an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

well I was thinking after looking at our bot going up the ramp...

that msot high bots will be very "tipish" going up the ramp
so if we are scored EVEN but the 2 bots with me (or even 1) can't go up the ramp, maybe we will go to the opposing ramp and wait for them to try and go up it, and when the are angled and almost at the top, just give them a small "nudge" so they will have to go back or else tip (if ther are persistant..well...)

do you think this will get us a penalty?

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

No, but it will give them points for you being on the ramp. If 3 robots are on the Blue Team's ramp, it doesn't matter what team they are supposed to be on, it still counts +25 points to their final score.

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

It's also pretty much as anti-GP as you can get because I'm thinking that's gonna cause a good chunk of damage to their machine. Guess it all depends on where your team's priorities lie.

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

No offense, but your wrong

<G09> ROBOTs on ALLIANCE PLATFORMs - ROBOTs score points if they are entirely on an ALLIANCE
PLATFORM at the end of the match. ALLIANCEs receive points for ROBOTs belonging to either
ALLIANCE that are on the ALLIANCE PLATFORM closest to the ALLIANCE’s DRIVER station. If
any part of the ROBOT is touching the carpet, the ROBOT is not considered on the platform. If a
ROBOT is entirely on an ALLIANCE PLATFORM and is touching another ROBOT that is not entirely
on the ALLIANCE PLATFORM, it still is considered on the platform. One ROBOT on a platform or
ramp is worth 5 points, two ROBOTs are worth 10 points, 3 or more ROBOTs are worth 25 points.

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

In what part of that am I wrong? It says ROBOTs, which count as any of the 6 on the field, not SAME-COLORED ROBOTS, which would be the robots that are the same color as the platform.

Furthermore, this section proves my point completely:

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

If you re-read the rule, you will see that you are mistaken. No offense :D Just re-read the bold statement.

EDIT: Sorry to be redundant, was beaten to it.

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

Defense is not at all anti-GP.
Damaging and laughing about it is not GP, going to help them fix it afterwards is.

Wetzel

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

Um... you might want to re read it yourself, the rule clearly states that

"ALLIANCEs receive points for ROBOTs belonging to either
ALLIANCE that are on the ALLIANCE PLATFORM closest to the ALLIANCE’s DRIVER station"

Notice the either, it doesn't matter what alliance the team is, it matters how many robots are on their ramp.

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

That is exactly what he said. For king of the hill points, the only color that matters is the platform color.

Now that we have THAT settled.... :rolleyes:

Wetzel

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

yeah it would probably cause serious damage, and of course if any team causes another team damage during the match the least they could do is offer a helping hand

I just wonder if giving them that "nudge" that will tip them over would be considered ramming

and yeha I know it isn't very GP (allthough as wetzel said, it's defense), but as I said a DESEPRATE and EVIL strategy =)

and hey if im on they ramp and I knocked down 3 others I earned my share EVEN if I don't get off of it at the end of the match

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

I think there was confusion because I made a double post and instead of deleting it, I just edited it to say so.

I was agreeing with Adam, and my post was in response to Taylor. I understand that the only thing that matters at the end of the match, is how many robots are on the ramp, alliance affiliation makes no difference.

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

I can't remember where or when, but I was a ref in a match where the following occurred. REDABOT was hit legally by BLUEABOT. REDABOT was teetering, and BLUEABOT backed up, drove forward again slowly, then gave REDABOT a "nudge" with caused them to tip over. BLUEABOT was DQ'ed.

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

Pushing a robot to keep it off the platform is legitimate defense. Intentionally tipping a robot to keep it off the ramp is a penalty. It will be up to the ref to judge your intent.

My advise - don't purposely tip anyone over.

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

Yeah. There's that whole "Strategies aimed solely at the at the destruction or tipping of other robots" clause in the rules. I think you're skirting a very fine edge there. It's one thing to be on the ramp blocking them. It's another to be actively moving forward to tip them over. You may or may not be penalized, but I'd certainly be uncomfortablewith the strategy. And since you can't defend the entire ramp, they're likely to get atleast one robot up, plus yours, so they'd get 10 points for two bots. Or they'd keep you stuck up there and get 5 points for one bot.

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

Any team planning to use this "slight nudge" strategy as a defensive mechanism has already decided to put the referee into a judgement call decision. You might as well start writing your complaints now, cause some of these judgements will go against you.

Robots don't stop on a dime. I don't care if you don't have your hands on the joystick at the moment of impact. If the forward momentum of your robot is the last bit of energy needed for that robot to tip over, you should be penalized, regardless of how slight the impact is, or how "tipsy" the other robot is. You have chosen a strategy that splits hairs over a rule concerning the intentional tipping of robots. As Beth has stated above, many would find this strategy to be Anti-GP.

Maybe next years KOP should have air-bag sensors, so we can measure just how much force was applied to a robot that tipped over. :rolleyes: If the air-bag goes off, you get DQ'd -- guess what, it no longer becomes a judgement call!

