Re: What we learned from week 1
 

I figured that, but I thought it was significant because of all the talk about adding blocking screens to robots in eliminations.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

^^We both know that rule doesn't see as much use as it should, but you're right.

Coming from a team on an alliance that got knocked out from a red card in 2011, teams, READ THE RULES BEFORE YOU SHOW UP. So many people don't do that. It blows my mind.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

There was something we wanted to add to our bot in case we were against certain bots, so we got inspected with them and took them off if they weren't in that match.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

At the Traverse City district event, there was a human player who was extremely consistent, making around 4/6 of the disks each time. Any well trained and well practiced human player could do the same... Until the disks start going into the pyramid goals regularly! Also, I assume human players like him/her were another reason for the rule change.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

I don't think anyone objects to reinspection for major modification such as adding a mechanism (active or passive) per rule T11, but it is impractical to reinspect for every modification. If you follow the letter rather than the spirit of the rules, which of these would *not* require a reinspection?

1. Filing down a corner to give better clearance between parts
2. Replacing a nut with a locknut
3. replacing a faulty motor
4. ziptie several wires together
5. updating a timeout in the code
6. adding an accelerometer sensor

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

T10, but technically, yes, that's true. I think certain things, from a practicality standpoint, can be ignored. IMHO, it only elicits a full reinspection after a visible physical change.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

1 would not. You are removing material, not adding it.
2 could. A large nut could cause a weight limit breakage. However, I don't think this would necessarily be checked or caught.
3 is a repair, not a modification. No reinspection necessary--unless you used a different motor type.
4: see 2.
5 is a code change. No reinspection necessary. Software is not inspected, though versions are checked to make sure they are the proper ones.
6 would be a reinspection, albeit a quick one. Added wire needs to meet the rules, added sensor needs weight check. That would be a "Hey, we added _this_ to the robot, are we A-OK still?" check--5 minutes and out to the field.

Under most situations, the only one that would actually be inspected would be #6, if a robot was going to elims (the inspectors will ask if there are any changes at that point).

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Actually, I think that it was the human players that weren't making at least 66% of their shots that caused the rule change. :D

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Care to explain what 1126 did? Also does any one have video of 48's defense? I would love to see it.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

I've only skimmed the thread, so here's my observations - sorry if they're repeats.

Automated weight-scoring: Awkward when it's broken. Sometimes we were losing 582-14. However, when they take the score down off the big screen, the countdown timer goes too, since it's all the same graphic. It'd be helpful to change that, since some coaches look there instead of the ones on the alliance wall. (Also, at GSR the timer on the driver's station was occasionally not working. It was weird.)

Frisbee Blizzard: Much better than Week 0, but my official count was Near Misses- 10, Frisbees-to-the-face- 1. Most of those were white discs during robot-only times. Only a few were out of control HPs. Keep in mind, I was up taking pictures for my teams, so I was by the field a lot. But still, it gets crazy.

Weird Ref Happenings: 229 got bumped in the last few seconds of the match as we were on the 10-point hang, and the other 'bot was touching us when the buzzer sounded. Ref called for a reset before we could ask, but we were NOT awarded the climb-impedance-foul-points. The answer upon challenging was "Oh, sorry, we reset too quickly, I didn't see it." Sorry, Head Ref whose name I don't know, but that's all on you. If you're a ref, PLEASE look at the field at rest before you signal the all-clear.

Week one was a whole lot of fun for me. Looking forward to next week!

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

What is the likliehood that the GDC exercises their option to alter the scoring for pyramid by up to 10 points per level at the Championship? (Ref: Blue box under Section 3.1.5.2 of the manual)

If they plan to do it, I hope they let us know well in advance.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

1126 made a robot that was small enough to go under the pyramid but had an amazing drivetrain. The lurked under theirs and when their opponents (two slot loaders) came to get discs, they would pop out and waylay them like crazy. At one point I was worried that they were going to get a blockading the gameflow penalty when their alliance partner was lined up to shoot and the entire field was blocked.

As for 48's defense, I don't know if there is any FLR match footage yet but if I remember correctly, they scooted out from auto and pushed 1559 out from under they pyramid before they could begin their climb. It was crazy.


From what I've watched at the regional, the field is incredibly cramped around the pyramid and feeder stations. Defense is incredibly viable though somewhat contradictory - you want to be tall enough to block shots but short to go under the pyramid. If someone can do both and be pushy and fast, they are the ultimate third round pick.

Two shooters one defender is a better alliance than three shooters since the field gets clogged with people going from feeder station to goals and the scoring positions are somewhat limited. Uncoordinated alliances almost end up playing defense on themselves when one robot is driving from the feeder slot to the goals and another is going from goals to feeder slot. I think the ultimate alliance would be one full court shooter, one ground pickup shooter, and one underpyramid defender. Any shots missed by the full court shooter could then be picked up by the ground pickup and scored, as they are now on the right side of the field. However, at least at FLR, there is very little in the way of ground pickup. And when I say very little, I mean none. It looked like 48 and 1507 both had mechanisms but didn't use them, instead opting for feeder station.

