Re: Teams breaking the game
 

469 in 2010 was NOT a chokehold strategy.


Frankly, I'm getting tired of people calling it a chokehold. A chokehold strategy is not "almost impossible to outscore," it is literally impossible to outscore. When executed properly, a chokehold strategy CANNOT be beaten. A chokehold strategy is one in which is mathematically impossible to be beaten. Being able to successfully control all three goals in 2002 was a chokehold strategy, because regardless of the opponents scoring, it was impossible to be beaten. Redirecting balls in 2010 was NOT a chokehold strategy, because the opponent could simply oustcore you. A chokehold strategy cannot exist in any game involving "recycled" game pieces (2006, 2010, 2012), since the theoretical scoring limit is infinite.

Re: Teams breaking the game
 

You're totally right, it wasn't technically a chokehold strategy. You could win against them by out scoring them (or blocking both goals). I think most people call their strategy "chokehold" because colloquially, a chokehold has come to mean a strategy which can generate large numbers of points essentially independently of opponent actions. I suppose by this same colloquial definition a FCS would be a "chokehold" strategy. It's hard, but not impossible, to beat a FCS, and good ones can essentially depend on scoring huge numbers of points.

2002 is the only year I've heard of that had a real chokehold strategy. I think the GDC has tried to eliminate true chokeholds from games in recent years, so I doubt we'll be seeing a true one again in the near future. That doesn't mean teams shouldn't looks for strategies like FCSs or 496 in 2010 that are able to generate large numbers of points in unconventional ways.

Re: Teams breaking the game
 

Last year's VEX game had one robot that could perform a perfect chokehold. 2W, from Gladstone Secondary here in Vancouver, could expand and form a wall blocking off just over half the goals. Assuming they had a partner who could score 100% of the points that were exclusively available to their alliance following the "block", 2W was mathematically guaranteed a win.

They did the math on this around Christmas time, played out their season and qualified for worlds with a "regular" robot, then showed up in Anaheim with a brand new machine.

It did poorly in qualifying, as they didn't always have a partner able to take advantage of their defensive dominance, but they were selected to an alliance of two outstanding "scorers".

They won the world championship (defeating another Gladstone team in the final) without ever having scored a point in the entire tournament.

Oh, yeah... Gladstone did okay this year, too... finishing on the #3 alliance.

But it was a classic chokehold, planned intentionally, and launched without warning or time for other teams to adapt in any significant way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQHD-fleuwY

Jason

Re: Teams breaking the game
 

I am surprised no one mentioned our robot, 111, from 2003. I am pretty sure that robot is the main reason they have rules against blockades and appendages for damaging robots as when our robot got on top everyone would tip over

Re: Teams breaking the game
 

Off the top of my head:

2002:

-71
-365 (similar in concept to 71, but a bit less robust)

2003:

- 68* (Original robot as seen here: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/15167)

2010:

-469

*68's original 2003 machine was without a doubt one of the best examples of a 'true' game breaker in FRC History. So much so that the rules were adjusted/tweaked/interpreted to make it's strategy of preventing the movement of bins (and robots) from one side of the field to the other impossible. Essentially, 68's machine was a mobile field barrier capable of segmenting the field into two halves trapping the game pieces in the zone that they were in.

Correct. Glad someone else was thinking the same thing.

Closing the loop in 2010 would be the similar to having an FCS in 2006 or 2012, where as a ball is introduced into the field it's basically headed towards the goal. In 2010 closing the loop was more deadly/effective than similar years because you were responsible for returning your own scored game pieces.

That being said, I'd say closing the loop in 2010 like 469 did is 'Breaking the game' or pretty dang close to it. Playing 469's version of breakaway required a very specific approach that was more or less unique to their robot/style or robot. (Watch some videos of 2010 and you'll see what I'm getting at.)

Wildstang's 2003 machine was definitely one of those robots that was made to play in the grey areas of the rules, but was by no means 'game breaking'. That's not to say it wasn't really effective, just that the strategy wasn't all too out there.

