How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

http://usfirst.org/uploadedFiles/Com...0Game_RevK.pdf
Straight of the FIRST website:

<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.

Now I haven't actually seen the robot in action but from I have read in forums, part b sounds like it is exactly what 469's robot does. If someone could post a video of these ridiculous matches where they scored 25, 26 points or shed some light on how it doesn't violate this rule that would be great.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

It's very simple.

It does not extend more than 3 inches in said mechanism.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

how could it run along the entire robot and not go more than three inches along the robot...explain

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

Their ball return funnel is not more than 3 inches deep. Thus, it is never more than 3 inches into the MECHANISM.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

Read the team update that specifically allowed their design. It was one of the last updates. They got called for one active penalty as they were moving their flipper when a ball touched it. Other than that one incident (the drive coach had to do push-ups), the machine is perfectly legal.

I was at Cass Tech, I saw their robot, and I am familiar with the rule. They are perfectly legal according to the rules and updates. You have to see it to believe it.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

It says right there that it can't extend more than 3 inches INTO the MECHANISM not the robot, the ball cannot extend more than 3 inches into the robot under the bumper zone not above it.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

The rule doesn't state that ball cannot go more than 3" inside the robot, rather that the ball cannot extend by more than 3" inside the mechanism. It is very clear to me that 469's design is very legal.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

Add me to the list of people who saw it, know the rules, and know it is 100% legal.

Honestly, I figured the GDC would disallow this strategy. When they issued the update early in the season making it legal, I was shocked. Kudos to 469 for building such a GREAT machine.

-John

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

Wow.

I just saw a picture of 469's bot, and it's very clear to me that the design is legal.

That being said, It's a very, very good interpretation of the rules, but completely at the moment. It's really no different in concept than a robot with a top with guides to direct balls to the front, but 469 took the concept to the extreme.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

I haven't seen it in person, but it seems from this post that 469 followed the rule exactly. It does put a slight limitation on their amazing capabilities (9 inch ball on 3 inch deep ramp is not as good as large funnel into 10 inch tubes)

Team Update 2 clarified the necessary rules to make their design legal. Oddly enough, the update was released a day after this type of design started to be discussed on Chief Delphi.

As a proponent of this design concept, I am happy to see it is effective and feasible within the other design parameters for this game. Props to 469 for building it and to the GDC for not making it illegal with a later Update (widely considered a possibility by many people I talked to).

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

The ` are spacers, the . are the funnel and the , are the balls
````,,,,,,,,`````````````````````````,,,,,,,
```,,,,,,,,,,,,``````````````````````,,,,,,,,,,,
``,,,,Ball,,,,,,``````` ................``` ,,,Ball,,,,,
```,,,,,,,,,,,,````````.....................|,,,,, ,,,,,,
````,,,,,,,,`````````|....................|...,,,, ,,,
.................```````|.....................|... ............
......................````|<-15 inches-->|....................
|..|........................
|..|............................
|..|................................
|..|...................................
|<>---------1 inch

Why is this not a penetration of more than 3 inches? Or is my diagram innaccurate? I feel like it is in fact penetrating further and further into the feature as it would roll down the rampish thing.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

It is legal because the 'mechanism' above the bumpers is not active, the only active piece is the part that changes which goals the balls will score to, and that only changes when the balls are NOT in contact with the robot.

If I'm understanding your picture correctly, the balls are only going into the mechanism by three inches... the funnels or ramps whatever you call them, only redirect the balls, and the ball enters them three inches in, and leaves three inches in, so there is no fault. The robot is not possesing the ball, only redirecting.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

Okay i get it now, but would it be feasible for a team to get into the tower on the platform and block the balls that are coming down their funnel?

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

Only if you want to risk 2 penalties per ball blocked. See <G47>.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

<G47> talks about balls coming down the return, I was asking about balls coming down 469's funnel/ball director.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

I think he means when the ball is on 469's ramps not in contact with the ball return, so no <G47>. However, I think it would be hard to interact with ball on top of 469 without violating <G30> or <G38>.