There are so many other potential strategies that are defensive in nature and aren't Anti-GP, that I don't see the purpose for this particular one. Why is the strategy to wait on their platform? A high CG robot is logically going to be shooting for the high goal at the end of the match. You will have at least a half field-length to block and hinder their approach to the ramp. Why would you waste your time sitting on their ramp for a potentially disasterous strategy? No, there are way too many other strategies that can be employed at the end game, than to take a chance on something as risky as this.

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

Ok,
So if I'm the blue alliance, and there is one or more of the three "redabots" on top of MY platform (the one closest to my blue driver stations), then my blue alliance gets points even if my own three bluebots don't get onto the platform; correct?

Therefore, It make sense to defend (but not pin) any redabots on the blue platform at the end of the match.

Just because I can't climb and be king of my own (blue) hill doesn't mean that I'm about to let any redabot "stragglers" from getting down off of my hill; correct? Just don't pin them up onto your platform. You can "touch" the redabot on the blue platform and that redabot still counts for the blue alliance.


I guess it begs the question of why any alliance would want to park any of their bots on top of YOUR platform?

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

Why not pin? It's allowed on the platform.

Don't even have to be touching. Redabot could have gone up there under it's own power and then stalled - still counts for the blue alliance.

Maybe because then you're only about 2 feet from the center goal?

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

Good catch by Gary,

so it is indeed legal to "pin" and contain any robot while it is on the platform. It's only illegal ti "pin" while both robots are on the carpeted field (per <G24>)

So, if your the blue alliance and any one of the redabots is on YOUR platform (the one closest to your blue driving station) then it coulds as 5 points for YOUR blue alliance as long as you can hold them up on the platform.

Hmmmm, I think that their ability of charging DOWN the ramp is stronger than your bluebot ability to keep them up on the platform.....

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

Normally I would say the uphill advantage would just about finish any robot trying to pin you on the alliance platform. But remember the top of the platform is made out of plastic (polyethylene?) while the pinning robot would be on carpet. I think it comes down to drive train more than anything, since they are both equally likely to be on the diamond plate.

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

actually, I can allready imagine the top bot just flipping over because he runs into the buttom bot...especially if they ram into eachother

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

You are allowed to pin on the floor any time you choose. However, if you pin for more than ten seconds, a ref will tell you to back off. If you don't, it's one flag for every ten seconds until you back off three feet. If you back off three feet, then repin the other robot, the count starts over. (<G24> again)

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

are you sure it's not 5sec? I would check the PDF's but my pc is going a bit slow

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

I don't care how desperate you are, never tip another robot intentionally. Never.

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

I never said I WOULD use it, it's just a brainstorm I had and decided to share with you guys

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

lol, i got pwned! see what happens when you skim the rules? I mistook "either" for "their"

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

I suppose that I should add that the refs do track things that skim close to the rules involving ramming and tipping. If a team gets close, they get warned and a note made of that warning. If they do it again, they are under closer watch and are more likely to get themselves hit with a penalty.

Wetzel

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

I'm sure. I was looking at Section 4 when I made the post.

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

that's interesting, but backing off 3ft? how am I supposed to know how much is that?

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

91.4 cm :rolleyes:

Really, robots are a max of 38 inches (unexpanded) right? So just back off one robot length.

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

lol =) I know it's 91.4cm, I just mean is it gonna be that percise or are the judges
gonna call it as 'backing up enough for the other robot to have a chance at getting away)

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

Yeah, strategies targeted at tipping will likely get you DQ'ed. We were upset with several teams last year who kept intentionally ramming us in order to tip us (the way our arm was designed made it easy when it was extended) and managed to tip us out of one whole match.
I've been a bit bothered by some of the "defensive" ideas I've been hearing from teams this year. Mainly because it seems there are still quite a few teams out there who consider *potentially* damaging an opposing robot ok for defense.
I've heard talk of other teams setting up their drive system to spin at a high speed (aka Spinbot) to sit in front of the corner goals and spin rapidly such that noone will try to move them for risk of getting damaged.
Please guys, just treat the other alliance bots as if they were you just trying to win for the other alliance. Would you want to whack yourself spinning at a high speed?
You can still be a nusance just by "being in the way". But I'm pretty sure that if a ref saw you give a nudge before a bot tipped, there'd at least be a penalty on the way, if not a DQ.
My $.02 :]

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

actually I agreed with what you said but a spinbot?
what's wrong with it? if you can't design a bot that will be strong enoguh to push others, why not make one that others wont want to push?
it would be the same as putting the bot vertically with the corner goal and going forder then reverse then forward again...repeating it
it isn't aimed at tipping others, it's aimed at keeping others away from you, unlike my idea which is AIMED at tipping others (which is why we won't use it)

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

The refs will be watching it from the sideline. If they don't feel it is enough they won't stop the count. So yes, "'backing up enough for the other robot to have a chance at getting away" is the answer.

On a nitpicking side note, the judges decide who wins the awards and wear the purple shirts, the referees officiate and wear the zebra shirts.

Wetzel

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

IMHO ... Many people are talking about tipping or certain defensive strategies being "anti-GP". Gracious Professionalism has NOTHING to do with competing on the field, and everything to do with how we act off the field. During a competition you play to win ... WITHIN THE RULES. That is why there are competition rules, and referees to interpret and enforce them.

