Re: Team Update #18
 

The GDC has made their stance clear, and for us to say that its a good rule or bad rule doesnt much matter to them. Unless they are genuinely convinced, by important people or decreased inspiration, they will hold firm. I think that stacking robots was a valid and valuable strategy, now it is not. I think that FIRST said that it wasn't against the rules, and now it is. Whether or not it hurts teams, i really dont know. I posted earlier saying that it was a strike against Wildstang. I now realize that its not a strike, its just FIRST being FIRST (if you want my take on FIRST, PM. Its not bad.). I really think that we need to stop the B&M on CD and take our concerns straight to FIRST instead of riling people up here and not doing anything real.

Let's do something that makes a difference. Update 18 is just another obstacle for us to deal with. Lets do just that, deal with it.

Re: Team Update #18
 

I disagree with this example.

How about
this
Or
this
Or
this
Or the many other times this has happened with no defense.

VS.

this

For the record I think as a last ditch effort this is not a bad idea, but it should be just that, a last ditch effort.

I also happen to disagree with FIRST changing the rules this late into the season.

I don't think that this would have become a widespread strategy with, or without the update.

Re: Team Update #18
 

Do you think that stacking one robot (or more) on top of another and sitting there for an entire match is consistent with the spirit of the game or, for that matter, FIRST?

I don't. Teams that wish to adopt this strategy are putting winning ahead of competing (yes, there is a difference - winning at all cost is not GP).

I'm not slamming Wildstang here; their alliance partners were basically non-functional and this strategy gave their alliance the possibility of winning that match. I doubt that any competitive teams would consider doing this with functioning partners. It's just too much fun to drive your robot and earn a victory!

Maybe Update #18 falls in the category of "legislating morality", but I don't think we want to see a lot of matches with an alliance just parked in their home zone for 2+ minutes. The lack of autonomous action is dull enough for me...let's PLAY the game!!!

Re: Team Update #18
 

I disagree. They do this for FIRST LEGO League - if you attend multiple competitions, you are only allowed to win an award at the very first competition you go to. Is it fair if someone is able to go to multiple regionals and take the banner at each one? At that point, why call it regionals - clearly the best bot in the region isn't necessarily going to win, it'll probably be someone from out of town - the regional players are then just fodder.

If you still disagree with me, let's put it a different way. What if the 9 best teams in the nation were able to all attend multiple regionals, and they all decided upon the exact same regionals every year. Also assume that somehow the schedule was transitioned so that it equated to 25% of the total regionals played (so they could somehow attend 9 regionals or whatever it came to). Now, say you weren't one of the 9 best teams in the nation - would you still want to attend the regionals they are at knowing that there is such a high likelihood that they will take home every stinking award?

I wasn't around when FIRST decided to allow teams to compete in multiple regionals, but I bet the arguments were heated. If they were not, then maybe somebody needs to rethink the situation now. I could understand if there was a lack of teams in some regions, and so allowing teams to go to multiple regionals to fill in some of those gaps were a good idea. But I dunno about that any more...

But that's just me.

-Danny

Re: Team Update #18
 

Actually I do think it is consistant with FIRST.

Teams that are overcoming adversity is exactly what FIRST is about. Both robots were (from my understanding) broken and would not have been able to do anything. So what do they do, they stack and help their alliance to a win.

Thats teamwork. Thats overcoming adversity. Thats innovative thinking. Thats FIRST.

Re: Team Update #18
 

Versus this: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=55601

No where did the GDC say it was a safety issue. They simply closed a loophole that had been left open from the beginning of Build, without giving any reason. They have the right to change the rule. The question is, why wait until now, when they were questioned about it weeks ago?

Re: Team Update #18
 

I think that's completely beside the point people here are trying to make. Many people arguing against this call see perfectly clearly the logic and reasoning behind it and don't have all that big a problem with that logic. The issue we have is with the complete and utter arbitrariness that FIRST and the GDC have been exhibiting this year. This very issue was asked in the Q&A just one week into the build season. The answer then was that it was ok, so presumably the GDC had no problems with it then. Then, after 3 weeks of competition have gone by and they've seen it happen just once, they suddenly decide they don't like it anymore and arbitrarily rescind their approval. They don't even attempt to smooth over their change of mind with any of their own reasoning along the lines of all these arguments we're having about safety and the spirit of the game. It's frankly getting a rather lot like something out of "Through the Looking Glass" trying to guess which way the wind is blowing each week. The Q&A question is particularly weird. The original question and answer came just before Update #3. And the GDC's followup suggests you consult Update #18 to discern their latest state of mind.

