Kamikaze Robot Strategy...
 

Suppose that you are playing against a team with a bullet proof 3 goal grabber/lifter/dragger (GLD) robot. Suppose that this 3 goal GLD Robot is very fast at getting all 3 goals and that once this it gets a hold of all three goals it can lift them or whatever so that it gets enough traction and that it has a low enough gear that it can basically to go wherever it pleases despite the best efforts of the opposing alliance robots.

Of course, this means that the match will effectively be over once this GLD Robot gets the 3 goals.

What do you think about using a Kamikaze Robot in order to match up against such a GLD robot? By “Kamikaze Robot” I mean a robot that would scream across the field, meet the GLD robot on its way to the goals and harass or otherwise hinder the GLD robot and its match ending grabbers.

Before you answer realize that such matches are going to start to look A LOT like a cross between a medieval jousting tournament without the railing and a game of chicken with two very brave contestants: It might be exciting to watch, but A LOT of robot debris is likely to end up on the playing field.

My question is three fold:
[list=1][*]Is this a legal/moral/gracious strategy against an otherwise effective 3 goal GLD Robot?
[*]Faced with an otherwise unstoppable 3 goal GLD Robot, would you employ this strategy?
[*]How would you react if your alliance captain asked your team to be the Kamikaze Robot?
[/list=1]

Your thoughts and opinions are welcome.

Joe J.

Re: Kamikaze Robot Strategy...
 

If your intent was to damage this robot, I don't think it's in the spirit of the competition. Of course, as mine would be, if your intention is to impede their performance by interfering with their strategy, I think it's perfectly legitimate.

Of course, I'd consider this a legitimate strategy against any alliance, whether they have an unstoppable robot, or something that's still highly effective at one thing or another.

So, to answer your second question. . . Yes, I would employ this strategy. In fact, I suspect that we (810) will employ it a lot. Our strengths lie in our drivetrain, so we'd be wasting an opportunity if we didn't use that advantage. Or at least, I think. We will *not*, however, seek to cause damage to any other team's robot.

To my thinking, there are, effectively, two variables in this year's game. Those two are, of course, the other robots. If you can govern their behavior, you can win every match.

Thirdly, I'd say, "Bring it on!" :)

Where you draw the line between malicious intent and strategy, though, might be tough to figure out. If a team said damage to my robot was unintentional, I'd be inclined to believe them, and hope that the tenets of gracious professionalism prevail.

I think one way to stop a 3 goal bot is to push the center goal into him and just sit there. If you are fast enough you can get the goal into your scoring zone first.
He is only going to be able to latch onto one goal now (left or right). Your alliance partner can hopefully grab the other goal.
A 3 goal bot can only get the three goals if they are in a line. Scatter one or two and he is left helpless. I hope we don't get such bot on our alliance.

Wayne Doenges

Kamikaze Robot Strategy

When I first saw this year's task, I thought that it would be a somewhat boring tractor-pull event. The more I hear others' strategies, I realize, as usual, that I was way off the mark. I think that a DLG bot would NEVER be successful. He would have to drag two bots, kicking and screaming as well, without rotating(lest he moves one goal back into the middle zone). Also, I would wonder how long he would hold on to the goals when the other two bots are pushing together on the same side of one goal to rotate him. Do I smell smoke? Oh, is this gonna be a fun year.

We were so excited about it that we had to convince our school board to revisit their decision about traveling out of state ( as a result of 9-11). We lost our corporate funding and now are begging, borrowing and stealing to get to the nats.

Can't wait!!!

I would completely do it in a heartbeat. I mean why not, if you don't you just sit back and lose, why even compete if your going to do that? If you wouldn't you might as well stay home.

asher

or another option might be, if you see them going for three goals, fine, they have 30 points. move you're bots out of the home zone, everyone get's zero. or even move only one, or none at all. they're still going to lose out by hogging the goals. if they decide to share, and put goals in your scoring zone, then just play along. less work for you to do ;) go for your max score possible. no damage of robot's necessairy :)

A few things:
Not necessarily...keep your eyes out for MOEhawk (365)
Don't just think about the Qualifying matches. Keep in mind that in the elimination rounds, the qualifying point system (3x loser) is thrown out the window and the GLD would be the winner.

