Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Where the carpet is smooth, the disks are optimally placed, and the driver and operator make no mistakes, picking up from the floor can be very quick. If any of these factors are missing, which is often, the number of hoppers of disks shot in a match drops by about one. For us, if everything went perfectly, we could pickup and shoot 3 hoppers worth. If there were problems, that dropped to 2 or 1 hopper.

When we tried going to the feeder station, even with light defense, we could load 2-3 hoppers. Again, drive team mistakes, or heavy defense could drop that number by 1 or 2.

One factor we did not expect was that at least one defender seemed to be targeting our arm for damage. They would back off when it was up, but as soon as it would come down, the defender seemed like they were trying to hit the arm. We expected some amount of consequential damage, but did not prepare enough spares for that kind of defense, even though the possibility was certainly foreseeable.

Since floor pickup and feeder loading seemed to be roughly equal in speed, (at least with our arm) we made the strategic decision to reduce the risk of damage to our arm by saving it for autonomous scoring. We would also use it if heavily defended when running back and forth to the feeder station.

The equation changes a bit if you have a very fast floor pickup mechanism, and/or have had lots of time to practice with it. That may shift the balance towards floor pickup.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Was anyone else (at other events) told that you cannot stack discs on the feeder station slides or low goal? Our Head Ref told us specifically not to, but it seems a lot if other events, and even some teams at our event, weren't. (I never saw any penalties called for it, and there's no direct rule.) It didn't overly bother me as we couldn't have taken full advantage of it this time, but Week 3 we should be able to. I hope they clear that up.


As a note, the 'arduousness' to become a ref this year is significantly down from 2012 (no training, just test and maybe an optional telecon). I point this out only because it's partly due to the difficulty of recruiting referees. Some events are short several refs mere weeks before game time. Occasionally refs are literally at their first competition. The process can only be as hard as the quota accepts. It's sometimes rough on teams, and I've been on the bad side of poor calls (I've also been on the bad side of yelled-at). There are some serious Week 1 problems this year. But yelling at refs is a good way to not have any left. Suggestion - if you want refs with more experience, volunteer!

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Smills, do you have any match footage of your human player loading your robot? I'm sure we can all learn from his style.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

We can't disclose all of our secrets :p

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Siri,

We had a long discussion about this at varying points on Friday night and Saturday morning. From what we could find, there is no rule that specifically disallows this, and the reason that we were given was that 'Stacking Discs could cause field damage'... Some point after that, there was mention of disc stacking being legal, or being clarified to be legal, but I don't remember if we were ever given a conclusive answer...

All of that being said, should you need to stack discs on top of either the low goal or the slot covers at your next event, I'd say to do it until you're told not to - at which point ask them to cite the rule that disallows it.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Blue Box, G29 "High speed accidental collisions may occur during the MATCH and are expected. ROBOTS extend elements outside of the FRAME PERIMETER at their own risk; no penalties will be assigned for contact between two such extended elements."

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

I don't think Todd was trying to say that any rules were violated, just surprised at the amount of defense that was played against a floor pickup robot when the pickup mechanism is down. We designed a floor intake expecting to have some defense played against it. Our current iteration of it looks overkill, but we still doubt its rigidity against heavy defense.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

There were no fouls in that match at all. We got exactly what we expected in the match and even confirmed with the ref's before that being shoved into the pyramid by another team would not be our penalty.

As for 16 getting a penalty, they didn't and thats fine. They hit us, we hit them, it happens. Build your robots to take a hit and it doesn't matter.


We went into the match knowing full well we were going to loose, we just wanted to show other teams that it was possible to block 1986. As good as their shooter is from under the pyramid, their accuracy drops from anywhere else on the field. ( just like any other team which calibrates for a specific shot)

As good as 1986 is, I think they will not have such an easy run in Oklahoma, as teams learn how to defend elite robots, such as installing blockers at 60" to force them to leave the spot under the pyramid and shoot on the fly. The biggest advantage they have is that they are already performing at a high level with things like a 7 disk auto (which is awesome), but by week 4 others will have had the opportunity to study the game and mod their robots to adapt.