You would have to design a superstructure such the lower half of your bot can drive most of the way into the tunnel and would the superstructure be close enough (not touching) to 469's ramps so a 9 inch ball would get stuck (on both ramps hopefully). Since your bot can't expand (not your tower) you are at a disadvantage (not sure if its physically possible). If it is possible, a major disadvantage is that as only defender you leave both goals wide open while you sit there. 469 might be able to undeploy and back up to free the balls for others to score. Although, that might cause a (few) <G45> penalties on 469 if it actively touches balls during undeploy (debatable if these penalties are caused by your defender). Thats at least something to think about. If I were on 469, I wouldn't let other teams near the ramps with a tape measure ;)

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

<G29> makes it clear that an alliance could have one robot in the tower, thus in the way of 469's funnel, and another blocking shots from other robots in the defensive zone.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

By "in the tower" do you mean in the tunnel? (Then see my last post). Or on the platform? Then the obvious question is: how do you get up on the platform, without grasping the opponents tower, in autonomous before 469 gets there?

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

You know how hard it is to get onto those towers from the bumps unless you were already designed to do that, right? And if you're hanging, you're violating your normal configuration, right? It's not your tower, so no protection from penalties, right? You have to get off before the finale period, right?

And, if you're talking under the tower, I don't think there's room for 2 robots down there. <G29> gets called

Now, come up with a design that will not get a penalty, and will block 469 while somebody else is defending, and we'll talk.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

Any robot could do this, provided a robot can get into position on a bump to block where the ball hits when it exits from 469's deflector.

Not clearly seeing from the video how 469 uses the bumps to deflect balls, the bumps are not part of the end zones - they are part of the middle zone (The Arena, section 6.2.3), so one robot defender would be free to defend one goal while another was on the bump to block the other direction. The robot on the bump would have to take care not to touch 469's end zone when climbing up there or would coordinate with its partner to get on the bump first before the partner entered the end zone to defend the other goal.

Am I missing something here?

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

Dude we've got to think of something simple to stop 469's ball returning without buliding some massively complicated penalty causing bot (lol)... But how...

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

And btw, even if you block their funnels, sure the balls wouldn't score, but then you've still got those balls in the teams homezone... ready to be eaten by say 217 ;)

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

I have an idea!!! At 469's next event, the host team (Troy) could build a big wooden horse and ...

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

Not really, but already discussed some in the other thread. I think this OP is trying to come up with a single bot that can stop balls in both directions by jamming the Ball redirector with balls, so the other defender can just deal with the 2 bot other bots in the zone.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

WOW... I thought a simple angle top bot sitting under the return would be effective, but this is amazing.

The only way I can see stopping them would be to park in front of the tower in autonomous before they can get there. If they then play a more "traditional" way, mirroring them, while always keeping between them and the tower.

Scott

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

I have a tangential question. I seem to remember hearing that in 2008 team 190 (I think) came up with a novel game solution, and that the GDC made a rule change that made that solution illegal. I may be mis-remembering, or was mis-informed. Does anybody remember what I am talking about? I just went through the updates from 2008 and didn't see any game-changing rules changes, but thought someone might remember if something like that occured.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

For those of us on the Eastern Seaboard (and I suppose the Western Seaboard), does anyone have a link to a picture of 469's bot? I'm very curious to see what this thing looks like.

Thanks!
Jacob

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

If you're talking about what I think you're talking about, there wasn't really a rule change. I think there was just a pointed clarification of a particular definition (clockwise vs. counterclockwise travel) that already made the execution of that particular solution impossible in practice.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

There was no update or rule change. They ensured their hurdling mechanism (suction cup drop pickup) was a legal hurdle through Q&A. However, it always was a <G22> violation (as the line extends through the wall and their arm crosses in a reverse direction) and a penalty, it just wasn't interpreted as a <G22> by refs at their 2 Regionals. By Championships, it was clarified as a <G22> violation and an 8pt hurdle isnt worth a 10pt penalty.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

469 came up with a very interesting concept to play this game and even though they didn't violate the letter of the rules I think it violates the nature of the game.
This is MY opinion, not my teams.