Most of the time it is extremely difficult to judge "intent" and/or "Strategies aimed solely at ... ". As an experienced FIRST referee I would say "let them play" unless there is a specific rules violation, or unless I feel there was CLEARLY and UNMISTAKABLY an intent to do harm. I can envision multiple scenarios in this game where struggles for control of the ramp/platform will lead to robots tipping. I believe it is inevitable due to the nature of this game and design of the field elements.

Design and build your robots accordingly; robust, with strong drive-trains, low center of gravity, bumpers (as encouraged by the rules this year), and self-righting mechanisms if you feel the need.

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

:mad:

Im sorry but I must contend that GP is all about making a game fun and yet it still be competitive. Your actions on the field are a direct reflection of how you act off the field. Saying that your actions are completely different on and off the field tells me that 1) your either putting on a show for the judges or 2) your bi-polar.

The intent of the game is to prevent the scoring of points not to destroy robots and tipping a robot with motors spinning at 4000 rpm on a shooter with bets a gears whining at top speeds is a danger to all people not just the robot! Yes guards should be in place but those are 100% reliable. There is always that chance that something could go wrong. I agree that robot will fall over this year attempting to go up the ramp but I truly hope that it is not done by another robot.

And on a personal note, It is refs like you that cause me so much pain to see my robot get bashed up during a match by multiple rammings from another robot. By your logic any robot with bumpers will be able to take a hit. But that doesn't mean there won’t be side effects.

Last year we won Buckeye because our opponent had the same exact strategy that you have. Even there alliance members didn't like what they did. It is a sad day when FIRST turns out to be another Battle Bots competition.

Thats My 5 cents because 2 cents is worthless in this case.

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

Sorry Bill, but I have to disagree ...

In this year's game it is legal to push, shove, bump, and even "low speed" ram another robot. In fact, based on the new bumper rules this type of defensive strategy seems to be almost encouraged. There will definitely be some struggles for control of the platform/ramp, and there will definitely be some robots tipping over as a result. It is not illegal for a bot to defend its position, or to keep, or move, another robot off of the ramp. You can't expect a team to just allow their opponents to do whatever they want ... that is called defense ... and REQUIRED by each alliance for at least 40 seconds of each match.

Just because a robot tips as a result of the ramp battle it does not mean the other alliance should be penalized. As I stated in my post above (and this IS only my opinion - open to modification ONLY by my head referees interpretation of the rules) I would not be inclined to penalize a team unless there was clear and unmistakable intent to do harm.

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

So if in field actions can be non-GP, why not strap a buzzsaw onto your robot and just finish off the other alliance quickly?
GP is and always has been a large part of your interactions on the field.
Yes, I expect alot of defensive plays, and that's 100% OK, but be considerate of the other bots. Just as the Rules state, Strategies aimed at the destruction of other robots is not permitted. If you have a defensive strategy and you think it could potentially damage an opposing robot, its not a good idea.
Also, I think you were misinterpreting my desription of the spinbot. The ideas I've been hearing from teams is a robot that spins very fast in-place (like a spinbot in battlebots) such that if you were to try and move them, your robot would become damaged. This violates GP, and also goes to show that GP should play a role in a teams strategy on the field. Spinning in place is not a design strategy, or an off field interaction, it takes place on the field, and would violate the concept of GP.
Do unto other bots as you would have them do to you...

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

Are you saying that a team should not be allowed to utilize a strategy that is specifically allowed in the rules?

I am paraphrasing here ... but I have heard Woody Flowers, when describing what Gracious Professionalism is, say something like "We compete like crazy on the field, then treat each other with respect, and cooperate off the field."

One of the greatest things about our society, and this community, is that differring opinions are welcome and encouraged. Many of us will continue to disagree on this topic of "how we play the game".

I feel It is vitally important, if FIRST is to survive and grow, that the games remain exciting to watch and compete in. I am very passionate about FIRST, and I DO NOT want to see FIRST become another Battlebots. However some amount of vigorous interaction between robots keeps the games more exciting. Playing to win WITHIN THE RULES (PLEASE note the emphasis) should be encouraged. The referee's job is to enforce the rules, as guided by the interpretation of our head referee.

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

To use Stu's words, a buzzsaw shows unmistakable intent to do harm.

You said it yourself, the rule prohibits "strategies aimed at the destruction of other robots," not "strategies that could potentially damage" other robots.

The difference is clear.

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

Because that is against the rules... Sorry ... but I just can't agree ...
Just because a defensive strategy "could potentially damage another robot" does NOT mean that strategy is "aimed slolely at the destruction ..." of other robots. MOST defensive strategies will have the "potential" to damage another bot.
I'm not sure if this was directed at me, but I have not commented on the "spin-bot" concept. However I would say there is nothing wrong with that strategy. Think about the fact that while on defense you only have two robots defending against three offensive robots. If you want to sit in front of a corner goal and spin then you are leaving your partner defensive robot to defend the other two scoring options without your help. I would just stay away - go to the other corner goal to score - to avoid potential damage to my offensive robot. Of course, it would be another story entirely if you pursued another bot while spinning ... I would view that as intent to cause harm, and thus worthy of a DQ.

