2 bots v. 3 bots Trailer question
 

Alright, so I am wondering as you may have noticed throughout the past years, there is alot of matches in which it becomes 2 bots vs. 3 bots, after robot problems. During the past years, that was an advantage usually to the alliance of 3 bots, but does not seem like it this year. If there is only 2 bots on the other alliance, the alliance of 3 would have a less chance of scoring there moon rocks and cells. What is gonna be in place to make sure it is equal and fair amongst all situations? In this case, would the trailer be removed from the field or would the trailer be left somewhere to be scored into? As well in this situation, would the 20 moon rocks for that team still be given to the alliance? I guess there needs to be some clearification on the alliance situations.

Re: 2 bots v. 3 bots Trailer question
 

What they've done in the past is pick a surrogate team, or a team that fills in for the missing team. That way, it stays 3 on 3.

Re: 2 bots v. 3 bots Trailer question
 

In ten years of participation, I have never seen this happen.

Re: 2 bots v. 3 bots Trailer question
 

Firstly, that partly depends on what happened to the third robot. Did they not show up for the match, or did they have to press the e-stop? If it's the second case, there's no rule that you can't score on a disabled robot's trailer (as far as I'm aware) so if that's the case the alliance with the busted bot is pretty much screwed. Especially if they never moved in the first place and spend the match right in front of the opposing team's human player. :ahh:

If it's the first case... that's a tough one. It depends a lot on the robots that are on the field and the strategies they use. I'd say that you're right, it looks like the short-handed alliance has an advantage. Not an incredibly game-breaking one, though.

Re: 2 bots v. 3 bots Trailer question
 

According to <G10>:TRAILERS are assigned to LAUNCH PADS. So I assume they're always on the field, whether there's a robot or not. A robotless TRAILER is going to be a dead easy target to score on, so I think a 2 robot team is going to have a huge detriment. So.... Don't forget to show up for a match!

Re: 2 bots v. 3 bots Trailer question
 

:eek: Wow, I missed that when I read the rules. Man, that prospect is...frightening.

Re: 2 bots v. 3 bots Trailer question
 

well in the case of a robot, breaking down and not being able to go out on the field and compete, well there has to be something to give the other team a little better chances, because that clearly does not seem too fair.

And to the idea of just another robot, that really is not going to work out because there would be problems with equality amongst the teams. Who would you put in the match... and the always notices "they got more matches then i did excuse" at that moment?

I am hoping there is some rule or answer to this, as this will probually cause alot of situations.

Re: 2 bots v. 3 bots Trailer question
 

yeah that seems more understandable. I guess I missed that. Thanks :]

Re: 2 bots v. 3 bots Trailer question
 

However this rule says the robot is hitched to the trailer in the launch pad, so by my understanding if a team did not show up the launch pad can't just be filled up with only a trailer, but even if that interpretation is correct, the chances of team not showing up to their match is very slim, there is a much higher chance of a robot stopping on the field because of whatever reason (broken power cord, chain loose, ect...) then that stationary bot becomes a very easy target for the human players.

Re: 2 bots v. 3 bots Trailer question
 

I see that as very unlikely. If the trailer would indeed be place out alone, how would it be stood up? It only has two wheels so I assume the hitch would be used as a "leg," and I assume that could scratch the floor (which naturally wouldn't be desirable). Furthermore, it would be pushed and knocked over the playing field, likely falling over at some point due to its two wheels, and causing problems for everyone.

Re: 2 bots v. 3 bots Trailer question
 

[NOT OFFICIAL IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM]

If only 2 teams show for an alliance, one side is going to have an advantage. If only 2 TRAILERS are placed on the field, the alliance with the no-show has an advantage. If 3 TRAILERS are placed on the field, the full alliance has an advantage. I'd imagine they wouldn't want to favor the no-show's alliance, so the advantage would go to the full alliance.

[/NOT OFFICIAL IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM]

Re: 2 bots v. 3 bots Trailer question
 

They don't necessarily have an advantage. Although there are less trailers to be scored on, there are also less robots to do the scoring.

