Re: Defense v Offense
 

It's quite possible to add a little metal, some nuts/bolts, an electronic controller or two to the KOP in order to derive a mechanism that scores on the lowest row. Thus even the defensive robots can score something if their alliance partners cannot. That the defensive robot team doesn't have the foresight to do so shouldn't reflect negatively on other teams who choose whether or not to play defense or go offense.

Just thought I'd throw that out there.

Re: Defense v Offense
 

Regionals aren't always about individual matches. I'm sure this will happen at some point, but never in eliminations. If you create a good enough defensive bot, it'll be sure to get picked if not get to do the picking. I'm also going to be blunt in saying that most of the poor defense bots I see out there usually start out as an "all around bot". If your going to do defense, do it right. If your going to do offense, go at it with your whole heart. But if you kind of sit in the middle, your usually going to fall short of anything spectacular. There are always a few exceptions, but I've rarely seen a powerhouse offensive team that also plays good defense.

<G49> ROBOTS may not attempt to POSSESS a GAME PIECE that is being POSSESSED by another ROBOT.

I might be wrong, but this just means you can't steal it from them. I don't see where it says you can't knock it out of their manipulator as long as your intention is purely defense and not to take possession of the game piece.

Re: Defense v Offense
 

Of course, if a team is an offensive powerhouse there isn't much reason for them not to play offense.

In my opinion, you rarely, if ever, set out and build a defensive robot (unless your team is incapable of building an offensive one). The best defensive robots typically are from teams build an offensive robot, but their scoring mechanism isn't up to par. The best defensive robots typically have great drivetrains and drivers, which is also a key for strong offensive robots. So, why not build an offensive robot with a good drivetrain and play defense as a backup?

Re: Defense v Offense
 

After our strategy meeting today, our team decided to make a defensive robot. We'll have to see how it pans out, but as I see it, we could score on the two lower racks, if forced to, but our main strategy is to block other robots from getting their game pieces, and stealing them from their human players throwing them in.

Another concept based on where on the field we are is to "punt" gamepieces to our alliance partners, who can in turn, score them without having to traverse the field.

Re: Defense v Offense
 

I recall team 48 had a pretty amazing defense robot a few years back. They had a powerful drive that could push just about any robot they wanted and a second gear for high speed maneuverability. It was clear they had no intentions of scoring as there wasn't the slightest hint of a manipulator on it. Truly great drive trains require alot of focus, and alot of weight. Anything put into a half-baked manipulator is taking away from your defensive capabilities. I agree that a great defensive robot+good manipulator=offensive powerhouse. I just don't agree that offensive powerhouse-good manipulator=great defensive robot. If a team were to have enough resources to fully devote themselves to both a manipulator and a drive and figure out the perfect balance of weight between them, it'd be amazing. I just don't see many teams that have that many students or mentors or time to do all that. Sometimes, it comes down to priorities and I just think people need to be clear to choose a priority rather then try for more then they can handle.

Re: Defense v Offense
 

I don't know either, probably should get some clarification on this question from the GDC!

Re: Defense v Offense
 

I would agree that 48 was an awesome defender in 2007. Them and 703 that year were the two best defensive robots I've seen. I could be wrong, but I think that 48 planned to have a tube manipulator but didn't get it done due to weight. I do know that was the case for 703 (I think there is a picture of them on CD with the beginning of their tube manipulator). I also think that 2007 was a little different as teams could earn points being ramps without touching any tube.

My point is that you rarely see a team that just planned to be a box bot be an amazing defender as its usally a traditionally good team that stuggles with their manipulator. 171 at Wisconsin was a perfect example of this last year. Although they planned to be a scorer, their kicker and lifter weren't quite perfected so they were smart enough to adapt and play to their strength, which was defense. Their strong 6 wheel drive shut down Wildstang in the semifinals. They did drastically improve their scoring, but they won a regional because their smart drivers and strong drivetrain allowed them to play fantastic defense.

Re: Defense v Offense
 

I had a great defensive strategy and design all made into a powerpoint. Apparently I couldn't present it because we will never go defensive. I mean I got shot down without even being asked the design or strategy. I honestly think it is genius but no one would listen. I emailed my mentor if I can even try convincing the team in 10 minute presentation. My argument for being a defender this year is that we were never really successful as an offensive robot ever in history. I still get the vibe that we are a rookie team. No one is ambitious enough (even though mentors think its too ambitious) No unique ideas ever come out of the discussions. The most unique ideas are the ones most criticized. Personally I get the vibe from everyone that I am annoying and talk too much. Hell thats a lot better than sitting there and not saying a word. I say if you have an idea let the world know and not complain later. One thing that is held against me all the time is that its all ideas, so I actually tried CAD this year. Its not good but hey its worth a try. I spend 6 hours working and developing my idea and no one listens with an open mind; I am sick and tired of that. Apparently I am pushing my "agenda" too aggressively.

Adding onto that, I am the lead programmer this year, and most the programming group is either my age or older. Now I do not think they respect me enough to just stop talking and listen to what I am demonstrating. You know honestly I can program the whole robot in whatever fashion I want, but for the sake of others, I chose to program in Java instead of C++ (I wanted to try inline Assembly) Now the programming mentors can't show up most of the time, so they trust me as a leader, so I am kind of like a mentor too. I feel that the software group never has a say in my team. Its like "programmers, can you do x and y for us?" We are the bottom apparently.

Now they do not trust me or my group to do a fully automated robot either. It was not my fault that the autonomous mode last year was pretty much programmed AT the competition. Everyone said don't worry about autonomy until a day before shipping... Now I was a rookie that year, they expected a functional autonomous mode with just an IR sensor. And at the matches they blamed me for running into the wall or missing the ball. Just great... So my mission of a fully autonomous robot is out the window (we can't even afford the sensors needed)


/rant

Honestly, I think that was why I played Madden all day in the pits last year...

Re: Defense v Offense
 

Im sorry to hear that your disappointed, but neither Chief Delphi, or this thread is place to hear your problems. Bring them to your teacher, or other mentors.

I have heard from our programmer that it is very possible for an autonomous scoring mechanism during tele-op.

However, what I think is really interesting is this defensive powerpoint. Since our team has decided on a defensive strategy, I dont suppose that you would be interested in sharing this powerpoint with CD? It could be quite eye opening for some teams.

Re: Defense v Offense
 

Problem is that I have to PRESENT it, cause the CAD is TERRIBLE you can't really comprehend it unless I point everything out and explain. I'll get the CAD person to make a good 3d CAD of it, I'll post it when that is done. But my strategy is also fully autonomous, being teleoperated would make it very clumsy.

Re: Defense v Offense
 

The thing I often notice with teams that fail to complete the robot oft times also fail to completely read the manual and thus understand the rules.
So while they have no choice to do anything else but play defense they'd best be careful where and how they play defense this year or else instead of preventing the opposing alliance from scoring points they end up costing their own alliance significant points.

Re: Defense v Offense
 

In 2007, Team 48 never intended to have an arm/manipulator, just a purely defensive robot with a very strong drivetrain and ramps to hold two robots. It was definitely one of my favorite years, so I'm looking forward to this season.

I agree with the idea of a strong drivetrain coupled with a decent hanger may be the way to go. I also think speed, whether used for offense or defense, is going to be important this year.