A word of warning for anyone putting on lunchtime shot blockers: 578 put one on and their driver, not used to playing with a tall robot got a red card for contacting a robot climbing.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the GDC change points to 10-30-40 or even 0-30-40. Climbing seems to be under powered in relation to how difficult a task it was.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

If any of the other caused a significant change from your last recorded weight (remember, we re-weigh before elims) you'd also potentially get questioned about 1, 2, and 4. Assuming 50 locknuts or zip ties, or a very large "corner". :)

Bottom line...regardless of what you're changing it's safer & a lot quicker to pop over to the inspection table on Thursday afternoon to say "we're doing this; do you want to take a look?" If you don't, what could have taken 2 minutes when you have lots of time (and remember what you did) turns into 20 minutes when *everyone's* getting re-weighed & changes discussed. And when you'd rather be prepping for that important first quarterfinal.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

I noticed this on the FLR stream and looking at the layout for TCNJ, but what is the purpose of the LCD TVs next to the driver stations?

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Protocol states that you should place the screen on the same or opposite side of the scoring table along the horizontal side of the field so both alliances can see it. At FLR, the venue layout has seating on both sides so the screen is placed on the vertical end of the field, only one alliance can see the realtime score and match time left. The screen is placed next to the drivers on the opposite side of the field so they are not disadvantaged by not knowing the realtime score and time.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

No, not "great", but "Obnoxious". I can understand high school kids being oblivious to the hearing damage - I was a kid once, too - but please, please have some respect for the rest of the crowd. If you can't be loud with your voice, then you can't be loud. Capisce?

In 2012, that would have put up over the weight limit. :rolleyes:

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

I hope someone has videos of those matches. :-)

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Please read:

I really wish these rules were better enforced.

I usually bring and wear earplugs to competitions, because usually its so loud I cannot have a conversation with the person next to me in the stands without yelling. It's bad when you have to text back and forth to communicate without losing your voice in ten minutes.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Line defense is the easiest way to play penalty-free defense on arbitrary opposition.

Cycle time is what separates the good from the great.

A pure hanger that doesn't move isn't nearly as valuable as people expected. A moving drive base, especially if you're under 30, makes you far more useful to an alliance since you can play defense.

Defense is more about top speed than pushing power this year.

There better be a good reason if you're more than 30 inches tall.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

If you're a dedicated hanger and hang from the front, back, or inside of the pyramid, you'll probably be in the way of any back of the pyramid shooters on your alliance.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xPbuEmmgxE

The above is a link to the match you mentioned. I think the loss is far more attributable to 1519 bombing full-court shots off-screen than to defense played on us. We had the unfortunate event of our partner 319 dying near the middle of our pyramid preventing 610 from getting to our preferred shooting spot. It also prevented our 30 pt hanging partner, 3467, from getting to their preferred hanging spot. At 1:15 you can even see 3467 trying to push 319 out of the way, only to be blocked by both the leg of the pyramid and 610 shooting! The credit for this match really has to be given to 1519, who simply shot the lights out... simply an amazing team and robot.

There are a many examples of defense played on at GSR, in quals and elims. One of my favorites is this match, where both 509 and 166 play some very significant defense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3FMKiaUXIM

Truthfully, we faced some form of defense in nearly every match we played. Our drive team did practice a fair amount playing against real defenses. They were fortunate enough to do drills against robots piloted by Nick Lawrence and Kaj Anantharajah. Nick and Kaj were given tall robots, and ours is of course short. Our driver (Austin) was told to make them look as silly as possible.

Let's just say there were some silly looking drivers...

...and a lot of broken robots

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

I must say, week one was interesting. Not as high of scored at HH than I expected.

I did notice, however, some really mean and borderline illegal defense being played by a few teams when their robots malfunctioned during qualifications (lookin at you, 341 and 25). Between slamming mechanisms into opposing robots, driving on top of opposing robots, and slamming into the opposing driver station repeatedly, to the point that the field broke; it was...interesting.

All in all, a good weekend. Not what I expected, but hey, I only got hit by a frisbee once...in the face...

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

As related to defense, I think that "anti-defense", or running interference on defending robots, is a potentially valuable role, especially to help full-court shooters get into position and also if teams start trying to block robots from getting to their pyramid. I wasn't able to watch many matches, but I saw this kind of play paying dividends pretty often...

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Ah, the travails of week one.

I am sure these and the other referee issues will be addressed in their conference call. I would love to listen in.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

The quotes, the smiley face, and the explanation after the PS is there to ensure that no offense was given. This is the internet and even if you go to lengths to try and show that your statements are your own opinion and are not disparaging there is still a possibility of miscommunication.

I apologize to all those that took my remarks as disparaging when they were not meant that way. So another lesson learned from this thread. :-)

Actually I am feeling a lot better today than when I made my previous remarks, I was reading the average scores posted earlier as being per robot instead of per alliance. I do think we will find a place to fit in with our climber / dumper after all. And regardless we will have a cool looking robot and a lot of lessons learned to go forward with. Another lesson is don't post on Chief Delphi disappointed, stop and evaluate first. Emotions suck sometimes. :-)

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

G30 is called very inconsistently.