Again I will say, I believe we should always "play to win", WITHIN THE RULES while on the field. If our team happened to damage another robot during a match I would be the first one to offer my services to help with repairs. That's competition AND GP. And if our actions drew a penalty in the view of the referees, then so be it ... That's also part of the game.

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

My point is that yes, it is true that the rules do not prohibit strategies that may potentially damage a robot. But, my point is that it is at that point, that decision is where GP does become a part of the interactions on the field. You either choose to follow it or not. If you follow it, you find a safer alternative. If not, you bash the opposing bot in an attempt to accomplish your goal.

I'm talking more about things I saw last year, and in years previous. Cameras torn off and beaten, arms torn up, Teams pushing over other teams, forceful ramming, etc.

I don't have a problem with you bumping around our bot, pinning us, pushing us off the ramp, ramming us in auto mode, etc. I have a problem with you slamming it high speed when you could've just pushed us.

The difference lies between remembering GP or thinking only of your priorities.

Remember too guys, FIRST isn't just all about the competition (although its a great part ;) )

My $.02

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

AND "slamming it high speed when you could've just pushed us" IS against the rules ...

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

Stu, I understand your interpretation of the rules, but you are correct, we have a disagreement here. If a robot "sits" on their opponents platform and waits for the "tipsy" opponent to fully cross the field before it interacts with it, I consider that "intent". The offending robot has knowingly selected a strategy at which the tipsy robot is most vulnerable to tip over. If this isn't the "sole" intent of the strategy, why wait on the platform?

If, however, a robot is on the field and continually harrassing the tipsy bot, as the tipsy bot tries to return to its' platform, the intent is to stop the "tipsy" bot, not to select a point at which it is most vulnerable to tipping. Provided that all other contact is within the rules, I would not consider this strategy as "solely aimed at the destruction, damage, tipping over, or entanglement of ROBOTs".

The fact that the rule allows interaction between robots, and that tipping over may occur during this interaction, doesn't preclude the fact that strategies solely designed to cause tipping aren't still illegal. I fully expect a number of bots to tip during legal battles for mounting the ramp, but for a bot to solely sit and sandbag on the ramp with the intent to tip an opponent as it mounts, I still view as a violation.

As I said previously, this is a strategy of "splitting hairs" over a rule, and they are forcing the referees into a judgement call. Look at the vehement posts from previous years concerning "judgement calls". There are times when the FIRST community doesn't always sound like the FIRST community.

Maybe Carnack should predict that this will be the first major "ticked-off" post of the robot season, once Regionals begin. :rolleyes:

For everyone's reference, here is <G22>:

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

I am not saying that pushing is not a valid strategy, but in the context of this thread the situation, to my beliefs, is not within the spirit of GP. Causing a robot to tip purposely or accidentally is one of the worst things that can happen. Often times WITHIN THE RULES is not within the rules enough. There has always been way too much ramming (I consider ramming any contact at > 1m/s) and it is never within the rules. Robots with defensive capabilities need to be careful as not to harm other robots, that is my main point, because it happens way to often. And just because the action is not “aimed solely at the destruction” of a robot (nothing is, there is always another reason) doesn’t mean that its ok.

What Woody Flowers was saying (if that’s what he said, not saying your lying just that if its word for word) to compete like crazy not act like crazy. I also cannot hold respect for a team that either wishes to harm other robots or come close to harming robots by having a strategy that has the possibility of harming a robot.

Also, I believe that this year the game is very exciting. There will quite a few balls thrown out of the field and into the crowd as well as a lot of action with scoring. The finals are always the most exciting and that’s because of all the scoring going on. Just look at nationals last year. People were cheering when 7-8 tetras where on a goal. That’s because scoring is the excitement of winning.

I am sorry for my last post but ramming/tipping is a very touchy subject with me. And I agree with Sachiel7 about how much destruction there was last year, Way too much. Even if it was called as a penalty, it shouldn’t have ever happened.

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

I would agree with you Beth but from his description (and it wasn't exactly clear) I don't think there would be significant damage. Just a nudge? Maybe I'm reading something wrong.

However, if there were significant damage I would defnitely agree with you that this would be unGP (a rules violation? I don't think so but maybe).

Paul Dennis

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

Unfortunately, the arguement about ramming vs pinning vs blocking has been around and discussed year after year. It has been acknowledged and documented by FIRST that robot interaction is a "given".
They warn about robust interaction - then provide clear definition as to "how long a time period is acceptable without penalty" and "how far off the robot has to move away".
Unfortunately, that is about where it ends because intent is not as easily defined and even harder to prove. Granted the more obvious (distance driven before slamming and resultant damage) is easier to rule against (but after the fact) - too bad for the ref's.
GP, to some folks define where the line is that exceeds acceptable driving behavior, and to others "the rules" define that line.
I understand that the dynamics of the game will cause robots to interact with each other - my problem is when the ultimate goal of the interaction is to wreck a robot. I also understand that accidents happen in the heat of battle, I just wish that destruction caused "on purpose" is minimized and the refs focus on making sure it is minimized.