Just my $.03 (allow for inflation)

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

Check it out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cgh1887XDo

Scott

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

I respectfully disagree. The idea of FIRST is to come up with the most innovative solution to a problem. Of all the robots I've seen, 469 has been the most creative bot out there. Instead of imagining a new way to achieve some aspect of the game, 469 created a new way of playing the entire game. The only disadvantage is that it requires them to be dependent on a bot that can score at least a fair amount. As other teams start to learn how to defend against this, though, they'll need an alliance member that can score really well and/or someone who can keep other robots from bumping it during delivery. It'll be interesting to see them in later competitions, as people come up with creative ways on how to stop them.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

I think some high caliber teams can compete with them without that type of mechanism. A defensive bot with a good kicker could clear out that zone, leaving 469's alliance with not much else to do, but to move to the middle and fight over balls. I wonder if we have to wait until MI State or Atlanta to see such an epic match.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

I also must disagree. What is the "nature of the game"? this is a brand new, never before played game. WE create the nature of the game. 469 came up with a very creative solution. One that worked very well for them. They now have a very large target painted on them. For the next 5 weeks, hundreds of VERY smart people will be working VERY hard to come up with a strategy to defeat their method. I expect that at least some of those smart people will succeed.

This is the "nature of the game". A challenge is issued, a team meets that challenge, and thereby issues a challenge of their own. I look forward to Atlanta, where we will surely see how these challenges have been met.

Good luck to all!

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

This reminds me of "Spawn camping" in some first-person shooter video games, where you simply sit and wait in front of where an enemy player will start the game at (the "spawn point"), and shoot him right when he appears. The enemy then dies, then reappears in the same area moments later, only to be killed again.

Spawn camping is a good way to annoy your opponents and rack up points.

In team games, sometimes other teammates can shoot the "camper" to stop the endless cycle, but this case looks like it would be difficult to stop...

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

The GDC implicitly allowed this type of design via update 9 or whichever it was. I would say that shows that they certainly intended for such a robot to play this game.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

Kudos to Dan, Don and the entire 469 team for coming up with such an awsome design that were all trying to figure out a way to beat this possible game dominating bot. They need a great offensive bot to get this to work so 910 would be happy to fill that spot for you!!!!!

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

Cory,

It was update #2.

Mike

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

Except during the finale, is there something that would stop a robot from quickly parking themselves inside the opposing alliances tunnel thereby preventing 469 from getting in position? Of course, if you went too far so as to be in 469's end zone you'd get a penalty. You'd need a robot can go partially inside the tunnel and then be stopped by the platform and hence can't be pushed any further.

This Q&A http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=13730 makes it clear the carpet under the tower is not part of the end zone.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

Block the tower in autonomous, at least long enough for any (or most) autonomously-scored balls to clear the system, and then play ball-starvation. That's how you beat a 469-type robot.

Easier said than done, of course, but that's how you do it.

469 is great, because it forces the 'defense bot' to have a good ball acquisition and shooter, and not just be a brute-force blocker. If you can rob them of balls and force the two offense-bots to pull back to try to stop *you* from scoring, then you're in for a heck of an exciting game...

...if you can score a double or triple hang at the end of it all to cap off whatever balls you've scored, then you stand a good chance.

But if you DON'T stop them in autonomous, you're probably done for. Looks like those programmers better get busy! Did you put a white line finder on your robots, kiddies? :D

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

Except G28 says you'd get two penalties and a yellow card for crossing the center line during autonomous. I guess you'd have to get a close as you can without crossing the line.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

You can't completely cross the line, but you can partially cross the line in auton.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

I *knew* there was a reason we built and mounted a white-line finder in the center of our robot! :D

On that note, does anyone know if 469 has done the same? Because if you can get them to deflect off of your robot instead of going under the tower, and they don't stop at the white line...

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

Illegal under <R02-C>, which can be penalized under <S04> if you make it to the field.

It'd be easier to get them for pinning by parking across their tunnel entrance--most robots can't get through in the wide direction. They try to go in, and they keep trying for too long, it's a pinning penalty.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

Sorry, I'm on HughesNet, which is *very* downloading-pdfs-from-usfirst.com unfriendly. What is R02-C that would make it illegal to block the tower, and if they happen to deflect off of you in autonomous, they would not be penalized? (Please note that it would not be our robot that causes them to cross the white line -- it would be their drive train and their programming when faced with a situation that they perhaps did not anticipate.)

Seems unlikely given the overall time frame. At best you're probably looking at a penalty for extending when not in contact with the tower. (That would be *in addition* to a white line penalty, if any).