In eliminations, a lot of matches turned into 6 robot scrums at midfield, with each side trying to get back to their feeder stations with 1 or 2 bots while the other(s) played D.

The lower rung of the pyramid is a bit lower than everyone expected.

Being 1/32" of an inch off the ground is as good as being 27" off the ground.

The pyramid is FAR less rigid than I expected. Anyone attempting a 30 point climb, especially on the corner, better hold on tight.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

This. Had to exit in the quarterfinals because G30 wasn't called at all. We also had some bad planning and poor strategy on our part, and I don't think we would've gotten past semis, but I was absolutely furious when we lost our last match and the 3 infractions of G30 weren't counted, but one accidental instance of G36 was counted.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

For anyone competing in the coming weeks and planning on using the pyramid as a protected area, I suggest you keep the following handy:

I think it's very clear to anyone that reads G30, Q138 and Q145 that intentional contact between a robot touching it's pyramid or loading station and a defender/opponent is prohibited and the opponent will be penalized. With that being said, if you are shooting, and that contact causes one of your shots to miss, a technical foul should be assessed as the match score has now been changed (effect on the outcome of the match).

That being said, there was a certain degree of 'right of way' protection that was assumed to have been created by G30 - that being if you're touching/nearly touching the pyramid and attempting to play the game (score) you would more or less be allowed to do what was required to continue playing - which we were told was not the case. Whether or not this will be called uniformly across all events has yet to be seen...

I guess the TLDR here is to go over G30 in detail with the head ref if it's relevant to your strategy, whether it be climbing or shooting, and make sure that if you're touching the pyramid, that it's CLEARLY visible from all/most angles on the field. A few teams had little flags and fiberglass sticks that would deform when they were in contact which seemed to make things a bit easier.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Well after 1422 caught fire, I learned that Team 639 had the right idea in putting a smoke detector on their robot.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

It was also noticeable how the practice pyramid rigidity deteriotated as the regional progressed. By the end of qualifications it was significantly looser than the field pyramids. I suspect that absent some upgrades the field pyramids will become interestingly dynamic by Week 6 competitions.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Do you have a specific measurement for the height of the first bar? Or at least a ballpark value?

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

We measured ~28 1/4" from the floor to the bottom of the first bar (+/- 1/4" depending on which rung and which pyramid).

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

How are they that far out of spec? That is completely unacceptable.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

I remember thinking to myself watching the webcast that the 610 robot driving looked an awful lot like Nick driving 1503's 2011 bot. Now I don't have to wonder why, Nick helped train Austin!

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

We were going with 29-1/4" that we measured at NH.

We believe it was from the 1/2" plywood base + carpet lining + carpet underneath the pyramid. So the 30" from the actual floor the bots drive around on is 30"...but then you need to take into account the 3/4" of base underneath the pyramid.

The practice field didn't have the plywood base, so it threw my team all off until late Friday afternoon. Our hanger still didn't work as well as we would have hoped...but we didn't expect that curveball.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

While the strategic value of shooting 5pt shots from the floor (with 50% accuracy) is questionable, it sure does get the crowd going.

Floor pick up is much more valuable than I personally expected.

Autonomous points are very big this year; if you can reliably gather extra game pieces, your robot will really stand out.

This game piece is pretty difficult to move around consistently. It's easy to shoot, but loading and collecting caused a few jams that crippled us for a match.

Keep the practice field away from the screen with scoring displays. In Traverse City, the sheet behind the practice goals blocked the view of the scores for approximately 1/3 of the audience.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

1). This Game is a lot harder than expected.
2.) Defense totally rewrites how the game is played. It makes it feel like it is played in turns.
3.) Full-court shooters are very successful in qualifications if not stopped, but may falter in Eliminations rounds.
4.) Auto is the most important part of this game. It is really hard to make a comeback if all hit and one side doesn't. (more so than other seasons)
5.)Defense is going to evolve even further as weeks go by teams shutting down main robots and teams being forced to rely on other partners.

Overall week one impressions autonomous,autonomous,autonomous! This game runs on it IMO.:) I am hoping to see more 30pt climbs and how it can effect the game later on.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

For us, the measured difference between an arbitrary rung on the practice field and competition field was more than 1 inch.

Measuring the field and adjust-ability in your hanging mechanism are both mandatory this year, I'm afraid.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