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

I believe the central issue surrounding this entire debate is - how do you determine "intent"? For any action on the field that is clearly covered by the written rules it is obvious those rules should apply. Unfortunately it would be impossible for the GDC and rules committee to foresee every circumstance of this (or any) game, and even if they could there would still be some issues subject to interpretation. I am not, nor do I know of anyone who is, capable of reading another's mind, so in those cases we can only make our best judgment based on what we observe (in current AND prior matches). It is unfortunate that some judgment calls (that IMO should reflect the Head Ref's interpretation of the rules) will always have to be made. AND the GP thing to do is to go along with the call and NOT whine and complain that it was unfair (Believe me, all of us referees are doing the best job we can).

Bill, let me address your scenario, first from an engineering perspective. If a team is utilizing a strategy that includes ascending the ramp and their robot is "tipsy" then IMHO their robot has a design flaw.

Now, to address the strategy - If my team's strategy includes defending our position on the platform/ramp AND trying to keep other robots off then I think we have a valid reason for waiting on the platform then defending our position when challenged. I do not believe that I can envision every strategy that a team could pursue in this game, but I DO know of at least one (and I suspect there are more) that would require a robot to remain on the opponents platform and keep other bots from ascending. (Our team DOES have such a strategy in our arsenal, but I am not at liberty to divulge the details). Don't forget that the opponents platform is also a great place to park and lob balls into the 3-point goal.

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

Stu, you are missing the original post. It addresses sitting on the ramp and waiting only for the "tipsy" robot to ascend. If you are blocking/challenging all robots trying to ascend, I will give you "no intent". However, this strategy specifically addresses waiting for the "tipsy" robot. If it is your strategy to only push against the "tipsy" one, I believe intent has been shown. You are selecting the robot "most likely" to tip over in your defensive actions.

If you are merely sitting still, and the "tipsy" robot drives into you and tips itself -- no call.

You can't be saying that because a robot has a "design flaw" it is fair game to tip over? What other design flaws can allow us to ignore the rules? These could be strategy points!

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

I did not interpret the original post to mean targeting a specific balance-challenged robot. In that case I would agree with you.
No, I certainly did not mean to imply that a design flaw makes a robot "fair game". However if a robot is attempting to climb the ramp and the design of that robot causes it to be precariously positioned while doing so, that should not prohibit me from defending my position, or trying to keep that bot off the platform/ramp. If the only way to keep them off the ramp is to push then I should be able to push and not be penalized. Now if a referee makes a judgment call that I intentionally tipped the other bot, then we will accept that and go on. While I can't control the actions of our drivers I can say that I would not approve or endorse any actions by my team that would intentionally damage another robot or knowingly break any rules.

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

I did not mean to imply this Stu, and I apologize if I did. I anticipate we will also consider the blocking of the opponents in our strategy discussions.

Good debate!

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

There have been a lot of posts about fights on these forums lately. Really it comes down to people not being able to express their thoughts in a logical and consice manner. Congrats to the two of you on your well-thought-out and typed arguements. This debate should serve as a lesson for all of us.

Now, I just have to keep our robot away from Stu's at the top of the ramp. :ahh:

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

I did not take your comments that way. I just thought I should clarify for others who might have felt that I was pushing my position a bit too hard.
Thanks, I Agree!

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

dont let the fact that intentionally tipping a robot is against the rules lead you to think your robot does not have to worry about tipping over.

Tipping is prohibited because it effectively takes a team out of the game (unless your bot is self-righting).

With the goal blocking and king of the hill aspects of this game there will be pushing and shoving. You must expect your robot will get pushed over sooner or later and ENGINEER your machine accordingly.

Being on the top of your opponents ramp at the end seconds of the game is a valid strategy. In battles the high ground is alway an advantage, gravity is on your side.

Bottom line is, if your bot cannot take the push and shove, if it will be damaged if it tips over, then you can do nothing but evasive maneuvers for the whole match.

Its up to each driver to decide if they want to mix it up on the field, or to retreat to a neutral corner.

Remember this IS an engineering design contest. Strength, speed, power, stability, robustness are all desirable qualities for your robot to have. Design it accordingly and you will have the best engineered machine.

Isnt that what the game is all about?

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

Ah... I remember 2003 when tipping was not so heavily penalized. My team's robot had parked sideways on the top of the ramp, and a certain team (will not mention their name, they are good friends actually :P) lowered their manipulator like a battering ram and slammed into us at full speed, not only knocking us off the ramp, but tipping us, AND get this, snapping two of our skyway wheels because they got caught in the mesh of the ramp as our bot tipped over. Good thing we had spares.

As for how I felt, I was only ticked off because the wheels snapped and we lost the round. I personally do not think that team did anything that was not graciously professional. Sure our robot got messed up, but they won the round by knocking us off.