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

<R02-C> is a prohibition of anything intended to jam or interfere with opponents' sensors.

On second read, you sound like you were intending to try to ram them away from the line. That might work, except that I'd be more than willing to bet that they have a gyro and/or accelerometer to block that.

Regarding parking across their tunnel entrance with a wide-oriented robot: perfectly legal, easily possible if they're coming from the middle, and pretty easy to set up as an autonomous: orient parallel to the bump, and drive forward x distance. One blocked robot, coming right up. You can't get the 38" dimension through the tunnel without bumpers, let alone with.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

No, no, not ram them. We've got mecanum drive, and couldn't hope to budge them in a pushing contest. The idea would be to jam ourselves under the tower so that they hit us and then deflect off of our robot, all nice and bumper-to-bumper-like, but keep moving forward as if they were going under the tower...

And that has nothing to do with interfering with sensors!

Yes, yes, but that only works for the autonomous period. (I was thinking 'strafe sideways, then back into the tunnel as much as possible). The goal would be to get yourself wedged in there well enough that they couldn't de-wedge you, and being parked across the tunnel long-ways just means they'll come in from the side and shove you out of the way.

(I have it on good authority that their drive train can shove most other robots out of the way almost trivially).

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

Yeah, looks like some team already tried to block the tunnel in auto without success:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJh_tb9Ox6A

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

Depending on your alliance, you may have already made their strategy all but useless. All you have to do is hold them off long enough to clear out as many balls as possible from their zone.

You would need to get out of the tunnel at the end of the match, to avoid a major penalty; that's my primary "don't go in there" reason. It's also not exactly easy to wedge in there.

If you're lucky, a partner comes over and adds a second robot to the pushing train. Now they're stuck... unless, of course, they realize that there's an easy way to get you out of there, cross a bump, and de-wedge you from the other side.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

You would have to physically put at least 6" of your robot into the tunnel for it to work -- and ideally, you'd also be too tall (or too wide*) to fit entirely in the tunnel. Just getting somewhat in the way is certainly not good enough, given how pushy their robot seems to be.

*I said before that it might be worth a penalty to stop them... Expanding outside your original configuration to prevent them from being able to push you through the tunnel -- for a shorter robot -- would cause a penalty, but might be well worth the points.

True on both counts. I'm not saying you block it the whole match -- just long enough to clear out any balls in the ball-return system, and in zone three. Easier said than done, like I said, but better tried than not!

As for getting out to avoid a major penalty, the only reason you wouldn't be able to get out is if they were pinning you there, and they can't be the cause of a penalty on you. Regardless, what I'm thinking would *let* them into the tower after a reasonably short period of time.

-------------------------

I'm not saying they won't be hard to beat. I'm not saying I don't hope they'd be on our alliance in the tournament in Atlanta -- even though we're both designed as middle-zone control bots, so that makes this scenario unlikely. All I'm saying is that teams that concede that they're unbeatable are making a self-fulfilling prophecy.

There are a zillion people involved with FIRST teams a zillion times smarter than I am. If I can come up with a general strategy that at least stands a chance, without re-building robots just to deal with the "469 Menace" (cue ominous music), then I'm sure other people can do the same.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

I don't know exactly what 469 is doing, but I'd be shocked if any deflecting would cause their robot to cross the white line. I'm willing to bet that 469 uses an encoder based navigation system so their robot always knows where it is on the field, Since it knows where it is, it knows not to cross the white line.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

I didn't watch the whole webcast, but I never saw 469 extend anything until the beginning of teleop. This is probably intentional to ensure contact with the tower.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

Fair enough. I wasn't really counting on the idea that they'd not have such systems in place, merely bringing up the possibility.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

A scenario I can see happening is 469 gets into position and starts to cycle balls into their goal. Their opponents, knowing they can't beat them, do nothing but watch. They get the winners score but why give 469's team any coopertition points.
Winners get 5 more points than losers.
Just my opinion. *flame suit on*

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

Wayne,

I'm really, really glad you brought this up. I had the same idea yesterday when talking to a friend of mine about Infinite Loop Robots.