The problem is that the prints, the manual, and the official field tour videos, show the 30 inches(center) from the floor to be from where the pyramid connects to the floor which is technically on top of the .5in steel, or in the case of districts plywood. So if we follow that correctly when measured from the floor and not the top of the base plate the 1st rung should be 30.5 in(center) or 29.75(bottom) from the floor. So the 28.25" that Jared measured is out of spec by 1.25 inches if measured from the floor or .75 inches if measured to the base plate. I would hope that FIRST wouldn't have put the tolerance of the pyramids in the "the field can be out of spec by 4 inches" specification as the pyramid is such an integral part of the game that it would be a slap in the face to all the teams who designed climbers or robots they thought were short enough to go under the bar but might not be able to at every competition they go to.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Trust me, I'm just as confused and frustrated!!! I originally thought the 30" was to the top of the first bar as well (in the game manual). Then I looked at a later rev of the game manual and the dimension looked to be in the center of the bar. In the end, my team attempted to make our static hanger adjustable. I say attempt because I still had to spend 45 minutes at the regional machine shop getting the slots elongated (thank you to the machinist who helped me out!!). So with the full adjusted hanger that *should* have worked on the actually field (we had moved the hanger down based on the drive team's observations), the nose of the hanger was hitting the center of the bar on the practice field (which was measured at ~30" to the center of the first bar from the carpet)... A lot of head scratching until the field bar was measured and we started using 29-1/4". Heard a lot of other teams at BAE were having problems with the bar too.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Also, on the subject of the pyramid, robots are standing up to falls better than anticipated. There was damage from falls, but I didn't see anything that really messed up a robot unless it flipped off the pyramid and landed directly on a mechanism.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Despite other problems, this was the final undoing of the #3 alliance at GSR.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Thank you!!! I've been saying this since the end of week six when the Human Player rule change happened. Nice to see someone else agree with me.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

That powder coated conduit is much more slippery than we anticipated. Much worse than raw conduit or can spray painted conduit. We intend to drive up the rail however we need more grip from the wheels. Some very well done shooters and way to many marginal shooters. Last week I was fearing very accurate cross court shooters. I did not see any that struck fear. Will they emerge in the following weeks? A 10 point hang was very effective for week 1 but will it not be enough going forward? Will the quick 20 or thirty point climber gain dominance? Taking the whole tele opp to climb is not good enough and a risky partner. Is a pyramid safe zone really a safe zone? Seems the refs at different venues had varying interpretations of this. One thing for sure this game has plenty of room to evolve.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

It is very easy for defenders to slow down the flow of the game.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

I only saw a few matches on the webcasts, mostly during eliminations. I was surprised how few teams were attempting floor pickup in autonomous...this looked to me early on to be a great strategy, and more "worth the effort" than building a high climbing mechanism.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Darren,

I was really happy to see you post this follow up. We have all had the feeling that we brought a knife to a gunfight. On the other hand if you can do even one aspect of the game consistently you will stand out during scouting and have a decent chance of being picked.

-al g

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

This is definitely something that will be clarified in a Blog post, and if not definitely asked during the Driver meetings. Specifically, how the Refs at the tournament will be calling out G27 and G30.

::rtm:: ... ::rtm:: ... ::rtm::

Emphasis (Emphasi?) mine. By reading of the rules, if Red 1 is in contact with the Red Pyramid, and Blue 1 contacts Red 1, then it is a foul (Technical if the robot is climbing), as per G30, AND regardless of who initiated contact. HOWEVER, If Blue 1 contacts the Red PYRAMID then it is a TECHNICAL foul AND a potential RED CARD if Red 1 is in the act of climbing, as per G27. Each ruling carries the potential for a 50 point Super-Technical, should Red 1 be in the process of climbing.

That's how I currently interpret the rules, and I implore you to correct me if I'm wrong.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

That team did that to us and we played blue and they got like all the foul points. Who sacrifices themselves to do such a stupid thing to the teams on their alliance?

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

If you look at my post a page back, you'll see the Q&A relevant to these kinds of situations, those Q/A responses are what I base my response below on.

Basically, if a Red Robot is Touching the Red Pyramid and is contacted or contacts a blue robot while doing nothing else, then it is a foul.

If that same red robot is attempting to score either by shooting or climbing and the same contact happens, then technically there should be a technical foul because the contact was 'consequential' - if this contact causes the red robot to miss a shot/miss-climb/etc as the contact has changed the outcome of the match.

As far as G27 is concerned, assuming Consequential contact is ruled the same for both G30 and G27, if you contact your opponents pyramid and it has no effect on the outcome of the match**, then there are no problems.

** Meaning that you did not cause a robot to fail at doing something or to do something that it wouldn't have failed/done otherwise.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

(This was originally Dustin's idea)

I humbly suggest to the GDC that a tape square connecting the four legs of the pyramid be added to the field, and G30 be re-defined such that when any part of a robot is on/inside the tape line, it gets G30 protection. It is WAY easier for the referees, drive teams, and the audience to see whether a robot is touching something on the floor plane than a pyramid with more complex 3D geometry.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

While this is a good idea. It is currently unfair to the teams that specifically made design choices knowing that lining up against the side of a pyramid to shoot from was not going to be an easy task. By adding the take you've taken the difficulty of getting into the safe zone out of the equation.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

I'm not sure if GDC intended for it to be difficult to get into the safe zone though. It currently is really tough to tell when G30 is violated. When I look back at our quarterfinals matches at palmetto, there are multiple infractions of G30, but it's definitely hard to tell and I almost can't blame the refs for not catching them. There needs to be an easier way to catch G30 infractions, or add the tape around the pyramid.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

This is what happened in Finals Match 2 at Traverse City. 2474 was in contact with the pyramid and in the process of shooting when they were hit 4 times by an opponent. The contact was deemed consequential, and we were awarded 4 technical fouls. The final score of 184-90 included 80 penalty points (too bad we couldn't have run that up without them...).

