridge" as, which in this case is an engineering drawing with all parts listed.

I should hope they don't punish anyone for taking a fairly standard path of thought regarding solving an engineering problem.

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

Tell this to Beatty in 2002, with their Big Blue Banners.

-Clinton-

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

Honestly, I doubt that this would be feasible. The balls themselves are what, 8 inches tall max? Any robot capable of slipping into that gap wouldn't be able to control its balls effectively. Then again, what do I know?

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

Has anyone Q/A'd this yet? I'm particularly interested since I know my team's chassis is currently built for troll mode (we're kinda late, still need to merge launcher to drivetrain, haha). Weight wise we seem to be fine as well,at least I think.

You guys think direct drive BaneBot GB's will be able to support another 120 lbs? We're floating them and their appropriate bearing plates between 80/20 aluminum (which makes turning troll mode on even easier >.>).

EDIT :: just noticed the amount of gearboxes does matter, we're running 3. Yep, kiwi drive. Originally wanted to hold that back until game day, but vet advice is almost always good :)

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

The question was posed to the Q&A last week. As of this post, it's still in the pending state.

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

I don't expect the GDC to outlaw "trolling". Any language used would put 179's bot in jeopardy and let's be honest -- 179 has a pretty fantastic and creative bot this year (and it's obvious that 'trolling' wasn't its intent). If the GDC doesn't want trolling, due to how boring it will be (and oh will it ever be...) then all the GDC has to do is mandate to the FTA's that they use fewer zip ties to support the polycarb. [G12] would then whack every troll on the field.

Of course, if a troll bot couldn't do anything else, especially in autonomous, their 20 point contribution is almost completely and utterly moot. Thus, it's not a game breaking design (just a field breaking design...). I don't expect a 'troll only' bot to be on Einstein for the very simple fact that a troll-only bot removes 2 balls from the autonomous of their alliance partners -- either the balls are on the bridge (huge mistake), or they're stuck on the bot and not scoring 8-12 points.

It'll probably cause a ruckus in quals though.

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

I'm not sure how you extrapolated from what I wrote here that I thought the 71 robot in 2002 was boring.

Building a robot that controls all the field elements and has one shot at succeeding is ambitious -- maybe even crazy -- but it isn't anywhere near boring.

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

Especially when they aren't the only ones that are able to do it. I distinctly remember hearing that other teams could do it, but Beatty beat them out for the Championship.

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

I guess what I was trying to get at is that there is nothing boring about building a "Game-Breaking" Robot.

-Clinton-

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

All they have to do is redefine the bridge to not include the Lexan ball guards underneath it - essentially, define it to be what someone off the street would define it as. Then a robot like 179, which hangs off the end of the bridge without touching the ball guard, would be legal, but a "troll" would not be.

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

This will now be the most interesting decision/non decision the GDC makes this season. :)

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

Even if executed perfectly, I hardly see this as a gamebreaker.

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

Probably so, but I sure would love to have one on our team during the eliminations......:) 40 points is a lot.

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

I don't see getting three on the ramp at championships being a terribly difficult proposition.

Even if 3 was prohibitively difficult, it's really only a 20 point difference.

To make achieving these 20 points trivial at the expense of all other scoring ability really isn't that threatening at the championship level.

However, it's all conjecture right now... We shall see...

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

Like Adam said, this won't be much of an advantage at the championships, especially when the bridge points are lowered. Don't believe me? Check "The Game" (manual) and see for yourself. According to the rules, the bridge points will get lower or higher, though most likely at the champion level they will be lower.

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

Its only +20 (since you'd already have 2 balanced).

... and at a max of 8" tall, it will be difficult to score (other than balancing).

I suspect that the GDC will allow this strategy, but warn the head refs about field damage.

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

Honestly, I wouldnt expect them to score.
The other alliance would have to outscore your alliance by, in one example, seven 3 point shots.
I'd place a friendly wager that the majority of teams will NOT be able to score 7 3 pointers in a match at all this season.

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

2 high goal auton shots + 3 high goal teleop shots. Dead reckon autonomous and have a preset delay so the shots don't interfere with partners. It's very doable.

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

Jared you trying to tell us something...What will Ms. Daisy come up with year.....That has been my montra all year....You wanna be the best you got to play like the best....

A 341/272 deep run together is way way way overdue

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

All this talk of how to circumvent the rules makes me wonder if people are missing the objective here. I've heard and read repeatedly from the folks at FIRST that the rules are there to provide guidelines on how to play the game and should not be interpreted as an invitation to find ways to circumvent them. While the ideas proposed are all good and sound and would probably result in three bots 'on a balanced bridge' it is clearly not the intent of the game.