I think that if a robot is already on top of the ramp, and another robot gets up on the ramp and pushed the first robot off, and tips them over in the process, it may deserve a penalty but it is not anti-GP. It is strategy.

And to the original point, a robot that tips a robot as it is trying to get onto the ramp should be dq'd. If you want to prevent them from getting up on the ramp, just park your robot. If they tip themselves on your robot without yours moving at all, too bad for them.

It is all just how you apply your robots power. If it is to remove a robot from the ramp, push them hard. If it is to keep a robot off, you dont need power for that, so there is no excuse if you tip them over.

I guess the end point is, tipping is sometimes an evil thing to do, but it is also just sometimes happens. And I have seen teams that have had their robot tipped be more anti-GP then the team that tipped them, simply by, Im serious, screaming profanity at them. So remember, treat other robots as you would like them to treat your robot. It keeps everyone happy, and prevents screamed profanities.

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

I expect that there will be quite a few robots unintentionally tipped over during the pushing/defensive maneuvers on the field, and I hope there will be no intentional tipping. Yes, teams, if you are underweight, load it all as low as possible on your robot to bring your CG down; it may help keep you upright on the field.

It was good to hear a referees viewpoint from Stu, as to how he would interpret the rule and make the call. He brought some different viewpoints than I would have considered previously.

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

I feel that if people choose a strategy that will damage another robot, and they actually damage it, it's up to the judges to determine the violations. If we can't leave these judgment calls to the judges, what good are they?

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

I dont understand your reasoning. If you are on the ramp, you are preventing your opponent from scoring. Why would you get in that defensive position, and then just sit there, applying no power to your drive train?

To see what happens? The other robot is coming - they are coming to push you out of THEIR way. If you dont put up a fight and push back, prevent them from getting on the ramp, then why did you bother to go up there in the first place?!

FIRST has defined legal contact zones on the robots. You can play offense and defense as long as your contact stays within that area. If your robot puts an arm out, and tries to clothes-line another robot that is against the rules.

The originator of this thread noticed that a bot trying to crest the ramp would be vunerable. If you get to the top of the ramp first you have an advantage. That is an excellent strategy! Thats what strategy is - finding your opponents weaknesses and exploiting them. As long as you stay within the rules I see no reason why any team should be DQ'd

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

Actually, Ken, they'll be more than happy for you to just sit there. If you attempt to get off, they will try to hold you on. Why? It doesn't matter what color the robot on top is. It still counts for the alliance whose color the ramp is. So if a tippy bot saw an opponent on their ramp, and they were smart, they'd just prevent you from leaving. They get 5 points (or 15) from just holding you on. So you are not keeping them from scoring, you are scoring for them. Why should they try to get you off?

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

well yeah, they would know you are just visiting, and that you plan to leave before the buzzer

which means, if this is your strategy, you have to not only keep your opponent off the ramp, but you have to push them far enough away from the ramp that they cant get back in time

so reasonably, having one robot push another one all the way across the field is something you should expect to see!

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

The debate about the rules and gracious professionalism over field contact has gone on year after year. While we could argue endlessly about what the rules mean exactly I wish to approach the problem slightly differently. The rules have not radically changed over the years, in fact the one major addition this year is that of bumpers.

What we do have is empirical data(thats cold hard facts that can't be argued with) about how the refs have policed the games in the past. From my experience driving and just being around FIRST for many years is that the refs are not quick to punish people for rough play. Ramming, pushing and the rest of the ilk are both extremely common and often go unpunished even in situations where it would seem obvious to the driver of the robot that got tipped or damaged that something went against the rules. In general refs have been quicker to punish teams who roughhouse teams that are much weaker then them. I have never seen a team DQ'd for simple flat surface to flat surface pushing. I have also, I believe, never seen a robot punished for high speed ramming as long as the opposing robot didn't fall over. They have on occasion been warned but never actually punished.

As for the cases of tipping robots. I would say that only 1 out 10 times a robot is tipped does the opposing team get punished. The last major tipping game(2003 with the ramp) robots were very, very rarely punished for tipping other robots. I know my team won a quarter final that I was sure we'd lose, in the relatively shady manner of pushing in rather aggressive ways and tipping the awesome MOE that year. I wasn't driving and I'll be honest I was excited at the time, but looking back I don't think it should have been allowed. We probably should have been DQ'd for tipping them in the way we did. But the moral of the story is that we weren't, and most other teams won't be either. Robots going up the ramp will need to be very careful not to be caught in a tip-able position. Robots that are top heavy need to be on the look out, there aren't arms this year to hit high with but you should still be careful. Lastly it will get rougher in the finals, much rougher and the refs will be much more relaxed about contact. In the finals teams will almost never be DQ'd for rough contact. Most of the bots are built very well and can take a punishment so it doesn't seem like an issue. That means your robot should be built well and be able to take a punishment to compete in the finals.

My last addition to this is that the bumper rule is an addition that will make high speed rams and pushing even more okay. They'll reduce the effect of contact which will probably cause an increase in rough contact(but probably not in the total damage/effect of the contact.) Think of it in the way that bicycle riders wearing helmets only have marginally fewer injuries. Its because they think they're safer and thus ride in a more dangerous manner. Bumper users will probably ram more often and get away with it more often. Its just the way past experience has shown it to be.