In a qualification match I'd probably leave them and their partners be, while I have my team play their own game. I could never tell my Driver's or Any other driver to sit and watch because that's too close to throwing a match to me (This is the Driver in me talking), but I sure wouldn't interfere with the other alliance knowing that they could drive our seeding score up.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

If the team knows they're going to lose, instead of doing nothing, why not help score for 469? After all, the losing team is going to get the winning alliance's score as their qualifying score. They might as well rack it up big-time and take a big jump in the standings.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

You know how people complain about having harder schedules? Imagine how everyone who's with 469 gets a massive QP jump over people that don't have 469. That must suck for everyone else, being ranked based on a randomizer :/

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

I think a lot of peoples ideas on how to beat 469 are coming from the elimination side of things. Which as you know is a different ball game.

-Brando

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

Yeah, I think if I'm against 469+<good scorer (148,217,1114,etc)> I'm just gonna accept the 5 pts and help them rack up my score. In qualifications. In Elims... I dont know.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

After reading the rules, I know that as other people have stated, it doesn't violate R19. However, their mechanism does extend past the 28x38x60 box before the finale. NORMAL CONFIGURATION – The physical configuration and orientation of the ROBOT when the MATCH is started. This is the state of the ROBOT immediately before being enabled by the Field Management System, before the ROBOT takes any actions, deploys any mechanisms, or moves away from the starting location. This configuration is static, and does not change during a single MATCH (although it may change from MATCH to MATCH, specifies config when the match is started.
The finale period only has rules about the last 20 seconds. So can any robot expand without bound ( up to the field perimeter) until the last 20 seconds, or am I over analyzing this? The rules only prevent you from being outside the frame limits when the match starts and the finale, but nothing about the middle 100 seconds.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

Check out G30.C

<G30> ROBOT Volume – During a MATCH, no part of the ROBOT shall extend outside the vertical projection of the FRAME PERIMETER, except as follows:
a. BALL Interaction Volume – Solely for the purposes of interacting with a BALL, MECHANISMS that are below the BUMPER may extend up to the BUMPER PERIMETER, for a period not exceeding two seconds. After returning inside the FRAMER PERIMETER, such MECHANISMS are not permitted to re-extend beyond the FRAME PERIMETER for at least two seconds.
b. ROBOT Righting Volume - ROBOTS attempting to right themselves or their ALLIANCE partners may expand up to the FINALE CONFIGURATION maximum volume while, and only while, performing the righting operation. While beyond the NORMAL CONFIGURATION volume and righting, ROBOTS may not actively interact with BALLS or opponent ROBOTS.
c. TOWER Contact ROBOT Volume - During a MATCH, ROBOTS in contact with their ALLIANCE TOWER may extend beyond their NORMAL CONFIGURATION volume but may not exceed the FINALE CONFIGURATION maximum volume.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

No, robots are always bound by one of two volume limitations, the NORMAL CONFIGURATION or the FINALE CONFIGURATION.

469 uses <G30-c> to expand to the FINALE CONFIGURATION before the FINALE

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

Ok. Thank you. Isn't their still an x amount of time where the are extended past the frame perimeter and not in contact with the tower though, being a penalty, or not, as long as they touch the tower within 5 seconds? (it appears to me that for half a second or so, when their ball controller is rasing up, they extend past 5ft and are not in contact with the tower yet)

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

They drive partially underneath the tunnel and contact the tower before unfolding any of their mechanism from the video I have seen.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

You are correct, they go underneath the tunnel partially, and have a spring- board that pushes up against the tunnel to wedge them in place. Then their mechanism unfolds.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

Interesting that you should mention this.

Instead of 'doing nothing' the opponent tries to flood 469s human players so that they cannot keep up with the soccer balls and may not be able to reintroduce them quickly enough (because they'll jam ... etc).