*edited to better reflect my options in a way that does not put down 1986. They are a great team with a great robot, and it was not my intent to take anything away from the team and their accomplishments. I was just pointing out, from a lessons learned standpoint that even the best of teams will have to deal with teams that learn more about how to play the game as the weeks roll on.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Just so I'm clear, I am not advocating that yelling at referees is in any way acceptable at a FIRST event. It goes against the principles of being a GP, and is against the rules, as well.

G18: All Teams must be civil towards other Teams, competition personnel, and event attendees.

Unfortunately, the process that FIRST has established to protest incorrect match outcomes, is fatally flawed. It should not be acceptable that the outcome of a properly presented protest to a documentably game changing bad call should be that nothing is done because, "I didn't see that." or "It's too late. The field has already been reset."

We need a better process by which we can all stay civil, but game changing mistakes can be corrected. We all understand that referees can and do make mistakes. Those mistakes can and should be corrected so that those who play by the rules don't lose to those that break them, by accident or otherwise.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

We were surprised too that no one picked up on your blocking idea and used it on us in eliminations. Your team did an excellent job of strategizing ways to keep the score down. Teams that emphasize the climbing aspects of the game should be very interested in lowering the teleop shooting so their points matter more.

Saw another interesting strategy where the defensive bot sat in the opponents protected feeding zone, and the loading bot couldn't get to the zone to draw the penalty, much less load discs.

We definitely had a sweet spot to shoot from, although by the time Oklahoma rolls around we should have about 11 other equally sweet spots to pull up to. We have all of the KC regional to practice with in week 3 before heading to Oklahoma in week 5.

Just noticed 2848 is going to be in Oklahoma too. Our scores were higher playing together than playing against each other. Hope to see you on our side next time we meet. :)

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Maybe in elims, the final score (including penalties) should be confirmed with the captain of each alliance before the field is reset?

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

This is about what we got as well, Dustin. The field damage argument seemed an odd one, but I never heard even a rumor of a reversal. I wish FIRST had a standardized mechanism for announcing reversals/clarifications at events. (I've seen everything from pit-to-pit ref visits, in-queue statements, coaches' meetings, to pit announcements...) We'll see if the Q&A turns up anything useful. Otherwise it's a question of asking forgiveness vs permission. Given the importance of it though, I hope they standardize.


In other news, the GDC has answered the G29 clarification Q&A.

A: As [G29] states, the intent is to penalize "deliberate or damaging contact with an opponent ROBOT on or inside its FRAME PERIMETER."

Looks like they're sticking by it--G29 applies any time a robot damages or deliberately contacts a robot inside it's perimeter (correct conjunction is "or"; extended elements not required). High-bumpered bots, be careful in your pushing matches!

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

The refs were calling this wrong until saturday when we asked about it. While you can't get a regular G30 because the other team is not in contact with the carpet, you can get a Technical Foul under G30 because of the intent of the action. (while I disagree with this interpretation of the rules, thats how they were calling it at Hub City after we specifically asked if we could block like that)


Oh yeah, the team will be there.....with a few mods already in progress. We hope to be on your side of the field also.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

I don't see how G30 can possibly be interpreted to give a foul if the team is not in contact with their feeder station carpet. Simply put, I think the refs called this wrong if they are giving fouls only for blocking teams' access to their own feeder station.

Intent is only in play if the rule is violated, and the ONLY way to violate the rule is if they are in contact with their loading zone or pyramid. If Blueabot gets to Redabot's loading zone first and prevents Redabot from contacting the loading zone carpet, G30 simply does not apply, because neither of the conditions can be violated, intent or not.

TLDR: If neither of the rule conditions apply, you cannot receive a foul for violating those conditions.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

The violation comes with teams working together to obstruct the flow of a game. AKA sitting in the opposing alliances safe zone in front of their feeder station.