I hate to be Negative Nellie here but I strongly believe in letting the intended game decide the results and not a supposed loophole in a set of rules. We are not a bunch of laywers looking for a loophole to get an advantage over others. We are engineers who are supposed to come up with elegant solutions to a problem.

Just my opinion - for what it's worth...

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

Yes, but the problem we are trying to solve is outlined in the game rules. The GDC never tells us to play "Rebound Rumble", they tell us to get the most Coopertition Points by wining the most matches by scoring according to the rules in the manual. I wouldn't even say there is a "Spirit of the Game" before the game is actually played- it never goes as the GDC imagines. Otherwise they would out and out tell us "Play a game like Basketball except like this..." and would make the rules supplementary. No, in FRC we play the game as handed to us in the rulebook, and evidently they completely support the emergent gameplay that results. I highly doubt they intended a 469-style bot to be created and dominate as happened in 2010, but the GDC did nothing about it. This "lawyering" of the rules nearly got 469 the Championship. In comparison, the designs and strategies suggested here seem distinctly mediocre.

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

Yes, very doable......but by the majority?

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

What is the intended game?

Allow me to clarify that question a bit. I'm currently in a class where the topic du jour, every class, is effectively, "what did the designer intend by X tolerance callout?" Or, as a designer, "Justify why you did this this way." As an engineer, if I don't convey my intent clearly to whoever is making the widget I designed, it can either make their job and mine much harder, or the part could be produced poorly, or both, or, or.... If I do convey my intent clearly, then whoever is making the part has a much easier time, and may in fact have extra tolerance in where a given feature of a part goes. (The class is studying ASME Y14.5-2009, a dimensioning and tolerancing standard.)

So, the question, what is the intended game, is a bit of a tricky one to answer. You can ONLY use what the GDC gave you to do it, or the Q&A--anything more must only be used to fill in gaps, and that is where you can easily make a wrong assumption.

Is it a loophole? Or did the GDC forget something in saying their intent? If they forgot something, we have to make an assumption--the next team over may assume differently. Unless and until something comes from the GDC to clarify intent, your assumption on a gap is as good as mine--once that clarification comes, we know intent, and can no longer assume anything.

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

This is a professionally-produced competition we're participating in. Our rules should reflect this in internal consistency, clarity of meaning, and freedom from misinterpretation.

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

/sarcasm/

Guys, I don't think its in the spirit of the game to shoot balls, they should outlaw that by saying you can't pick up balls, then that means you can't shoot.

G12:Robots may not damage any part of the Arena, including Basketballs.
this means you could damage the balls whenever they're shot, so you shouldn't
/sarcasm

(this is what some of you sound like)

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

Who says you need to pick up balls to shoot?

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

Seems pretty obvious to me.

The GDC didn't intend for the lexan to be considered part of the bridge for scoring purposes. They're human, they do a good job trying to communicate their intent through the rules but they're not perfect. They'll fix it with a rules update (commonly known in the engineering world as a "change order", happens all the time, get used to it if you really want to be an engineer!).

Anyone who risked building a robot to take advantage of the GDC's oversite without clarifying the GDC's intent first will most likely whine and cry and suffer the consequences.

However, they may get lucky and the GDC will let the current definition stand!

To paraphrase a famous quote, those who live by lawyering the rules sometimes die by lawyering the rules! ;)

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

From the Q&A, it seems that the GDC has repeatedly addressed the definition of "the bridge" and has had multiple opportunities to define it so as to exclude the Lexan sheet, but they haven't. I think the fact that the robot wouldn't really be able to have an effective shooter would mean that a "trollbot" wouldn't be a really competitive strategy, and the GDC recognizes it. Personally, I have a hard time envisioning how a trollbot would be able to score balls effectively.

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

Team 308 from Walled Lake Michigan used the same strategy and it almost worked to win the Championship. They lost 2 out of 3 in the finals.

How do I know, our team (311) was #1 seed and they were our 1st pick................

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.

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

You had to bring that up :(

I was the drive coach for 308 back then. We shredded the gearbox on the left side of our drivetrain during the first match of the finals. It still haunts me.

311 was a great partner (as was SPAM). That was a great time.

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.

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

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."

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

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.

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

It's got its own troll face at the 12 sec mark

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

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?

"Obvious" is an imprecise term.

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

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.

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

Try designing a robot that can effectively play the game and be 7 inches tall. Its not easy.

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

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.

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.

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

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.

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

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.

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

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.

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

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.

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

Desired intent should not have to be extrapolated especially after two Q&As.


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

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."
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.

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

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.

Re: The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition
 

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.

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?