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Yes, this is true. But it makes G30 calls a lot easier to see while not invalidating anyone's design (besides, robots with soccer flags or similar to align to the sides of a pyramid have a second advantage: a mechanical aid or visual fiducial to help aim their shots).

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

I imagine G27 and G30 are topics that will be on the conference call, as well as the frisbee counters (I think by Championships they will have to pause play because there is a good chance all 28 frisbees at the start of the game could easily find their way in and near the goals during auton by then) and other fun things.

For now, I suggest this to teams. There are driver meetings at events. Sometimes there are 2 or more. Bring up both rules and associated crucial Q&As. Have the drive coach keep certain rules on their person at all times in the form of an index card to quote while in the yellow box(something I intended to do last year, didn't and lost a crucial match because I couldn't cite the rule). Make very obvious contact pieces on your robot like brightly colored "bunny ears" or flashing lights denoting contact with the pyramid, which will also help you with lining up the robot. Keep everyone honest, including yourselves.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Looking at the long run for FIRST I am extremely excited in how this year is going. As others said, the playing field is leveled and this is an important step in making FIRST a much more teamwork driven, competitive spectator sport. Now teams have to scout, and clever game-day strategy can trump superior robot design. FIRST isn't only about the robot, and this change can foster better teamwork and make FIRST even more exciting. No one wants to see a match where 3 bots work and of those only 2 score. A match of 6 robots, with different skill levels (like in the elimination matches of previous years) is a lot more exciting than a match where the outcome can be predetermined by robot design.

Some teams have expressed disappointment in thinking their specialized design (e.g, 30 point climb + 20 point dump) has turned out less effective than they thought. This is a product of what I see as a move towards teamwork driven competition. A fully autonomous climb, while a feat of engineering, is not the best team player. Teams with these kinds of robots will need to focus on clever team matchings (macro-strategy?) rather than in-game strategy (micro-strategy?). This reflects another aspect of this years game: trying to stop teams from being able to do everything. I think some teams are having trouble adjusting. This year (for the vast majority of teams) the winning alliances will not be composed of robots that can do everything. Now, regardless of which strategy you pick (climb, close shooter, ground pickup, etc), you can still contribute to an alliance.

However, something that may not be as obvious is the effect of this on team sustainability. Beneath the obvious reasons for loss of teams (money, mentorship, resources) lies a more fundamental and psychological factor of sustainability: Team morale. I suspect many new teams that come into the competition unable to compete become so discouraged that they don't want to come back next year. For newer teams (mine included) qualification matches became a game of chance: we would scan the match schedule in the hopes of being paired with a team that could actually score. This left much of my team discouraged, and many of our members quit. This applies to many newer teams. An encouraged team that comes into the competition able to contribute to their alliance is much more likely to be determined to become better. In order to become better they will then seek fundraising and professional mentors. Making a game where an alliance of rookie teams could work together and defeat a veteran team through strong teamwork and preparation could help solve the sustainability issue in FIRST on a psychological level, and without the need to invest millions in sustaining grants to discouraged teams.

A change is coming, and everyone, veteran teams included need to be conscious of it. Those that rely too much on robot design and not enough on teamwork may find themselves performing worse in this year than in others.

EDIT: I need to work on concise writing.... o.o

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

1) The floor pickup during autonomous is huge. I definitely think you will see at least one team on every championship alliance with this capability. This past weekend at Hub City we were up against 1986 in the semi-finals. When they single-handily rain 42 pts in 15 seconds right above your head there is a psychological impact not to mention the 24 pts you need to make up.

2) Defense is huge. Fast <30" robots can significantly slow down the shooters. At Hub City, I was really surprised to see 1801 slip through the cracks until the #1 1986 alliance got them on their 3rd pick. If anything the other alliances needed a defensive robot like this to beat 1986. During one of the qualification matches I saw 1986 either stopped or running for their lives when 1801 was playing defense against them. They were still able to get to/from the feeder station but their cycles times were significantly extended. I'll bet they were pretty darn happy to have them on their alliance instead be playing against them during the elimination rounds.

3) I wish there was a little more point incentive to go for the top climb. 10, 20, 40 pts like last year's bridge would be great. It's a huge risk and hard to do... it deserves a special bonus. It's also a huge crowd pleaser... the whole stadium gets loud and lights up when a team is going for it. I think the 30 pt climbs will become more important as the season progresses but you have to do it fast or it's not worth it.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Scoring is very fair this year. Not nearly as one sided as years like 2007.

When I did the averages, they came out to be around 19 pts in Auton, 19 pts in Tele, and 16 pts in climbing per alliance.

I suppose this could be improved slightly by finding a way to increase climbing scores just a hair, and the way to do this may be increasing to 10, 20, 40 like others have suggested. But eliminating the 10pt climb will drop that average down severely, and raising the 10pt to something else will raise the average severely too.

