Re: Robot Diversity
 

Alot of veterans took to this game like a duck to water.
But those teams that you mentioned do that year after year after year.

Re: Robot Diversity
 

I actually think this may be the best aspect of the game. Anyone that can build a driveable robot can score. When was the last time a rookie team with a kitbot basically do the same thing as *insert your favorite powerhouse* with their professionally machined robot? In 2006, a kit bot could only herd balls into the goal, which was 1/3 of the goals in the upper goal. In 2007, a kit bot was forced to play defense and climb ramps. In 2008, a kit bot could only do laps, which was 1/10th the points of a hurdle and lap. In 2009, a kit bot just had to prevent being scored on. But, this year a kit bot can do the main scoring objective.

But, better yet, well designed a built robots are still rewarded! A team with a good ball magnet and kicker can be super more effective in the close zone. Also, teams with kickers are necessary for an alliance to get balls to the close zone. To give a further advantage to the overachieving teams, they can hang for a 2 point bonus.

To sum it up, this year is good because anyone can score, but those teams that build great robots still can excell.

Re: Robot Diversity
 

Your point about everyone being able to score is interesting, I never thought of it that way, but this reason is why I think the diversity is not as high.

Re: Robot Diversity
 

Sometime veteran teams just have 'not quite as good' seasons. For example last year team 33 built a turreted shooter instead of the much more effective dumper and we just couldn't find our groove.

This year, however, I think we hit the nail on the head with our robot design:) .

Re: Robot Diversity
 

Coming up with a design for the competition and actually engineering that design are very different things, but both require creativity to accomplish. The GDC I think has given us plenty to consider, with the bump, the 3 inch rule, the tower, etc. Many teams have come up with designs that look similar, but a lot of them are really quite different. You may have a ball roller or a vacuum, and an arm that winches itself up the tower, lifts itself off the floor by making the robot expand downwards, grabs the tower and rotates the robot's frame so that it is above the underpass, etc.

FIRST has come up with a very exciting competition this year, and while many robots are more similar than they are different, the design challenges of this year have pushed a lot of teams to their very limits. Even if robots are not so original, there are many new things teams had to consider this year, like how to use the camera, and strategies centering around this year's scoring system. Deep down, I think as much, or even a lot more thought went into many robots this year than in the previous two.

Re: Robot Diversity
 

These categories describe types of robots, but if you look at the robots in any category the actual implementations are very different.

For example, look at robots which try to hang or otherwise score bonus points. I've seen many methods of this- at the Boston Regional, for example, team 1100 latched on to the platform of the tower and flipped themselves onto it, team 383 rolled themselves up the poles on the side, team 3280 used a tape measure hook, team 230 got on the bump, drove towards the tower, and then used a hook over the top bar to lift themselves, some teams used pneumatics and some just slowly climbed a steel rope, some teams latched on to a pole and flipped themselves up, etc. Then I've also heard of teams with ramps so an alliance partner can drive onto the platform, and other cool ideas beyond this. I've probably seen more than 10 distinct implementations of this "hanging" concept.

You can take this example with any other part of the robot- there are many distinct drive systems and ball scoring mechanisms on the robots. There are not many robots that are "the same", even though they may serve similar functions in the game (scoring game pieces, playing defense, hanging, etc.) If you'll be at the Championship this year, you should make some time to visit the pits and ask teams about everything hiding behind their bumpers. You'll be in for a pleasant surprise... plus you might make some new friends!

Re: Robot Diversity
 

I feel that if the GDC made hanging worth more points, say 4 or 5, there would have been much more diversity. Maybe I'm biased because my team's robot was a hanger(And quite "out of the box" as well), but I felt that even a mediocre robot could score more than 2 points a round.

Re: Robot Diversity
 

I agree with this completely. From 50 feet away, most "box" robots look the same, when they're not moving, of course.

Once the robots are moving, the diversity is obvious.

Re: Robot Diversity
 

Breakaway is one of the least diverse games in terms of functionality, but I enjoy watching it and strategizing for it more than I ever did for Lunacy. I mean, you don't only like sports that have a variety of different looking athletes, right?

Re: Robot Diversity
 

Unless it's Nintendo Hockey.:D

Re: Robot Diversity
 

This year, most teams which considered a looping-bot type of strategy decided not to pursue it becaue of a concern that the GDC would change the rules to make it illegal. The GDC in fact re-inforced the strategy with updates. Too late for most teams to change their design, but I would expect that next year many more teams will be looking for these outside the box solutions and more will be willing to go that way. This may help diversity of bot design in the future.

Re: Robot Diversity
 

469 didn't leave the outcome of their season up to chance, though. They have an amazing bot even when it's not parked in the underpass.

Re: Robot Diversity
 

Agreed - this also helps diversity of bot design in coming years as teams see this is possible to achieve. This may be the long term impact of 469s 2010 bot - maybe other teams will raise their own expectations. I certainly will spend more time considering the options next year.

Re: Robot Diversity
 

I disagree, the annual winners continue to dominate, and will continue to dominate in the near future. However, this year has been an off year for more teams than normal, and it has thrown traditional winners for a loop. This the the first time since 2002 that 175 and 111 haven't won a regional, (only the second time in both of their histories.) If anything, this game has seen the most amount of rookies and under the radar teams show the FIRST community what they're made of.

The GDC did a great job of making the design this year up to the teams imaginations, but at the same time they gave constraints that kept the competition realistic to the actual engineering process. And as always, once we got to competition there was the standard, "Why on earth were we not smart enough to think of that?"

IMHO, this year had a great diversity of bots built around multiple strategies and interpretations of the rules and the end result was one of the most memorable games and exciting games. I felt this year, more than ever, to win, strategy, scouting, and robot design were equally important in order to be successful (minus the extreme cases like 1114, 217, and 469.)

Re: Robot Diversity
 

Teams like 469 will certainly inspire teams, but I was pointing out that 469 didn't take a risk at all. They knew that their robot could function in two ways. If 469 didn't have the smarts/resources/people/whatever-you-want-to-call-it to build a robot that performed that many functions so well, I think they might not have risked building the type of bot they did. Perhaps not, 125built a robot that hangs and loops, but not much else. As far as I know, the Nutrons have the only pure loop bot in all of FRC. From what I've seen of the Nutrons, they've always managed to build a robot that does something that no other robot in their regional does. Most teams just can't build a solid robot that does what every other robot does, and more. That's why many teams might not have taken the risks the Nutrons did, and probably won't in the future.