Re: Teams breaking the game
 

By this same logic, one could say 71 did not break the game either. Similar to other 'game breaking robots', there were specific strategies that were capable of stopping them. I believe this strategy was best showcased at IRI that year, when instead of grabbing goals in (edit the start of the match), the opposing alliance stopped 71 from grabbing them.

Just an opinion though. It was a ground breaking robot that obviously has gone down in FRC history as it is still remembered more than a decade later.

Re: Teams breaking the game
 

except 65 at Midwest when they figured out how to flip your ramp back up.

I would say that the 469, 111, 65 strategy in the 2003 national championships almost broke the game. the strategy was in the first match to basically smash, 469 and 111 would score score score. then in the second 65 and whoever the partner was, either 469 or 111, they would just descore everyone. in doing that no one would get any points and even if they lost they would not have had enough points for their opponent to beat their first score.
Now I am not nessicarily saying that broke the game, because if you beat 469 and 111 in the first match, which is a big IF, then the opponent could win, because 65 was a descoring beast and could only be moved on the top of the ramp by a select few bots that year....292 being one of them (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DJXYsQU9Ms)

But as for breaking the game, I would agree that 71 in 2002 was the only one to do it. Though 1114 in 2006 came dang close, except for the recycled game piece thing.

Re: Teams breaking the game
 

I am pretty sure that the first year for autonomous period was 2003. There was a point at the national championships that a few teams in 71s division found a way to beat them, they did not have a reverse once they lifted the goals and dropped the feet. if you could spin them, they couldn't turn back around, but from what I understand they fixed that problem and smashed the competition the rest of the way. I mean it did help that 173 was a total ball scoring beast that year as well.

Re: Teams breaking the game
 

190 had a "breaking the game" strategy is 2008, where instead of driving around the track with the track balls, they would move to the side of one lane, pickup a ball, swing it around the center divider, then hurdle it again. (hurdle was the game term for a track ball passing over the overpass for those of you who are not familiar.). Their strategy was deemed partially illegal because track balls were required to touch the ground after a hurdle AND not be possessed by the robot. So they had to drop the ball, then pick it up again, which proved rather difficult.

Long story short, the strategy didn't really work because of some subtle rule interpretations and changes, but it was one of the more extravagant attempts to break the game. For those of you who haven't seen it, it's also one of the more well designed robots I've seen from a mechanical standpoint.

(I'll look for pictures).

Re: Teams breaking the game
 

- 68* (Original robot as seen here: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/15167)

*68's original 2003 machine was without a doubt one of the best examples of a 'true' game breaker in FRC History. So much so that the rules were adjusted/tweaked/interpreted to make it's strategy of preventing the movement of bins (and robots) from one side of the field to the other impossible. Essentially, 68's machine was a mobile field barrier capable of segmenting the field into two halves trapping the game pieces in the zone that they were in.

This is a reminder to all kiddos not to let robot designs leak! :(

Re: Teams breaking the game
 

I found a video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEqc8gqBxHI

Re: Teams breaking the game
 

I couldn't find a picture with the detached piece but from the picture you should be able to tell what it is. I believe it is the pyramid extender part with the 2 white tubes on it. The second picture shows the robot without said attachment.

Re: Teams breaking the game
 

Are you talking about how 179 is a ramp for other robots to go up, or how it was able to drive onto the polycarbonate underneath the bridge, which was later deemed illegal?

Do you have a video of 118's original bridge lifter?

Why would a direct drive minibot be game breaking? Plenty of teams used those.

Re: Teams breaking the game
 

Here's the video of 118's bridge hang in 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0plwV...tKEw& index=2

None of the things he mentioned are game breaking, just very powerful strategies when used correctly.

Re: Teams breaking the game
 

Anyone have the game rules from this year, or perhaps would be able to enlighten me with a quick explanation of the game for that year and the significance of this particular strategy?