Re: 2 bots v. 3 bots Trailer question
 

Look at the image in 6.2.3 "Launch Pads." Your alliance's TRAILERS (and vice versa) start directly in front of the opposing alliance's HUMAN PLAYERS. A decent human player should be able to make almost every single ball into the stationary TRAILER sitting three feet away. If there was a robot attached to the TRAILER, the TRAILER would be moving and farther away, making it significantly harder to make shots in. It doesn't deal with the number of trailers or robots, it's the ease of the Human Player's shot.

Re: 2 bots v. 3 bots Trailer question
 

My guess is that if a robot does not show up then the team would not be allowed to play during that match. That would mean that one of their payload specialist stations would be unmanned and 20 moonrocks would go unused.

<G40>
GAME PIECE Interaction – With the exception of PAYLOAD SPECIALISTS, no TEAM member may contact GAME PIECES at any time during the MATCH. Violations will result in a PENALTY.

Re: 2 bots v. 3 bots Trailer question
 

This is going to be a pretty stable thing. The wheels only stick 2" under the bottom of the trailer. With all the geometry, it will end up resting on the end of the trailer tongue, but only with a 4 degree tilt. It may scratch up the floor slightly, but it's a nice rounded corner, so I doubt it. I think the only real concern that might keep the trailer off the field without a robot is worry over the trailer tongue being damaged.

Re: 2 bots v. 3 bots Trailer question
 

I was referring to this:

Re: 2 bots v. 3 bots Trailer question
 

The trailers didn't seem to have any real problems staying upright at the Manchester Kickoff event.

They just kind of sit there chilling, like "Hey I'm a trailer, where's my robot?"

Re: 2 bots v. 3 bots Trailer question
 

I stand corrected. Thanks.

Re: 2 bots v. 3 bots Trailer question
 

I'm certain that they'll still set the trailers on the field even if a robot doesn't show up. Otherwise, if your alliance didn't field any robots, the other alliance couldn't score any points. Elimination matches are going to be pretty boring if no one wants to put their robot on the field.

I do expect, though, that as in past years, human players will still be allowed to participate, even if they do not bring a robot.

Re: 2 bots v. 3 bots Trailer question
 

I don't think so. This hasn't been true in the past, and according to 9.6.3, it doesn't look like it'll be true this year.
9.3.6 A TEAM is declared a no-show if no member of the team is in the ALLIANCE BASE, FUELING STATION, or OUTPOST at the start of the MATCH; a no-show team will be disqualified from that MATCH. (emphasis mine.) Thus, a team is only DQed as a no-show if a human player, not the robot, does not show up. And that seems pretty standard. Notice: high school student in the room. I'm going to try my hand at this--please correct me if I'm wrong. Here goes nothing:
This distinction seems ill-placed. While both definitions are correct in certain circumstances, the circumstances, not the terms are different.

(I believe) there is no actual difference between friction and traction. Traction is simply a term frequently used to describe static friction, particularly in drive systems.

According to Columb (and basically everyone else), friction, in theory, is solely the product of the robots mass (essentially) and the coefficient of friction (static for rolling or non-moving surfaces, kinetic for sliding). Thus, the only ways to control friction are through robot weight (i.e. max it out at 120lbs) and wheel movement--keep them rolling, not sliding. The latter can only be accomplished by keeping acceleration below the maximum force allowed by the mu_s. (F=ma=Ff=mu*Fn=mu*mg, so a=mu*g, and so without modifying gravity, we're pretty stuck.)

Now, according to life in general, surface area plays a part. But it's not in the equation! Ah, but it is. Surface area can effect mu (actually, probably more often vice-versa). Softer surfaces (better traction) require more surface area (think side wall weight support) to be structurally sound and to withstand greater wear and tear. There are some other dynamic contact issues that arise when the "ground" surface is non-uniform, but that's less of an issue on regolith--not to mention even a little more out of my depth to explain.

So, MEs and physicists alike, help me out here. I think that's right.

