Re: Re: Re: Kamikaze Robot Strategy...
 

While there were no 'winged' 3 goal grabbers at LI, we employed this strategy to good effect in nearly every one of our matches.

Having a robot that was faster than almost everything at LI, including all of the double goal grabbers, and simultaneously virtually immovable, we were able to use this strategy very, very effectively.

Strategy is a nice way to try to win matches, but it really comes down to being able to cope with the unexpected - and, despite repeating the same strategy again and again, we were always unexpected. Or, at the very least, the teams were ill prepared to deal with us.

A few robots were able to get around us, but in most cases, it tooks upwards of 90 seconds.

Re: Re: Kamikaze Robot Strategy...
 

To be fair, T3 being dragged along the carpet upside down in Cleveland was not a result of a direct attack. The opponent team merely grabbed the other side of the goal T3 latched on to and pulled it away.

Again, I would hesitate to employ any strategy aimed at damaging a robot and attempt to find another solution.

Yeah, I'm not 100% sure on this but I think that T3 flipped because they were holding onto a goal we were pulling in a weird position.

Well if anybody saw the quaterfinals match at VCU where the #1 seed 122 picked the MOEhawk (365) and another 3 goal graber I don't rember the team....sorry. Anyway my team did pretty much the kamikaze strategy by getting to the center goal as fast as possiable and ramming it so that MOE or the other 3 goal grabber could not get all 3 if any goals! We kept them at bay and accidently knocked off their center gripper when backing out of the corner :rolleyes: ........sorry guys, if it's any help we broke a chain in that match as well!

Good luck to all in the rest of the matches (and have fun with the kamikaze thing)

Michael D.
Team 602

1. As for moral implications... they would just be in the way, not your fault they could've moved in time ;)

2. I, however, would shy away from this strategy somewhat. Instead why not just grab one of the end goals at full speed to start the match? Even if the three goal grabber gets it too, you can spin them around like a top. No offense to anyone who built a three grabber, but you won't be able to stand up to even a moderately powerful robot with some creative driving.

3. Bring it; We can handle a nice head on impact quite nicely at top speeds.

well, after one day of competition at NYC, i have to say, "kamakazie" is our best strategy. we don't go right after the robot, but it seemed we were easily able to move around and block the other bots, and almost literally drive circles around some (well, not quite, but close :D). we actually snapped a smal lpeice of lexan off our robot (saved us the .2 lbs which would have thrown us over, cause we were seriously at 130 lbs.), and also made a huge dent in a peice of extrusion. i think those were both goal impacts though. a running start across the field at 11 fps is a NOT good thing when going into a goal. :D otherwise, we did pretty good, but got some really bad alliances. oh well, what can you do.

We thought that with 602 as fast as they were, they nearly neutralized the threat of the three goal grabber (MOE). We (007) were allied with 602. After 602 ran the goal disruption, our high torgue robot didn't have too much of a struggle spinning the three-goaller.

spinning MOE
 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that you are refering to the final match of the of our quarterfinals- where our pneumatics were messed up, and we grabbed the side railing. That was an ugly match from the begining- when our pneumatic wing releases didn't deploy to when the head ref walked up to our human player and handed him our center gripper. That botched match was a result or a few careless errors. I am not trying to make excuses her, just warning you not to expect to push MOE around as easily as some people would have you believe.

Also, it seems as though you guys are assuming that all the robots than can handle three goals handle them in a straight line. Our robot is a robust little box that can grab all three (and has done so plenty of times in practices)
We've never done so in a match because, frankly, nothing is ever 100% reliable (as we all know), and most of the times it simply wasn't strategically worthwhile.

Not that I'm saying we can't be prevented from getting three goals, or even two. Just a note.

All of the 3 goal robots that I've seen grabbed them in a straight line. What teams have another such robot? It would be cool to see.

~Hubicki~

Personally, I don't know of any other robots like ours (you can see how ours works in the picture underneath my username), but then again, I've only been to two regionals thus far.

looks cool! have you been successful towing 3 goals? If so, I'm jealous ;)

Here's two pictures taken in succession at the Philadelphia practice day. Like I said, though, we've never done it in a match since it simply hasn't made sense, and we simply didn't get the chance in the elimination rounds.

Don't sell the capabilities of a three goal bot short. such teams (and I am a member of one) have designed their strategy to get to the goals first and are effective in doing so. the underlying principle is to get to midfield first and plant. a 3 goal grabber (3gg) in no way, shape, or form plans on moving all three goals once latched to the extent that the other alliance can't touch them. in seeding matches, a 3gg is not an ideal alliance partner. knowing from experience (at richmond and philly) the match scores of such robots vary immensely. our lowest score was 0-0 (in which the other alliance was not in their zone at the end of the match) up to 96. most of our scores were around the sixties or seventies. in the best strategy post under rules/strategy, a friend and team member posted something to the effect (and I know I won't nearly say it as eloquently) that we care about qp's cause our alliance partner cares about qp's. while our strategy is pretty much set, we still do like the input of alliance partner of what they want to do (if they want around us, if they want to help hold us still, if they want a goal, etc). if every time we played, we had a 30-10 or lower match score, nobody would accept our proposed strategy, and therefore we'd never let people see our capabilities for three goals.

3gg are not designed for qualification matches, keep in mind. they are a powerful ally in elimination matches, however. if you control the goals, you control the scoring and therefore, the game. in elimination matches, the losers score doesn't matter, so you don't have to worry about giving points to your opponent. speaking from our own matches, out of eighteen matches (in qualifying) MOEHawk won thirteen of them. having designed our robot to be picked, we were only counting wins losses (but as mentioned previously, we were still concerned about match scores for our alliance partner; we didn't design our robot to be a gamebuster, but the strategy dictates that our opponents should lose).

I would have to admit that if I were a ball handler or a single gg, I would probably have a difficult time seeing the effectiveness of a 3gg. our team only knows of two, maybe three 3gg (us - 365, sparky 3.0 - 384, and if beatty's a 3gg then them too). this shortage of this strategy has left many people without the chance to see what someone thought of doing. my suggestion for anyone going into a competition who hasn't seen a 3gg in action and doesn't think they'll be effective, just wait until you see one go. we though that we'd have the most boring matches in our regionals, but when we get the goals, it's a battle to get them away from us. everyone wants to prove superior to something that's big enough to get all three. let a 3gg team work their magic and hopefully they'll change your mind about the effectiveness of that strategy during elimination matches.


Simon

I don't see any problem with the Kamakazi strategy as long as you are not trying to disable the other teams robot. I have both used this stategy AND asked an alliance partner to do the same. If it is their weakness. In any game, you need to expose your opponents weakness.

This year, FIRST has gone back to the battle. No more soft matches where everyone on the field is your alliance, thus no need for a 'robust' robot. If a team is not prepared for the battle, they ought not to blame their opponent. It's all part of the game.

I liken this strategy to a match seen in Long Island. Team 173 had a basket full of balls held high overhead, making them very top heavy and vulnerable. Their opponent, seeing a weakness attempted to push them over. In my mind that was a smart play. A team trying to prevent another team from scoring is a part of the game. I have since read in other postings that this was unsportsman like. I do not agree.

Each team should expect that whatever their weakness is, another team will attempt to expose it.