Just another thought at getting more seeding points than your opponent.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

I'm surprised nobody has come up with a (kinda obvious) solution: push them

As far as I know, tower protection doesn't start until finale. A robot with a high-traction drive system (such as treads) and is short enough to fit under the tower could play in the far zone and try to just push 469 away from the tower. I don't know too much about their drive system, but if you can get enough force on them then they could be pushed out of the tower, forcing them to lower the return system (if they can). The inital release would probably be considered forced by another robot, but if they don't pull it back down there could be a G30 penalty on them. Also, the pure fact that their return is no longer working would mean balls would roll back into midfield, where another cleanup bot could kick them to the near zone, taking balls out of the 469 loop

Highly dependent on how firmly they are in the tower and if you can find a robot that fits under the tower and could push them (639 might have a chance, but we will never see them at competition)

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

Thank you for clarifying thuperscout.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

It's been established that 469 dramatically increases their normal force by reacting against the top of the tunnel. Pushing them isn't very easy or possible.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

This "will" break the field

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

That much force from the springboard? forget that plan :ahh:

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

Watch the one video that's posted. The blue near-side robot tried to bump 469, and yet 469 did not budge one bit.

It's a purt-near flawless system on paper, and as of now, in practice.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

There is more then just a spring board, they also latch onto the interior tubes of the tower, the only way to move them is to move the tower with them. You could see the tower shift when 469 deployed its latches. You won't move them when they are in place.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

Interesting point. As field damage caused by a robot grasping field elements is always deemed the fault of said grasping robot. Even if caused by another robot colliding with said grasping robot.

Anyways, I'm man enough to say that I'm just plain jealous that they took this idea and made it work so well. We were briefly thinking about something like this, but missed some of the key refinements that make this work so well for them. Most particularly rolling the balls off the bumps to hurrying them along to the goals.

So, I'm having a difficult time coming up with a plan of attack against these guys. My only thoughts are a combination of denying them the tunnel for as long as possible and blocking and clearing balls as quickly as possible. This focuses 2 of your bots on defending this single bot, which isn't an obvious strategy for success in itself.

Relevant question I've posted to the Q&A however:
How does G37 impact 469's robot? G37 allows for outside the bumper contact with robots expanded outside their normal configuration and in the process of being elevated or suspended. 469 is clearly the former and clearly not the latter. Will a team be penalized and/or red carded for intentionally touching one of those chutes? This has bearing on many other robots that expand outside the normal perimeter but do not or cannot immediately begin elevating or suspending. We'll see what the GDC has to say. If anything.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

A team cannot be made to have a penalty by the actions of another team. That is why being pushed into an opposing alliance robot by their teammate will not result in a penalty for either team.

You can't cause others to get penalties, if you do neither team gets said penalty, it just goes away.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

For one of our matches that didn't seem to apply to field damage. We were trying to hand off the side of the tower, another robot hit us and our hook bounced onto the no-touch side of the tower. The driver unfortunately hit the winch, causing a red card, but according to the ref there still would have been a penalty even if we didn't attempt a lift.

Anyways, it still could be argued as a "dangerous mechanism" if it even unintentionally causes field damage, and could knock out their chute design if the ref outlaws grabbing the tower

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

Brilliant! Stock up a bunch of balls, then see if you can hammer them home in the opponents goals so fast they can't keep up with them.

It's like the Russian way to win a war... retreat your opponents to death*.

Jason

*Although I say it light heartedly, I am not trying to be disrespectful to the costs that Russia bore -- or the contribution they made -- in WWII. But they did, literally, retreat both Hitler and Napolean's armies to death.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

We did that to ourselves a few times in the matches. The thing is our human players still could keep up. In elims with a ball being scored every 4-5 seconds we had 0 penalties due to not returning the balls on time. That strategy would only work for qualifying any ways, thats the only time a 6v0 strategy can win. You still need to cause 5 points in penalties though.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

I just watched a youtube Video of 469. oh my! im Just mad that I didnt think of it first. What an awesome Way to play the game guys, it is awesome! I think this thread however is a travistey , and I am appauled that people of first would actually stoop so low as to publicly nit-pick a design and go so fas as sugest that First should change the rules to dissallow this robot. Thats Discusting! If I were a student on 469 right now I would feel alienated by this comunity. we should be praising them for setting the bar higher and working on a way to top them, not be engaging in this Very Un-Gracious, Un-Professonal discustsion.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

One possible strategy is one used in the final matches at cass. I think it was robot 302 or 308 that just hit them everytime a ball dropped into their "arms". It stopped the balls from even remotely scoring, although they usually still ended up in the homezone.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

This is one of those better than nothing strategies. It reduces the scoring effectiveness, but they're still feeding the balls right back into the home zone for 217 etc to clean up. You'd still depend on an awesome defense bot clearing balls like mad to have a chance. Even then you'd be playing catch up once you managed to starve them of balls. It's probably possible to beat them like this, but it doesn't seem likely.

