Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KenWittlief
I defy anyone to build a bot that can lift the 2X ball up into the air and cap the stationary goal that is not vunerable to being knocked over, seriously - it cant be done
|
I think it is possible. Simply make a set of deployable outrigger "lunar landing feet". Given one at each corner of a 5 ft high robot, that is one HECK of a lot of outrigging...
Add linear extensions and you can span even more. A Backhoe uses this technique. One can lift a LOT, very offset from the base, without fear of tipover. In reality (just like a backhoe), you probably only need one pair of landing feet on the arm end.
But back to biz...
My biggest problems with robot interaction this year focused mostly on things like an arm machine using its big ball claw to deliberately entangle a bin machine's loose netting and yanking in an attempt to drag it away from the drop. Though (to us) an obvious "entanglement move", no DQ's were given at GLR for it, which surprised and bothered us. We had a bin machine that "as delivered" would only be using thin material for the box frame, and a few crosslinked ropes for the bin. VERY vulnerable to COMPLETE destruction from that move. When we designed it, we never dreamed FIRST would allow THAT level of robot interaction.
Luckily, our first regional was Buckeye but we attended GLR and DET just to watch and see how things were run. That revelation prompted us to immediately go out and solve it before OUR regional. We bought some strong ripstop camo netting, and took the raw material with us to cut and overwrap the bin Thursday AM, right after uncrating. It only had tiny holes, which wouldn't allow that move. (FYI, it worked VERY well. Several robots DID try to grab us, but slid off... No one could get a good grip on our now "slippery bin".)
Anyway... MY feeling on this whole subject is NOT to bar drivetrain fights and potential tipovers, but instead to simply define some sort of "personal space" AROUND and WITHIN your robot, and simply forbid direct grabbing and object insertion into the opponent's hardware. If violated, it constitutes a "Personal Foul" or "Holding", just like in other sports.
In this situation, direct pushing and pinning on the outside, and possibly even external envelopment dragging would be OK. But instantly banned would be things like: grabbing another robot and dragging it around by sticking in a T-toggle, lifting/wedging it up on a forklift off its drivetrain to carry it out of the way, sticking an appendage into its innards to "grab them by the guts" (and risk "accidentally" pulling out something if THEY resist or even try to retreat), or anything resembling a spearing or martial arts move against your opponent. Think of it as a "personal envelope" around the boundaries of your machine's mechanisms, whose multifaceted virtual planes other machines must NOT deliberately PENETRATE with deployable mechanisms.
BTW - Last year, I envisioned a scenario of one machine's bin knockdown bar/wings being stuck into opposing stacking machine's stacker mechanisms to stop its operation. So I
did bring this up with FIRST Q&A, and ASKED them to make some kind of Robotic Personal Space ruling to prevent that. To my surprise they REFUSED to even CONSIDER barring any such grabbing NOR insertion interaction. (OK then, we'll "keep that in mind"...) <sigh>
IMHO, we REALLY need some better guidelines here. My fear is that mech entanglement severity will continue to increase until a better definition emerges for "appropriate" vs "inappropriate" interactions. As it stands now, a team's primary defense may be that any part of another's machine stuck into theirs is fair game for an immediate drivetrain "spin breakage/amputation". I would have NO problem telling MY drivers that if someone has the gall to stick something into our robot chassis, to simply "turn, and drive away with it"... (Souvenirs, anyone???)
I just hope it won't take a few robots torn apart by others before they'll consider instituting a Robotic Personal Space definition of some kind.
[Edit]
Now don't get me wrong. When another robot is about to score, I do feel that "dealignment" moves, and pushing/pulling them are appropriate with the current rule set. They probably should still be allowed in some fashion. Fighting over game resources and positioning are to be expected. I just wish something clearly defined as to HOW you're allowed to engage or grip another, to protect the pull-ee's HARDWARE from damage when it is done ("which wrestling holds" ARE legal).
Basically though, I wish better guidelines that clearly and unambiguously forbid INSERTION and ENTANGLEMENT moves which could interfere with a bot's INTERNAL operations, or rip out hardware. If we don't define that, we may start to see arms with fingers on the end which can simply be inserted into other robots to "toss a wrench" into moving mechanisms as a defense...
If clamping and/or siezing deployable things for dealignment and towing purposes IS to be considered "fair game", IMO the trick will be either in clearly and properly defining what is grabbable and what isn't to limit damage (or defining clear point penalties when damage occurs, whether deliberate or accidental in such a way that still discourages "lizard tail dropoff" style defense). The problem with such a rule is that our bots aren't of a "single species" formula with known structural specs, where you can just clearly say "you can grab XXX but not YYY because it's too fragile"...
That's where I feel a generic Robotic Personal Space definition and rule could be useful. IMO "respecting another's body safety" is the biggest defining difference between playing a game, and brawling. All other sports rule sets are designed to protect the participants' bodies from harm by defining safe grip/push interactions and forbidding harmful ones. I feel we need something similar.
[/Edit]
What do you think? Is a Robotic Personal Space Violation rule appropriate, and/or needed? Would this help solve an "overagression problem"? If so, how would it best be phrased, where are the limits (e.g. what kind of grabbing SHOULD be allowed), and what should be the penalty?
- Keith