Kamikaze Robot Strategy

gniticxe: I don't doubt that there will be teams that can drag mountains across mountains...but...there are SOME teams that have Anchors/Brakes/Chocks (ABC's) which essentially make them immovable. What will those three goal weilding bots do when those ABC bots latch on to a goal inside the 0 point zone?

I expect to see this strategy alot this year we would do it in a heartbeat, we practiced to hit the goals at full speed why not another robot?

I think instead of driving between to goals to get to the robot, just knockingone out of alingment will screw them up. Saw that happen to 225 at the scrimmage. But we shall see.
Ahh the pleasure and newness of it all at the first regionals...

I think this strategy will be employed alot, and I expect it to meet much less resistance with the referees.

FIRST has stated that running straight at a robot across the field at full speed would be considered intent to damage, and I don't see how you could greet a GLD on the GLD's side of the field before they get to the goals if you're not running straight at them at full speed.

MOEhawk knows his ABCs too. In response to what our GLD would do with an ABC planted in front blocking it, the answer is move the goals - plain and simple. It is possible to move them and not the ABC in front.

All Steel
 

This is one of the reason why we made our robot all steel for this year. We knew it would be a smash and bash kinda year, as opposed ot last year, which was...just interesting. With an all steel frame and extending mechanisms, I would have no problem running the robot at full speed into a goal, and then into the opposing teams 3 goal grabber bot. Actually brings up interesting thoughts on how to counter it.

Re: Kamikaze Robot Strategy...
 

[quote]Originally posted by Joe Johnson


My question is three fold:
[list=1][*]Is this a legal/moral/gracious strategy against an otherwise effective 3 goal GLD Robot?
[*]Faced with an otherwise unstoppable 3 goal GLD Robot, would you employ this strategy?
[*]How would you react if your alliance captain asked your team to be the Kamikaze Robot?
[/list=1]



Joe,
1. Since this seems to be the only strategy, I definitely believe it is allowable. While it may not be the most gracious thing, hey... we came to play! This is still a robot COMPETITION, and I wouldn't just sit down and give up. The only strategy to defeat such a robot is to harass them before they can attach...

2. Yes I would definitely employ this strategy. The only other strategy I can think of involves attacking the 3 GLD (after it has attached) directly in the hopes of damaging it somehow, or flipping it over (remember T3 being dragged along the carpet upsidedown in Cleveland?)

3. As alliance captain I did ask you to do something similar, and I wouldn't hesitate to do it. We built these machines to compete, and I feel we should use them! I don't like it when I hear people tell me "don't drive it, you might break it!" These robots, in my mind, aren't meant to be kept behind glass cases. I'd hit the god-bot with everything I had

~JVN

Re: Re: Kamikaze Robot Strategy...
 

This strategy was employed? Against whom? Do you have a video? How well did it work? Details, man, give me details!

My opinion on the whole thing? I'd first try our standard grab-two-goals-push-score-deploy-mini-me strategy that has worked so well for us in the past. If that doesn't work, then we would shoot the gap, and spin that monster around by his arms. (I'm picturing 365 here, which is the only three goal grabber I've seen so far that worries me.)

Of course, that's just my opinion. The real decision would be made by the flight team. I think that our two goal grabber could get to the goals before 98% of the teams out there, so it's really moot. :)

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.

What match was this? The only real attempt on us at LI was 353 with that wedge (which I see as slightly going against FIRST's intent and more towards BattleBot's). At UTC, however, there were quite a few teams out for blood against us. I agree with you completely that this is part of the game, everyone expect it; why do you think we have such a robust frame and made sure we can right ourselves if we tip? In elimination rounds especially, roughhousing is a necessity some of the time. For instance, 69 used this close to perfectly against us in the finals of UTC, costing us the matches pretty much. I wouldn't recommend trying these things in qualifying rounds; in a high scoring match, there is no loser. Even when we lost to 157, we had 46 qualifying points, higher than many teams averaged! Just food for thought.