I don't expect these scores to change too much. Comparing to years like 2008 where every method of point scoring was viable and would win you regionals (see 148), there was absolutely no change in scores from week 1 to week 6.

Last year, as more and more teams began balancing, the scores went up 33% from week 1 to week 6 but I don't see more teams climbing to 30 because of one fact. About half the teams I've seen climb, climb on the inside or would be hindered by a robot climbing on the inside. At champs, yeah I bet we'd see 3 corner climbers. At regionals, I don't expect it to be as prevalent and teams will continue to pick robots for their shooting ability, not their preferred climbing area. Especially since their aren't enough climbers to guarantee a climbing alliance.

If there is an increase in scores, it'll be because of more 10 pt hangers, or robots perfecting their shooting and finding those sweet spots.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

We would prefer to call it running to the open lane. :D

This.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

What 1712 learned:

1) If you can't score in autonomous, you won't get picked.
2) Remember to adjust your arm counterweight after you remove weight from your arm
3) It's hard to change and test code in the district format. Just not enough time between matches and it takes too long to deploy to the cRIO.
4) It's really easy to play smart and effective defense.
5) Most teams do not play smart and effective defense.
6) It doesn't take very long to hang for 10, but it takes a while to reposition after a botched hang.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Agreed. The first time I saw them do that, I was in total awe. I could not believe they pulled it off. Again, congratulations to 1405, 3003 and 1559, but watching 48 shut down 1559 was super amazing.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

I don't see the problem here.

As I can see it, the pyramid was clearly intended to be a protected part of the playing field, in the same way that the bridges and key were last year. When speaking with our partners and drivers at the last event, we always played the game as if this were true. Once a team got close to their pyramid, you back off and let them on their way regardless of if they were touching the pyramid or not. What is touching from one angle may not appear to be touching from another (witnessed this first hand) and that is due to the structure of the pyramid.

With all of that being said, all the tape would do is give observers, referees, drive teams, scouts, etc a good way to tell if a robot is in the protected zone defined by the pyramid. I don't see how this hurts anyone's design decisions because if you designed a robot to play any aspect of the game that involves the pyramid (which every robot does at some point) you'll benefit from the pyramid being defined by tape on the floor instead of the physical structure.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Currently, to be in the safe zone you must be touching the pyramid. Lining up to shoot and also making sure you are touching the pyramid is much harder than just driving up close to the pyramid and aiming.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Pretty sure it is quite easy to drive up to the pyramid, touch it, aim, and fire all in less than a second. It just depends where on the pyramid you are trying to touch/shoot from.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Right, from the back it is perfectly easy, but driving up and shooting from the side of the pyramid while touching it is not as easy.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

If something like this WAS implemented, 48 never would have been able to pull off what they did. It was an amazing sight, we still lost, but it was still very exciting to watch.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Can anyone give a little insight into going under the opponents pyramid?

I've heard of it being used to evade defense. My main concern is whether referees were ruling things like "antennae" (zip ties, flags, ect) as inconsequential contact and therefore not calling fouls when you zip under the opponents pyramid.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

We were never penalized for going under the opponent pyramid and our zipties and arm do brush the pyramid bar as we pass by.

It did seem difficult for referees to judge. They were quick to call the foul if someone was trying to hang (even someone who did not have an operational climbing mechanism), but seemed reluctant to call it for robots who were in the act of shooting. Penalties seemed to be better defined in elimination matches than they were in qualifications, and I expect rules to be even more consistent in week 2. Would love for someone to tape the drivers meeting at a week 2 event to hear about how things are being called, or to have a referee chime in after the call to give us a heads up about how they want to enforce things.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

We used going under the pyramid FOR defense. I know that when we were figuring out how to contact the pyramid to help our aiming, we made sure that it was retractable to run no risk of hitting the opponents pyramid, except at the corners.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

This was a technique we used frequently at CVR to evade tall defenders on our way to and from the feeder station. The head ref made it clear in a discussion I had with him that as long as no one's climb -- or ability to climb -- was affected, fouls would not be given.

I have a recording of said discussion I could post if anyone is interested.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

It seems that popular opinion suggests that a reliable 30 point climb isn't viable. I disagree. Our robot could score about 48 points a match, (18 auto, 30 climb), and I found many of our matches coming down to 70-80 point games. I think having at least one reliable 30 point climb on an alliance to be a great asset. I also found that defense played a huge role in the final matches of the elimination rounds, especially against full-court shooters.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

There is a popular opinion that a reliable 30 point climb and 20 point dump only is not viable if you think you can win a match all by yourself.

7 weeks ago there was a popular strategic opinion floating in the community that a 50 point climb/dump would be a slam dunk to single-handedly win matches because games are historically very low-scoring outside of MSC/MAR/CMP/IRI. Some people (read as: myself and I'm sure a few others) nixed that idea and tried to nudge their teams into nixing that idea because the game can clearly be seen as one capable of high scores in the frisbee goals because of its rigidity as a game piece and its more accessible targets.