I'm thinking that with a good striker, you're not going to have any luck defensing them once they're locked in. At that point, you're better off pitting your offense against their offense. If you can knock them down to 2-3 balls in cycle, you might have a chance.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

Is it possible for people in the opposing alliance station to observe the current "state" of 469's deflector? How long does it take to change state? How far would a robot need to move (adjacent to the bump, parallel to it) to go from blocking one trough to the other? What are the chances of timing their ball drop/trough roll cycle to block a shot or try to induce "active mechanism above the bumper zone" penalties by forcing them to redirect rapidly as the ball is coming off the feed rails? (This assumes that their alliance partners are busy texting their friends instead of blocking you, but thats another story).

Also, what is shape of the ball catcher/trough mechanism? If you were to define a plane passing through the tip of the ball catcher to the tip of each outlet, would the ball remain within 3" of that plane the entire time? If not, what defines the 3" incursion zone above the bumpers? (As we interpreted the rule when fitting our flat/angled passive deflector panel between our rounded roll bars, we made sure that the deflector was never more that 3" below the roll bars).

Great job 469. I wish we had thought if it, but we couldn't have executed the concept as well even if we had. I look forward to seeing them at MI State.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

I wouldn't go so far as to call this particular thread a "travesty" - the vast majority of the posts in this thread were not actually calling for changes to the rules. This thread: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...threadid=84293 and this thread: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=84280 were far more egregious in this sense.

Most of the discussion in this topic has been pretty civil. However, I would still like to urge people to be sensitive towards the members of 469 who read and post here. How would you feel if there were multiple threads on CD explicitly discussing how to shut down your team's scoring capability during match play? Or publicly brainstorming designs for mechanisms intended specifically to interfere with your robot? Calling for FIRST to change the rules to make your team's robot and strategy illegal?

A certain level of attention and discussion may be seen as flattering. Taken too far however, it can cross the line into making people feel unfairly targeted. Let's try to make sure we are mindful of that line.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

Flattered. I would feel very flattered.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

Me, too. I would feel made of awesome-sauce.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

To a certain extent, I agree with you. However, when the level of public criticism and scheming against your team's (perfectly legal) robot/strategy reaches a certain intensity, it may begin to feel like you are being punished for your success -- instead of being admired. Let's just be careful.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

ya woops. Reading fail on my part it's like im that surgeon that operated on the wrong foot.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

Since it seems to be coming up a bit, here's some links to pictures of said mechanism, courtesy of Daniel Ernst:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/daniele...7623503276399/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/daniele...7623503276399/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/daniele...7623503276399/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/daniele...7623503276399/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/daniele...7623503276399/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/daniele...7623503276399/

First off, man that's pretty: bot and photos both. Hats off to 469 for a stellar idea well executed.

To summarize the chute selection mechanism, it's just a metal bar at the top of the chute that rotates from one side to the other to complete the track of that particular chute. Think of a railroad switch. If it could actuate instantly, they could change their minds up to the instant the ball hit the top of the chute. Instead, it's pneumatically actuated, so it looks to take a small amount of time to move. Figure they're committed after the ball comes off the ball return. Per a previous post, it sounds like they're going to be hiding this information from opponents with a simple shield behind the flipper. If I were them, I'd block as much view of the ball as I could from the back to make defense that much harder. Ideally, teams wouldn't know which way a ball was going until it left the chute and was on its way to the goal.

@Jaine,

I think (hope) most of the talk about ways to play 469 is just idle chatter and brainstorming. Mid-week there's not THAT much going on, especially with the lack of rule changes from the GDC. 469 is an attention getting robot that presents a unique challenge to any opponents. I think the problem-solving strategists on the board have just been presented with an irresistible challenge in an otherwise boring week. I don't think it's really aimed personally at 469, as there was a giant strategy thread aimed at this style robot earlier in the week. 469 is just a focus as a particularly stellar example of this style of robot.

