Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

Rack n' Roll is not a defensive game. It BECAME a defensive game due to the robots that were built.

Triple play is not a offense game. It BECAME an offense game due to the robots that were built.

Defense robots that are powerful as defense worked better in Triple play than in Rack 'n Roll and the Offensive robots from Triple play would do just as good in Rack n' Roll. The game takes on an entirely different type depending on the full range of robots built.

Rack n' Roll is defensive because of the number of ramp-only robots and robots that would be of better use to block than to score.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

RacknRoll seems to be designed so that either scoring ringers, or defending the rack and scoring bonus points, are valid strategies. I can't help but think that defense was a big part of the plan from the beginning. Robots were built to play the game according to the rules, and the rules do favor strong defense.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

What makes a game purely defensive ro purely offensive? There are two sides to a game. It just happens that this year being defensive is more effective. There is always a way to beat a defensive team, it's just finding the right strategy to do so. I think this years game is slightly less offensive as last year, but if you look at the final scores of matches it would appear like there is plenty of offense going on. And who is to say you can't fight fire with fire. If you notice that your alliance has a good ramp bot along with the other alliance, why cant you (you being an offensive robot) not try to score in a round and play defense then nail the ramps at the end. Thats what we had to do one match and it made it a much closer game than it would have been. I think we lost by 2 points... My point is if defense is hurting your team it will hurt the other team just as badly. Why not use it against them?

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

I look at defense as point prevention. I see it as having both active (ie physical blocking a robot) and passive (ie strategically blocking rows) components. The primary difference between the 2 games is how the rows are scored. In Triple Play the last tetra placed temporarily counted for rows, in Rack n Roll it is the first tube permanently counts. The placed tube owns that spot and there is no way for your opponent to reclaim that spot so it is a permanent (passive) defensive action as well as an offensive one. Unless a tube makes a row of 5 or more, all placed tubes actually permanently prevent more points than they score. For example, when Redabot puts the first red tube on the rack it is scoring 2 pts for red and preventing 132 (128 + 4) pts from blue.

In Triple Play all passive defensive actions of a placed tetra were not permanent and could only negate previously scored points (like a spoiler that score points for your alliance). Tetras usually scored more points than they negated.

So how do you make these long rows of tubes and score lots of points?
You must prevent your opponents from scoring tubes that breaking up your rows while you are making those rows. This often requires active (physical) defense to be played on your opponents for more for offensive purposes (allowing you to score 256 pts) than defensive ones (preventing 2 pts). The "ideal" tube bot actively defends opponents from scoring while scoring itself.

The bonus "ramp" points only make an already defensive game more defensive. It allows alliances to focus solely on defense for the majority of the match and get enough points at the end to win.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

team 461 based our robot off of the K.I.S.S. theory, and as a result, we can put up ringers, take down and move spoilers, play defence, and get two robots off of the floor (we have wide, 14" high platforms w/ ramps). our ramps have only one electrical component: a servo. we flip a switch, the servo pulls a pin, surgical tubing is released, our ramps unfold, feet pop out, and our platforms fall down on the feet, resting 14" off the ground, giving us an extra two inches incase a robot's wheel is off of the edge or something. other than that (it takes two seconds for our ramps to deploy), it's just a simple matter of taking the time to line up your robot and drive up straight so you don't go off the edge (even though the ramps are wide, the allience pays for it if you fall off)

here's a vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHA3U7INUVI


the only reason why we haven't seeded in the top eight from qualifying matches is because of the system used to assign alliences. a veteren team, a rookie team, and a misc. team. i HATE that system! we're a veteren team, and at boilermaker we had to play our first two qualifying matches w/ only one other robot on our allience


anyway, we tend to ignore overly complicated robots durning our scouting meetings, unless the robot works exceptionally well

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

We wanted to do a triple threat again, and we had the lifts CADDed, designed, and build. But when it came down to it, we realized we should just be a drivetrain with an arm. That, and we mounted the lifts on wrong :P.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

We used the "K.I.S.S." method and we only had one malfunction so far this year.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

Too many teams are attempting to play defense, ramp, and rack. It all can't be done. Pick one and be good at it.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

we don't try to do everything in one match, what we do depends on the strategy we're using

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

Keeping it simple is not the Team 190 way.
I look at robots that tried to everything and am heartened that there are souls brave enough to do that. It's one legitimate strategy to construct a robot to do everything the game asks for. It's another perfectly fine strategy to devote all your resources to one part of the game.
The reason there are more robots not fulfilling the game goals this year is because there's a lot more wiggle room in this year's game compared to the last couple years.
2005: The tetras were an exact size. They fit over the base tetras the same, the base tetras never moved. The heights remained pretty much exactly the same.
2006: Aside from the vision system, there wasn't anything that really changed from what you expected. The goal stayed the same size and height, the corner goals the same tiny slot. The ramps were constant.
2007: The rack moves. The stingers aren't perfectly the same. The tube vary in inflation. In the middle of the game, the spider leg you're best at scoring on might be filled. You might be trying to get up on a platform with a couple slanted lips, or a 30* ramp with slits in the middle of it.

There is a lot more (built in) inconsistency in the field this year. I like that idea, but it makes for a tougher job as far as design is concerned.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

FIRST is not about robot building, it's about the engineering experience and spreading that fun experience with science and technology to the community.

Robots are simply the vessel which FIRST works through...

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

I'll admit that I haven't been impressed with that many robots this year, of the 90 I've seen this year only around 20 really got me excited. I believe that the problems is that too many teams tried to make their robot look fancy, and didn't spend enough time trying to make it work. I can't think of any of the top of my head but as someone who acts as a pit representitive I've heard dozens of teams bragging about a bunch of cool things on their robot but when I see them in action they usually only score a ringer or two. I think teams should care more about making their robot work then making it fancy, the most impressive thing is a robot that works!!!

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

well, when your have the other alliences constanly playing defence (GOOD defence) on you, it's a bit hard to score more than that

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

I'm talking about teams that weren't being defended and were just bad at scoring.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

This whole thread is just soooo odd. I though designing a robot last year was soooo much harder. We actually had our easiest build season for a couple of good reasons.
1. Building a ramp and arm doesn't take a genius to do it. If you use the KISS method.......
2. Unlike triple play, your robot isn't picking up something as heavy as a tetra.
3. The entire playing field is level other than going up a possible ramp, lifter, etc.
4. You dont have to score on the top rack since all points are worth the same on the rack, individually.
5. The game provided outs for teams who just wanted to focus on defense and bonus point scoring.

The scoring may not be as high this year, including autonomous, because the target moves also, unlike triple play. BUT, that doesn't mean it was a tough build season.

We are not trying to be arrogant, we are just saying that last year was the toughest for us, yet we saw so many teams with unreal, great designs. It seems like everyone had a great design out there last year....:D

When we started the poll on being "realistic" about scoring ringers in a round, we chose 6. We found out in competition, we could do 7 or 8 three times, including practice. However, the polls had so many teams choosing more than 6. Yet, when you watch competition play, many could not do that even by themselves on the field.

I personally still am amazed at how fun "aim high" was and how great the hundreds of designs we saw and watched last year. We were soooo certain that the poll we created and saw the results for was a true reflection of what we were going to see. I guess it goes to show, the easier it is, the harder we make it!!!!!!!