Re: 2 bots v. 3 bots Trailer question
 

traction is calculated by Force of Friction combined the surface area of contact between two objects.

Force of friction is just the weight (in newtons) times the coeffecient of friction for the objects.

Or so I believe...

Re: 2 bots v. 3 bots Trailer question
 

The surface area vs. traction issue has been beaten to death on these forums, so here's the Cliffs Notes. Ideally, surface area doesn't change frictional force. In past FIRST applications, surface area typically has impacted frictional force, because of how common tread materials tend to interlock with the carpet. This is also what happens with soft rubber on asphalt, as in your example. However, since there's little to no interlocking going on with this year's materials, the results should conform much closer to the results expected in Ideal Land.

Re: 2 bots v. 3 bots Trailer question
 

Ideal land rocks

Sounds good to me

Question about missing Robots?
 

If a robot is missing can they still have a human player as a payload specialist? And if they're not allowed can the other teams put a person in there place? Also does that team lose some of it's moon rocks?

Re: Question about missing Robots?
 

Historically (particularly on practice day), teams could send their payload specialist (then known as the "human player") to play even if the robot was not present. This avoided a disqualification for no-show. From my initial reading, 9.3.6 would appear to permit that.

Note that no-show is based on team member presence not robot presence.

Re: Question about missing Robots?
 

Well also, if a team cant make a match, wouldnt that mean that the other alliance has one less goal to score in on the field?

Re: Question about missing Robots?
 

yea there would be one less goal but one of the robots would be double teamed

Re: Question about missing Robots?
 

Although, if you haven't noticed, the trailers can't hold an unlimited amount of balls, so assumingg they still have their human players (who are doing well), and their robots are scoring just as much, it could be evenly matched, if not tipped in favor of the smaller alliance.

Re: Question about missing Robots?
 

You don't know this. It's not specifically covered in the rules, but <G10> says:Which implies that TRAILERS are assigned to LAUNCH PADS, whether there's a robot or not. Which means, there'd be 3 TRAILERS, even if there were only 2 ROBOTS. There is definitely a Q&A question here, just to be certain, but I'm pretty sure the TRAILERS stay. If they didn't, why would you bother putting any robots out? No robots = no goals to be scored in. As long as your opponent was foolish enough to field a robot, you'd only have to land a single moon rock to win the match.

Re: Question about missing Robots?
 

where's the rule that prevents three teams from having no robots and only players...they can't be scored on but they can still score?? I haven't found it yet!

Re: Question about missing Robots?
 

Thats what Kevin is talking about.
It'll prolly come up in the Q&A.
Although I think they'll still leave your trailer out, for that reason.

Re: Question about missing Robots?
 

Although it isn't clearly specified and needs to be brought up in Q&A, I'd tend to agree that there will be three trailers per alliance on the field regardless of the number of robots, both to avoid providing a competitive advantage to teams that fail to bring a robot and to simplify field reset mechanics.

Based on past observation of match procedures, I expect Field Reset will probably reposition the trailers in their launch pads and reset the orbit balls to their proper starting locations while match N-1 is removing their robots. Then they'll flag the match N teams to bring in their robots, hitch up, and adjust position within the launch pad. This avoids having to carry the trailers in and out of the arena, which would have two negative effects:

• Increasing turnover time by adding to the things being carried through the field entry/exit gates

• Requiring designating a trailer parking lot in the queuing area, which is already quite congested in some venues

What happens if a robot isn't on the field for a match?
 

Would the trailer still be placed on the field in some fashion? This would be difficult, considering that the trailer cannot support itself (it only has two wheels).

If a trailer is not placed on the field when the robot can't play, then an alliance with three no-shows would win every game.

Re: What happens if a robot isn't on the field for a match?
 

In your scenario, three no shows on one alliance would be a 0-0 tie, since neither team can score.

Re: What happens if a robot isn't on the field for a match?
 

I assume if your robot is no-show, than your team shouldn't be able to throw balls? Does anyone have a rule on this? I would like to see this clarified.

Re: What happens if a robot isn't on the field for a match?
 

