Re: The ultimate game breaker bot.
 

I think it would be legal but you would possibly be penalized for doing all the work for your team. Remember FIRST is a team sport.

Re: The ultimate game breaker bot.
 

Well, assuming this bot gets past both the 3 inch intrusion rule (doubtful), and the active mechanism rule (maybe), and the carrying/possessing rule (doubtful as well), what about the fact that this bot, when power is shut off, will not be able to be detached from all I have heard about it so far... seemingly the design relies on high power clamps or grabbers or something to keep it attached to the tower, yet these won't be easily detached when finale mode ends and the bot has to be detached...

Also, I have a feeling that someone will build this bot regardless, and that it will work 1 time during first week qualifications, and then be useless when the other midfield bot pins it against a wall or pushes it over a bump "accidentally" causing it to tip over and fall and die...

Though creative, I doubt the legality or effectiveness of this design... plus there's the whole gracious professionalism thing which easily can throw a wrench into those plans :D

Re: The ultimate game breaker bot.
 

Are you suggesting that no one will be able to hang because they can't design a system to get them off at the end of the match? I think you'll be surprised when you get to your regional! :)

What makes this un-GP? Knowing her grandson won a robot competition using an innovative, competitive design would make my grandmother proud. :)

I think the discussion up to this point has made it clear that it's very possible to build a robot that redirects balls coming off the return that meets the redefined criteria <R19> in Team Update #2. Am I missing something?

Re: The ultimate game breaker bot.
 

No I wasn't suggesting that actually, I was simply stating that given what has been discussed in some of the posts, i.e. hooking onto the sides of the tower firmly enough to be unable to be pushed off easily, that a bot which is clamped on firmly enough to be detach proof during competition may have a hard time detaching at the end of the game... I understand completely that it is entirely possible to climb the tower, if it wasn't they wouldn't have made it part of the game...

And it IS possible in theory, the only question is how practical will it be, and how easy to defend against this "god-bot" will it be... those sorts of questions may only be able to be answered during regionals though so I guess we'll see 'cos its pretty clear at least one team will be doing this design

Re: The ultimate game breaker bot.
 

Something interesting I would like to throw in to this discussion.

Page 5 of the Robot section in the Manual:
MECHANISM – A COTS or custom assembly of COMPONENTS that provide specific functionality on the ROBOT. A MECHANISM can be disassembled (and then reassembled) into individual COMPONENTS without damage to the parts.

So with this definition of a mechanism, could you build something that you wouldn't be able to take apart without damaging and use it to redirect balls (My idea was to simply put a sticker on it because to take the sticker off would involve damaging it). In my mind this device, as it is not a mechanism from this definition, could be as active as you want it to redirect balls from this hanging position.

Just a thought :yikes:

Re: The ultimate game breaker bot.
 

A few thoughts...

Is this design within the original intent of how the game was to be played? No, not really. But, teams have found their way around the intent of the game before, and it has not been disastrous.

Is this design legal within the current rules of the game? Certain aspects of the design make me think that answer is slightly more fuzzy. The only way to know for sure is to ask on the official Q&A system and let FIRST make a call on it.

If it is determined that it is legal, is this really the "god-bot game killer" that is being advertised? I am pretty much convinced that it is not even close. Let's put it this way - if you think this will be an unbeatable design that will dominate the game the way that Beatty did in 2002, then I urge you to build it and compete. Please. Please, please, please. Because if you do, there is a group of us that would hope to be first in line to go up against this design. We think there are multiple obvious (and a few not-so-obvious) defense approaches that shut down the effectiveness of this design very quickly. And once that happens, if the control of the game swings over to the other alliance, then the match is likely effectively over.

Could I guarantee that an opposing alliance would win against this design every time? No, not really. But do we already have ideas on how an opposing alliance can win often enough to take the "god-bot game dominator" title away in a real hurry? You betcha. And there are a few that are just itching to try out those ideas.

-dave



.

Re: The ultimate game breaker bot.
 

Dave Lavery posted on my thread!

I admit, that there are multiple strategies against the design... and it will be interesting to see the robots that do this compete against those strategies... If we can make it definitively legal, and I can get my team to do this design... It will make a very exciting game. If it does as well "as advertised", then we will see you in Atlanta!