We don't mind picky rules, weird rules, somewhat unfair seeming rules, so long as the rules actually stand still for most of the season. Aiming at a target that's still moving long after build season is over asks far too much of teams.

Re: Team Update #18
 

But since most robots aren't designed to be that short while in starting configuration the liftees would be a lot higher. At least those fallen robots were still in 1 piece -- i'd hate to see that happen to a robot perched four feet off the ground.

Re: Team Update #18
 

Did you see 1114 and 1503 last year?

And the situation with the stacking of robots, i dont think it is safe and it is just a freebee for those who dont have a working robot. Why should you get the 30 points for just standing there and the other team has to work for it?

Re: Team Update #18
 

I think this is a good update, it takes away the temptation from teams with not so functional robots. I am sure many more teams would have done this so far if they had thought about it. I dont think it was how the game was meant to be played (not like that ever happens anyways though). The only thing to blame FIRST for is that they said it was ok on the question forums. They just made a mistake.

Re: Team Update #18
 

This was back on page 3 and I felt compelled to respond.This is exactly what we tried to do. 10 minutes before the match we had people in both pits frantically trying to help get these robots back up and running. I don't know the exact details, but one of them had a drive motor that had fallen off, and the other had drive chain problems. Once we determined they weren't going to be able to be fixed before the match, we suggested the stacking plan, both teams agreed, and the rest is history. After the match, we helped both teams get operational again.

While we had this strategy in our heads earlier in the season, we had no intention of ever using it if at least two robots were functional. While it may have won a lot of matches, this strategy doesn't allow teams to go out there, play the game and show what they can do. Nobody wants to work for six weeks just to sit in a corner (unless that's what you designed it to do :) ).

Re: Team Update #18
 

Great, spur of the moment thinking!. I'm sure First didn't have this in mind when they responded to the Q&A, they were probably thinking only a rampbot would be used. Now that they've seen the inspired out-of-the-box thinking, it makes sense to limit precariously perched bots for safety. Since it is an exception case that doesn't really impact the game, we should accept the change and move on.

Re: Team Update #18
 

I can back up this post... Wildstang was in every pit that there was no running robot. I thank them for getting 1755 back up and running because we had them the rest of the day.

I commend those who thought up this strategy, but also disagree with those that are complaining because FIRST changed their minds. Without a doubt, many teams would have done this same thing from here on out. Many alliances would have gone onto the feild with this strategy in mind, even with working robots. It's only fair to the competition that now everyone has to earn the bonus points.

Re: Team Update #18
 

As a PURELY HYPOTHETICAL question....
IF two non working robots were stacked in the end zone AND the opposing alliance KNEW it could not score 30 points... WOULD it be legal under the rules for the opposing team robots to BUMP (totally legal under the rules) the bottom robot and if the top robot happened to fall off there would be jubilation in the opposition camp for having made a great and possibly legal play?
LEGALLY speaking bumping is allowed but do the opposing team have to consider the consequences of the action? Would they just be yellow carded if at all? (which they might take since the other side has made winning everything)
(Which has not been used enough in my opinion... several rounds at the NY regional looked like Robot Wars)
That action is not intended to damage the top robot but rather to de-score and FIRST does urge a "Robust" design.

Just curious

Steve Alaniz

Re: Team Update #18
 

Common sense would indicate that most rampbots or liftobots would ramp or lift just over 12 inches, a few that use teetertotter mechanisms may get one side up to 24 inches or so for a brief period of time until gravity takes over. My impression of the orginal Q & A was that if an alliance had a rampbot that had a platform 12 inches above the ground in it's starting position that a dead robot could be placed on it before the match started. I could even see the rampbot moving around the field playing offense or defense if able to. Or a robot with a functioning drivetrain moving around a robot with a functioning arm who's drivetrain was not working. Talk about teamwork! It did raise questions about exceeding the weight limits and how much energy a 290 moving plie of two robots (2 @ 120lbs, 2 batteries and 2 sets of bumpers) could use to impact a much lighter robot on the field. Having the rule open ended could result in a robot sitting six feet off the ground. I don't think anyone wants to see the results of a robot falling from that high up, in or outside the playing field. The alliance station wall is only 6 feet 6 inches high. Maybe the GDC should have simply stated that at no time during a match can a robot be elevated more than 24 inches (or whatever) above the playing field.