Hm...weird, the actual rules dont say anything about this i think. I would say that a no show would in this case result in that each side would have one less hitch? i am really not sure

Re: What happens if a robot isn't on the field for a match?
 

Also something interesting to consider--If your team does not send a robot out for the match, but the alliance you were supposed to be on either doubles or triples the opposing alliances score, does your team still lose its game pieces the next match?

Re: What happens if a robot isn't on the field for a match?
 

There are two other threads about this already, both as inconclusive as this one will end up being:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...d.php?p=790444
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=71119

Re: What happens if a robot isn't on the field for a match?
 

Don't forget, the trailer is large enough that even without a robot it will still have something to rest against (the bumper would touch the ground before the wheels cause it to fall on its side). Considering that the robot would most likely be powering the lights in the first place (allowing for changed colors if needed) the trailer would be useless without a robot to power it.

Re: What happens if a robot isn't on the field for a match?
 

The Payload Specialists could still shoot moonrocks and score.

Players may still come to the field without a robot, and the Payload Specialist could shoot.

Depends. If you sent players out, then you would get a score, and if your alliance's score is 2x or 3x the other alliance, you would lose a Cell in your next game. If your team is a complete no-show, then you earn zero points for that game, so you won't lose a Cell in your next match.

The trailer is not powered. They have either red or blue bumper coverings.

Threads will be merged.

Re: 2 bots v. 3 bots Trailer question
 

This is an interesting question. An unhitched trailer arm could be pretty damaging to other robots. In the past it has never helped your own alliance in any way if one of your robots can not play.

I'd hate to advise a partner who isn't certain if their robot will run or not to sit it out. A dead robot with a trailer is much more of a detriment to the team that no robot and trailer at all. Heck even a robot that hasn't achieved proficiency at scoring is more of a detriment than an asset if there's an option for them to not be on the field (along with their trailer).

I think FIRST is going to have to have some sort of bot to hook to the trailer. It could be as simple as a chunk of plywood with wheels and bumpers mounted to it, or even the next robot who's going to play in that spot but disabled for the entire match. I definitely do not like the idea of them not putting all three trailers out there.

Re: 2 bots v. 3 bots Trailer question
 

I am inclined to think that all 6 trailers will always be on the field no matter how many robots show up to play. Otherwise, everyone would quickly learn the best way to win is to not bring any robots to the field only the human players and the game will become very boring very quickly. The question then becomes if only 2 robots show up which starting location is strategically the best to place start the odd trailer?

Re: 2 bots v. 3 bots Trailer question
 

i totally agree. I am hoping there will be some clearification on this situation, but this is the best suitable idea to make it fair amongst the alliances, or like you said they are leading themselves into a really boring game, where teams will use that too the advantage.

Re: Question about missing Robots?
 

Well the trailers are still there if no one shows up. therefore it would be easier for the oposing team to score on the trailers especially since they begin at the opposing outpost station and furling ports.

Re: Question about missing Robots?
 

Says who?

I have seen no response from the GDC indicating that this is the case.

Re: Question about missing Robots?
 

While I am not part of the GDC, here are my thoughts on this...

I personally believe that the trailer will stay in its starting position if a team is not present. If the trailer is removed, this could potentially present a new set of strategic opportunities for an alliance. Based on the GDC's response to various questions in this year as well as years past, I do not believe they would create a situation where an alliance could say, "OK, team X that we're competing against in the next match has an awesome shooter(human or otherwise, you fill in the blanks yourself), so you(points to one team in the alliance) sit out due to a "broken" robot in this match. That will give them one less target to shoot for." Yes, the team would still have to have their Payload Specialist on the field to prevent a DQ, but the trailer would still be removed.

Re: Question about missing Robots?
 

I honestly doubt that the GDC would ever rule that a no-show robot means a no-show trailer.

Otherwise you can have an entire alliance agree not to put their robots on the field, and guarantee a worst case score of a tie, best case scenario a win (one of their human players score into the opponent's trailer).

And if this was legal, why even build a robot?