Still, climb/dump specialists which accomplish the secondary objective very well are great as secondary alliance partners. They are in no way inferior to all disc-throwing robot or disc/30pt climbs, but it accomplishes a secondary objective with a capped point-scoring ability and thus is a likely secondary partner to a strategy, not a primary partner or alliance captain.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

There is a popular opinion that a reliable 50 point robot is not viable if you think you can win a match all by yourself.

7 weeks ago there was a popular strategic opinion floating in the community that a 50 point robot would be a slam dunk to single-handedly win matches. Some people (read as: myself and I'm sure a few others) nixed that idea and tried to nudge their teams into analyzing their capabilities to produce the highest scoring robot possible. For a few teams that was a 100 point robot, a few more it was 70 point robot, a few more it was a 50 point robot, and for the vast majority it is a less-than-15 point robot (based on the first week alliance scoring averages).

Still, robots which accomplish the primary objective of scoring points (is there a secondary objective? maybe playing defense?) are highly desirable as alliance partners. Points are points, whether they're scored at the beginning of the game in autonomous or at the end of the game on the pyramid. A smart alliance captain will select his alliance based on the combination which he believes will maximize his alliance's scoring capabilities in relation to his opponents.

A robot which consistently scores less than 50 points is a likely secondary partner to a strategy, not a primary partner or alliance captain.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

This is good to know for our antenna as well.

However, are you saying that if you do it while a robot is trying to climb, that its a foul?

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

We identified early in the build season that a 30 point climb + 20 point dump was a viable strategy if and only if it could be done with sufficient alacrity, because the potential for scoring frisbees is so darn high this year. Yes, a lot of teams fail at basic functionality every year, but not enough of them to make climb+dump-only a viable game winner in the long term.

We failed in a rather epic manner to pull off a fast 30 point climb, which translated into an inconsistent and too-hard-to-line-up 10 point climb at FLR, but this problem will be fixed at Buckeye. :)

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Doing it from the side is as easy as adding two pieces of fiberglass rod (or similar**) to your robot to make sure that if any part of your machine is under the pyramid, it's touching some point on the horizontal bar of level 1.

That being said, the intent of the pyramid rules seems to be quite clear to most people, but they're not written in such a way that they can be clearly and decisively called by a ref without that ref finding the correct vantage point.

I guess my big problem with the pyramid rules as written are that they do not award any protection to a machine that is inside of the pyramid but not touching it. One would think that this robot is offered some sort of protection, but that is not the case.

**Realistically, we could all go the vex route and start using zipties to extend a robot's contact points outside of traditional structure, but I like to think that we don't need to go there..

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

I am glad to be confirmed on this prediction. What a relief!

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

I absolutely don't think this years game needs any more protected zones. The field is already cramped enough with the pyramids taking up huge swaths of space and robots trying to travel around them to feeder stations. Teams who planned (notably not mine) to travel under they pyramid to lower the traffic jam should be given their requisite bonus in not being penalized.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

"I guess my big problem with the pyramid rules as written are that they do not award any protection to a machine that is inside of the pyramid but not touching it. One would think that this robot is offered some sort of protection, but that is not the case."

I can say I've seen this first-hand. On our alliance, we were the designated "climb-bot." in the final match (our bot lines up for a climb on the inside on one of the sides of the pyramid) we were pushed completely out of the pyramid by a defender, and just held away from the pyramid for the remainder of the match. I believe defense is going to be much bigger this year, compared to last.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

We learned the importance of a good human player. Good HPs can severely reduce cycle times, and with so many human fed robots, this can make or break an alliance. Our HP was arguably the best at the Palmetto regional (at loading not throwing), and he is a major reason why we were successful.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Eh, you guys still won. :D Still can't find good video of that. I really wish the FLR webcast was archived like the prior years....

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Many teams, including my own, read the rules to the letter, and hence designed our robot in such a way that it will most certainly be touching it's tower while in shooting position. We discarded shooting from under the centre of the tower, and limited ourselves to the edges in order to be in the protection zone. I felt that it was a design constraint that needed to be given attention, rather than a loophole, or poorly written rule.

I don't have an objection to the tape on the floor idea, but I can see where other's objections may come from as it invalidates clever designs and fine tuned mechanisms that some teams may have built in order to touch the tower.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

...or defensive strategies based on the correct, to the letter interpretation of the rule.

Contact is contact. They don't count "touching air" for level incursion determination while climbing. Why would they count touching air for G30 penalties? You're protected if you are touching the PYRAMID.

"PYRAMID: the Red or Blue steel structure on which ROBOTS CLIMB for points."

Don't see "the air or carpet surrounding said steel structure" anywhere in there. ;)

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

I am very sure that Dustin and his team read the rules to the letter. He is not proposing a rule change because he screwed up his own design. (edit: my apologies, this came out way harsher than I meant it to...)

Even if you do play to the edges of the tower, there is significantly less protection than you'd expect. Touching the corner of the tower, and then aiming while still clearly touching it, are both non-trivial. Lots of teams would drive up and touch or almost touch it, but then started to aim, drifted a half inch away, and then were completely vulnerable to defense. Not to mention referees seem to err on the side of no penalty when contact is ambiguous.