So in conclusion. Ramming and pushing will be up this year, robots will be tipped and people won't always be DQ'd for it. Its the way it has been and its likely the way it will be. Rules or not history has a bad habit of repeating itself.

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

Don't remember this. We weren't as big a target in 2003 as 2002. We made the mistake in 2002 of "awarding" teams the parts of our robot which they broke legitimately during competition as "trophies". Unfortunately, this encouraged teams to completely ignore the game and take aim at breaking our robot. Obviously our policy about awarding such trophies changed quickly.

I would have to disagree from last years experience. In Pittsburgh, our alliance was disqualified for tipping a robot over in the finals, which we lost. Then a few weeks later in Philadelphia, the same disqualification went to our opponents for tipping one of our alliance bots during the finals. The refs remain consistent with their calls, whether it is qualifications or playoffs.

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

Two years back at the Pittsburgh regional our team was in the second game of the final match.

An opponent robot came all the way across the field at full speed just after auton mode ended and hit one side of our robot, breaking off all the wheels on that side.

our robot turned 180 degrees, the driver not fully realizing half his wheels were gone. The opponent backed up and rammed us again, breaking all the wheels off the other side.

I thought for sure they would be DQ'd. Instead when the buzzer sounded they started playing "we are the champions". They won. We came in second.

So Im inclined to say that in the final matches things will get rough, and DQs will be few and far between!

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

Our robot can not go up the ramp without tipping. Since our robot wants to tip we were thinking about tipping ourselves on purpose to block a portion of the ramp. We were hoping you guys could give your opinions and insight on whether or not it would be legal or not.

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

kinda like lying in the street to save a parking spot?

I dont see any reason why that would be against the rules, but two things to consider:

1. can you block the whole ramp that way? not much point if the other bots can just go around you

B. Are you willing to be pushed or dragged out of the way by other robots? can your bot handle that kind of abuse? I would think if you are blocking the ramp then you are fair game to be shoved out of the way, bumper zone or not. Once you fall over you do not have any bumpers in the bumper zone, but your opponets will still have theirs. As long as they push you with their bumpers, they can push against any part of your robot they come in contact with.

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

or shoved up onto the ramp to score points for the other team.

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

I hope you have one eager pit crew, cause with this strategy, they will have plenty of work to do!

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

yeah and when you goto expo matches at elementary schools you'll have all these 7 year old kids coming up to you and going "can I make the robot tip over?!!!!"

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

This is legal. I would say thanks if we where playing you. We would push you right up the ramp for the points. This is going to be one of the great way of scoring this year. use the other team robots as points.

You would just save us time. :)

I would say 35% of the robots will fall over by themselves. 40% of the robots will be pushed over. and the other 25% will be doing the pushing :ahh:

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

I wouldn't be so quick to push a tipped robot up the ramp, especially if it were an opponent. It is one thing to move them out of the way so you can ascend, but if you break their robot while trying to push them up, I suspect you would be penalized.

This action will be taking place directly in front of your player station, so your driver will have a very clear view of whether the opposing robot is being damaged or not.

For those folks who have a "tipsy" robot, there are mechanisms/strategies that you can employ to ascend the ramp without tipping. Brainstorm some of these amongst your team, and then share them with your alliance partners at the competitions. (Think 2001.)

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

See this year FIRST has put a value on the opponents robot. So if there is a robot on the ground there is no rule saying you can not push them up the ramp as long as you push them within the push zone.

So for all the robots that think they are going to flip over you better have a strong top.

I have seen 2 years ago a lot of robots on its back but once on the back you would stay away from them. But this year you would want to try to push robots up onto the ramp.

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

I read <G17> as making this illegal. That said, there does not seem to be any penalty for doing so, other than a prohibition against scoring.
Wetzel

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

<G17> says "and operate" - the person posting the question knows they will be out of commission once they fall over.

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

They seem to think that they will operate fairly well as a roadblock.

Wetzel

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

Yes, the opponents robot may be worth points to your team, but you still must abide by Rule G22 as well, especially these two sections:

A robot on its' side will have a very small "bumper zone". Pushing outside that zone will not be incidental contact.

Again, I encourage teams to consider how a "tipsy" bot may climb the ramp without tipping. Even if you don't have a tipping problem, one of your alliance partners might.

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

I dont agree. If a robot tips over that does not mean they are now untouchable. The contact zone applies to YOUR robot. You are not allowed to push other robots with any part of YOUR robot outside your bumper zone. For example you cannot extend an arm and push another robot at the top of its frame.

If a robot has no bumpers in its bumper zone, or if their bumpers fall off, or if they tip over, the legal bumper zone is still as defined by the rules, the specified distance above the floor.

If you deliberately allow your robot to tip over you are at your opponents mercy. If that is your strategy you better put bumpers covering your entire robot!