Personally, the various discussions of specific robot designs to counter 469 seem incredibly silly if we're considering actually implementing them. Seems like something on the order of Lex Luthor designing a kryptonite armored car to thwart Superman and forgetting to put locks on the door to keep the cops out.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

Kudos to 469.

All this stragegy against 469 and the tower is all well and good, but did anyone notice the automode in the video? If a strategy was employed to try and block 469 at the tower, they have the ability to score from the middle position, so having that, they really don't have to attach themselves to the tower if they find that a robot could effective block that strategy. They could become an effective middle position scorer.

Altogether this is a very well designed robot.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

I have a little rules situation to put forward.

Suppose there have been 2 balls scored. 1 of them has passed through the chute switcher and is on its way down the main ramp. The 2nd ball is on the ball return chute. A 469 (or any similar bot) driver sees the defender speeding to block the active chute, and, while the 1st ball is still on the chute, switches to the 2nd chute. For the period of the chute switching directions, does that turn their return system into an active mechanism?

If that were true, what if a bot drove up on the bump and put themselves up against the 469 ball return. Since they are on the bump it is legal to touch out of the bumper zone. If a ball were to be caught on said chute, would an attempt to bypass the block be considered an active mechanism above the bumper zone manipulating the balls?

P.S. congrats to 469 for designing a robot that has yet to have an effective counter-strategy devised against it.

Also,
looking at the speed at which the chute can be activated, it would mean taking one of your bots completely out of the game to block the entry to the tower just to prevent 1 robot that is still a very effective scorer from activating their amazing mechanism

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

If you guys haven't checked their standings from their first regional weren't so hot. I'm not too worried, get a good defender and he won't have too much problem keeping them from scoring. Also, just start your bot partially in front of the tunnel, as long as you are on one side of the center line and your bot is touching the bump you are good. Great strategy they have though, however their publicity will be their downfall :D

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

While the chute switcher is moving, it is an active mechanism, at least if I understand the Q&A's on the topic correctly. As soon as it stops, it is a passive mechanism.

That would depend on the method of bypassing the block. Again, if the switcher is moving, it would be. However, you do risk a <G38> (intentional outside the bumper zone), depending on how the ref calls it, or a <G13> (can't make your opponents get a penalty). It's a risky move, and only effective on one side.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

well done team 469, you studied the game and built a winner, not just a robot to play the game , but a player to win the game.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

I don't think G38 would apply because I believe the blocking team is on the bump, which is an explicit exception to the rule. G13 also may not apply since it was 469's choice to run the switcher. The only thing that was forced by the other team is the balls being jammed on the return, which may or may not count as multiple possession, although G13 would null that penalty. It does depend on the ref's call though

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

I'm looking at the intentional part. You're getting onto the bump, where you intentionally contact another robot above the bumper zone.

Yes, <G37> says that that contact is expected and generally permissible during that timeframe. However, it also calls out incidental contact. <G38-A> makes it clear that intentional contact outside the bumper zone is a penalty at best. After the first time or two, it will be painfully obvious that this is intentional, and you'll start getting penalized, would be my guess as to what would happen.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

Note my bolding. G37 specifically permits it, which overrides G38

Anyways, it is possible to hold the balls in place without the robots touching. There can be a fairly wide gap there

EDIT: also, both robots are really falling under G37. The defender is taking c.i, 469 is taking c.v (in the process of elevating before finale, and technically 469 is considered attempting to elevate. They just are horrible at it and their lifter also happens to be diverting balls)

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

I believe they were 3rd or 4th after qualifications, id say that that is pretty good standings...

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

This is a ridiculous assumption to make. They're clearly not elevating or suspending. VERY clearly. Since they don't HAVE a lifting mechanism (that I can see).

So, I've posted a Q&A to see if this is a purposeful oversight by the GDC or not. I assume they'l get back to us sometime relatively soon. Perhaps not in time for this weekend of regionals, as I only asked yesterday.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

I don't care how you say it, what 469 built and how they use it is 100% AGAINST Gracious Profesionalism. You want to win, fine; but don't go running up the score 26-1. Also, there is NO WAY they are lifting regardless of how you try and qualify their "lift." :mad:

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

469 makes no attempt to hang. No part of the rules implies they have to.

Define Gracious Professionalism. Spell out what 469 built. How do they have any connection?