Re: The ultimate game breaker bot.
 

I don't know what kind of track you are using, but ours doesn't go that far. The ball is supposed to bounce off of the tower once first. Ours only goes like a foot past the tower, where it is supposed to be.

Re: The ultimate game breaker bot.
 

The distance I said in my post is my guesstimate of where the ball hits the ground from the track based on the Kickoff video. I could be way off with the horizontal distance of the ball coming out of the chute, but it certainly doesn't have enough momentum rolling down the chute to hit "the ultimate game breaker bot".

Re: The ultimate game breaker bot.
 

Agreed.

Re: The ultimate game breaker bot.
 

Balls this year are already going to be highly contested the moment they fall to earth (at least if the alliances are any good). It seems this hanging bot is merely changing the location that the ball falls to the ground. What's so great about that? I'll go wherever you want to challenge you to the returned balls, it doesn't matter to me. Opposing robots will be able to intercept them either way. There are 12 balls on this field, the likelihood that you can get 12 balls in this magical infinite loop seems almost nonexistent. This hanging bot essentially turns the game into a 2 v 3 match. Assuming you would want to defend the other alliance from disrupting the loop, it becomes a 1 v 2 match. There will be plenty of balls for the other alliance to get a relatively uncontested regular scoring loop of their own going.

If I ever see this strategy work at all, I will eat my hat (see Who am I pic above)

Re: The ultimate game breaker bot.
 

Then you'll get plenty of penalties for being a second opposing robot in the other alliance's zone. Perhaps "I'll go wherever you want to challenge you, it only matters if my teammate is already there, in which case, the balls are in a zone where possession is harder to contest."

That's most of the premise behind any kind of ball hogging strategy. That being said, this variant of it I believe is worse than a variant with 3 mobile alliance members.

Re: The ultimate game breaker bot.
 

That is true, the balls are being directed to a more restrictive zone. However, I submit that only one bot will be needed to disrupt this flow of balls enough to break it. If the unbeatable alliance decides they want to put 2 v 1 in their near zone to keep the defending bot at bay, then that will completely remove their presence from the other two zones and the other alliance will have two robots roaming this area freely with the remaining balls.

I certainly don't want my nay saying to come off as negative, I really did enjoy reading about this idea. It is a creative strategy and it is always good to see FIRSTers using their brains! I just think the power play situation you put the other alliance in will be harder to overcome than people think.

Re: The ultimate game breaker bot.
 

I had this exact same idea for a design whenour team was brainstorming however my team shot it down because to direct the ball towards the goal it oculd violate <G45> Active BALL control - ROBOTS may not control BALL direction with active MECHANISMS
above the BUMPER ZONE. Violation: PENALTY.

and they defined active mechanisms as: MECHANISMS are considered “active” if they are in motion relative to the ROBOT
while in contact with the BALL. Resetting or moving MECHANISMS while not in
contact with a BALL is permitted as the MECHANISMS are not considered “active.”
Also according to <G46> BALL Penetration Restriction – The BALL must not extend more than 3 inches inside the
FRAME PERIMETER as defined in Rule <R19>

<R19> ROBOTS must be designed so that in normal operation BALLS cannot extend more than 3
inches inside
a) the FRAME PERIMETER below the level of the BUMPER ZONE (see Figure 8-5),
b) a MECHANISM or feature designed to deflect BALLS in a controlled manner that is
above the level of the BUMPER ZONE.

THis means that your way of deflecting balls may only allow the ball to go three inches into your frame so it would be very hard to make this work becuase the way most robots pull themselves up you will not be able to redirect the ball simply because it will be inside your frame perimeter sometime.

I like the strategy though, when i was thinking about it i thought it would be dominated but the only flaw is your team has to score for you to get balls and if the don't score then you are doing no good to help your team.

Re: The ultimate game breaker bot.
 

You've obviously read the current manual, but in this case, I think you may want to look at it again. See <R19-B>, which I've highlighted in your post.

There is still debate about what "3 inches inside a mechanism...above the bumper zone" actually means, but I think the common consensus on CD is that that means that the ball can't go more than 3 inches into whatever mechanism/feature is used for the deflection, not that the mechanism must be no more than 3 inches from the frame perimeter. The GDC may wish to look at tweaking the wording of <G46> to match the current version of <R19>.