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

it will be very hard to tell if a robot intentionally tip over. Like I said before if a robot is on it side that robot better be able to protect itself. If our bumper are right we have about a 5" zone to push robots. it will not matter how your robot is on the ground up or down we have the right to push it. If your robot breaks well that is because you did not think about the impact it will have once on it sided.

Once again This year your robot is worth points. So some robots will use those points. If that means you having to repair your robot every time it falls over make sure it doesn't

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

Has anyone suggested just playing defense at the base of their ramp to stop them from heading up it all together? Wouldn't that just rule out everything you guys are discussing? Then there wouldn't be any question of GP by "accidentally" tipping them.

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

If you try to defened infront of the ramp you might just get pushed up the ramp :yikes:

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

about intentionally tipping over, you should note that there is no penalty in the rules against this, it isn't allowed to do it intentionally, but on the other hand, no penalties
my guess is that the rule is made so bots don't have wheels along their side, and tip over at start of match to gain a bigger bot ratio, without needing to open up with complex structures...

IMO, if a robot tips itself over just so it will be harder to move, that wouldn't be reason for DQing, I mean if you want to make your bot into a lump on the playing field, be my guest =)...
however if you do any other action OTHER then being that lump, THEN you will be DQed, since you are not allowed to perform any action whilsts in that position (even if when "tipped-over" your bot can drive around and collect balls)

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

Nimmy is right, the only stated 'penalty' in the rules for tipping yourself over is you 'cannot score any balls in any goals from this orientation''.

it doesnt say your team will be DQ'd or your bot disabled.

In fact, you could design a bot that could right itself - as long as you dont score any balls while your bot it doing nappy-time you should be ok.

This is a good example of out-of-the-box thinking by nfshuskey86's team.

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

This thread has changed from its' beginning as folks don't read through all the posts. It began as a robot waiting on top the ramp and tipping robots over as they tried to get up.

About three pages back, the point was raised that it seems to be better strategy to go out and harass a robot trying to get back the full length of the field rather than let it completely cross the field untouched, and then attempting to stop it. With the shooting motors drawing power from the batteries, some robots are going to find it difficult to climb the ramp on their own power. Anything you can do to challenge and slow them down as they cross will just make this a greater possibility.

Remember the teeter-totter bridge in 2001? There were robots who were unable to mount and cross it. In 2003, there were robots who were unable to get up and be king of the hill at the end of a match. We will see similar attempts this year as teams will overtax their systems and not have the power left to get up the ramp at the end of a match. Why wait at their ramp? Think of how much more energy they will expend pushing two robots (themselves and a blocker) the full length of the field, compared to just pushing two robots in front of the ramp.

Folks who are affiliated with schools, you have possibly three on-staff tacticians who can help you strategize about this years game. The basketball coach, the football coach and the soccer coach. There are elements of all three of these games inside this years challenge. You additionally have a bunch of geeks who sit around and continually discuss strategy to defeat an opponent -- the Chess Club. These are folks who strategize constantly. Use your resources! Just because we can build a great robot doesn't automatically mean that we are all great strategizers.

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

Read sun-tzu, I know it opened my mind about strategy, and I don't mean complex things, just really simple stuff that you simply never thought about =)
play chess a lot, or any of these complex board games, read strategy books, books written by famous generals\ancient leaders, really opens your mind strategy-wise...
but that's just be being a fanatic on these things =),

why I think that trying to make a bot "tired" isn't the right thing is because if you don't "hold the fort" up the ramp, there are 2 other bots that WILL go up since you are only obstructing one of 3, if you are at the buttom of the ramp 2 bots can move you out of the way, and the 3rd can go up (and probably one of the 2 also)

HOWEVER, if you are untop of the ramp, you can block all 3 by simply going forward-reverse on the width of the ramp, noone will dare try to go up, and if they try, well =)
*insert really EVIL looking face here*

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

True, but not quite. If you are on top of their ramp, all they have to do is form a line across the bottom. You can't get past it, they get 5 points. Plus, all you need to be considered "on" the ramp is to not be touching the carpet, so if they get completely onto the diamond plate and stop, they get even more points. Plus, if someone is smart, they can double-team you and get two up, and then you are stuck because you will find it hard to turn between two bots to escape. (Double-teaming has defeated a similar strategy before, even when there were only 4 robots on the field.) Or, they will block you and shoot over your robot; 5 feet isn't enough to block most shooters, so they get many, many points as you frantically attempt to interfere with two ways of scoring at once...not good.

Re: an evil, desperate, ramp strategy
 

hmmm well i personally am in favor of defence. but dont go knocking people over. thats bad karma and bad taste, just get in their way of going up the ramp in the first place.

i had to tell my team, the ramp is great but stoping the other guys is better. considure this situation: your team has 3 bots on your ramp, theirs has 3 bots on theirs. what happens? they cancel each other out! dont get me wrong, you will get a nice load of points, but you wont go ahead. instead, go ahead and push them ONTO your ramp, or just stop them from going onto theirs.

we built our frame with a 6.5 inch clearence to make it up the ramp, with 4 all wheel cim-dewalt transmission drive, so we SHOULD be able to make it up, only we could do a freaking backflip... so i might be doing defence myself.