The pyramid is no 2012 key.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

I have the whole FLR webcast recorded on my computer, well not all of it but most. If anyone wants to help split it up or wants me to send it their way let me know. Otherwise I will be working on getting it onto TBA but I'm a bit busy with school at the moment

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

At least at CVR:
Full court shooters are king. I saw two teams shooting full court and when they were dialed in they were making shots so fast it was insane. I counted roughly 11 frisbees shot into the top goal in about 25 seconds in one match. Alliances had to plan entirely around stopping these shooters. Even then it wasn't enough, team 840 took home the gold and it was well-deserved.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

I did not mean to imply this at all, and my apologies if it seemed like it. I too feel like the tower does deserves more protection, as I saw way too many G30's go uncalled. We just have to be careful about giving an advantage to certain designs with said increase in protection. (re your edit, I felt the same about my post. Words do not convey tone very well xD)

You can say that again.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Did this ever get a penalty from G14?

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Not that I'm aware, but a) they didn't always specify which rules were being used for penalties, and b) I wasn't always paying close attention by that point. Given some of the other non-calls, I wouldn't be surprised if "no" is the correct answer to your question.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Agreed. Taping the floor to create a larger protected area would be another significant rule change.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Simon, we actually utilize the same strategy. Being able to move under and through the pyramids essentially makes the field something like 20% larger than if you couldn't. Not to mention that discs have a tendancy to pile up inside and in front of the pyramid, leaving them as easy pickings for a good floor loader.

All of that being said, a line on the floor wouldn't really do much to hinder that, I think. All it does is make it easier to tell when an ally or opponent is being protected by their pyramid, and increases the amount of protection a robot receives from the pyramid by a marginal amount, unless you're one of those teams that likes to live dangerously and play defense within an inch of a protected area...

Travis, I think we all know that no matter how the rules are written, you'll be playing defense on whatever fine line there is to play on. :P


Chris, no harm no foul, I know what you mean.

At the end of the day, I was just making a suggestion, I still don't see the reasons to not increase/make more well defined the protected area around the pyramid. That being said, we now know what we have to do to use it's protection and we will move on.

I predict that 2013 may be the year of the soccer flag, foam finger, random noodle, and whatever other stuff people come up with to be 'contacting' the pyramid while shooting.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Well duh! :)

We like playing offense too. We just don't like to be forced into playing one way or the other, especially if the coercion is implemented by namby-pamby after the fact rule changes that try to cram a certain style of gameplay down your throat.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Don't forget that a team can place a single wheel into the lined zone and occupy the aisle diagonally to block a path to the feeder station that another robot won't fit through. A line greatly increases what I see as defensive opportunities by creating a limited path for a team to follow to get Frisbees.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

I BELIEVE that this would not be a foul, as long as you don't contact the opponents robot. The contact with the pyramid would still be inconsequential as you would not have affected an opponents climb, just brushed the pyramid lightly. But I'm not 100% positive on that point.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

I don't believe it would be. Most of the climbs were 10 pointers and kind of clogged up the opportunities to slide through an opponent pyramid anyway.

What we noticed is that robots lining up for a shot while touching the pyramid were mugged by aggressive defense without a penalty being called in several instances. Those who were attempting to climb were given much greater protection. Hopefully in week 2 those calls will be more consistent.

We also noticed that if a defender played along the field wall and hit opponents into the pyramid as they went to the feeder station it was ruled a G-18 and the defender was given a technical. The loading robot appeared to have no responsibility in avoiding the pyramid in this situation. Defenders learned to play from the pyramid side and force the loading robots into the wall instead.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Same...I think that selfish players that hogged frisbees really would've become a problem

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Interesting and informative. I wonder why teams who line up to shoot while touching their pyramid aren't getting the calls from defenders that touch you.
If that's the case, how could you ever get a clear shot?
Sounds like missed calls and as you mentioned, hope those calls become more consistent.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

The scenario described are not so blatant.

From what I saw were the following;

Say team XXXX tried to line up at the back of the pyramid using uprights or something, then defenders usually left these robots alone. I never saw an instance of contact in this scenario, but I'm sure that had it occurred, it would've been called without hesitation.

Say team XXXX is trying to line up in the corner or even in the front of the pyramid (at this position, taller robots can really get in your game), then there is guarantee of a call. I suppose there's a little room to tussle but when illegal contact is made, it wasn't called very often, if at all.

- Sunny G.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

I wonder if it is just bad angles by the referee's. When you line up on the corner of the pyramid only the very bottom of the bumper is making contact due to the angle of the legs. The higher points of the robot have quite a bit of space. Very difficult to make the call in some cases. (Although the instance I'm thinking of involved mecanums and the shooting robot always strafed until they rocked against that pyramid leg and then aimed to shoot. :rolleyes: )

On a separate note... We saw 60" defenders become effective at blocking full court shooters, but we didn't see many attempt to block pyramid shooters. If the refs continue to have difficulty telling when someone is touching the pyramid we might see the defense become more bold.

*Interesting clip here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spyRub7z1Bw

*We had a bad battery in this match so you will see us escaping the defensive pressure in low gear instead of our normal zippy selves.