UTC Regionals Team 126 GaelForce

[rjbarra]

It was an honor to have been aligned with Gael Force. We set out to build an elegant Robot but I think we were out done by Gael Force. I think either of our teams could have built a Robot that smashed Robots but we choose to build Robots that well engineered and did not go out and destroy other robots. Your team was awesome in the stands, the pit and on the field. See you in Atlanta.

Original Team 20 Rocketeers

JBARRA

[BoyWithCape195]

So your saying that in a football, soccer, or basketball game there should be no defensive players and all offensive?

[EvanG]

It is disappointing to me that you are likely implying that my old team 177, and their alliance were intentionally designed and built to ram and destroy. If this is what you truly think, you put to waste the 6 hard weeks they spent at the same time you did, to develop a sturdy machine that accomplished the game's goals how they felt the game would be played.

It is safe to say that every team out there put their all into accomplishing this game. 177 has for years been revamping their drive train to the point where if you ask around, it is something we're known for. This year, we put a ball collector and 3-point shooter on top of that to what I would like to believe are stunning results. Our students are taught from the start about building rigid designs because many years in the past we had a similar learning experience to what you guys have had when we took a brutal hit and spent our short times out just trying to fix a gear or piece that took hours in the shop to put together. I clearly hope that you learn from this in the future as we have and potentially incorporate it into your design rather than downplay the significance of other team designs.

It is immature to not have expected robot on robot interaction to be at its peak this year. From the very beginning, FIRST has pointed out they wanted to add a more sporty feel to the games and they have been slowly year after year. This year they even went so far as to say robots were going to be hitting robots, and that it was highly recommendable that you build bumpers. The rules even specify, "AIM HIGH is a highly interactive game," and "If two ROBOTs choose not to use bumpers, and they contact such that simultaneous contact occurs both in and out of the BUMPER ZONE, then this contact is considered within the BUMPER ZONE." As far as I recall, in previous years, this much freedom and encouragement to develop and use bumpers was not seen.

That's not to say that your teams did not develop stunning robots. To say the least they were fantastic in design and build. But a lack of bumpers clearly brought your frame to the test. Rather than having any robot to robot blows dissipated through a bumper and then through a larger piece of your frame, a blow without a bumper would clearly pressurize parts of a frame and as sturdy as metal is... look at cars that take hits from the side.

Overall, I would like to assume that you take FIRST as a learning experience and a worldly design class rather than a disappointment. Not everything is beauty, not everything is strength. Every robot must clearly find the right middle line where human interaction with that bot ultimately achieves the game's design. Which leads me to add human drivers not being behind the wheel of the robot, instead being a ways away must be able to dance with their robot and assume it will take the brunt of the weight they can inflict upon it. Therefore, it must take the brunt of pressure inflicted.

It was an honor to see my old team play against you, and you guys put up a great opposition that kept me on the edge of my seat for the entire length of the matches. It was great to see you play in your QP matches and I knew from the start you guys would be going far in eliminations. Best of luck in the future with all your endeavors and competitions.

Sorry for the lengthy post, sadly, I've noticed that many teams are starting to take the same assumption about FIRST. Hopefully, it covers all the bases on this arguement.

[1493kd]

Thoughts on my first experience as a mentor.. team 1493- Albany High School, Albany, New York

Hartford Regional

First of it was amazing to see all of the effort that went into every teams bots, pits, decor, the whole experience was amazing and has really motivated me to make our team even better next year.



Our team 1493 did the best we have ever done, so that was a nice accomplishment. We didn't meet our goal which was to be selected for the "tourney" (what ever it is called slips my mind this second) Thought that we most certainly were going to be selected. After making many changes to our bot by the last day we were very strong. Our defense was very good, with our low COG we were able to push almost any bot back, we could make it up the ramp with ease, and were good for an easy 10 pts in autonomous whenever we wanted. (Except the time they forgot to close the side doors all the way which caused us to get stuck.)

One thing that hurt us bad was our bad luck at drawing teammates for the qualifying rounds. One match we were the only bot on the field.

All in all I have to say that this was a great experience and some good publicity for our high school which is much needed.This year we have been on the news every night this year for violence, gang activities, guns in school, you name it. I'm sure team 20 can back this one up.

Once again thank everyone and good luck in nationals

[rjbarra]

Originally Posted by 1493kd

Thoughts on my first experience as a mentor.. team 1493- Albany High School, Albany, New York

Hartford Regional

First of it was amazing to see all of the effort that went into every teams bots, pits, decor, the whole experience was amazing and has really motivated me to make our team even better next year.



Our team 1493 did the best we have ever done, so that was a nice accomplishment. We didn't meet our goal which was to be selected for the "tourney" (what ever it is called slips my mind this second) Thought that we most certainly were going to be selected. After making many changes to our bot by the last day we were very strong. Our defense was very good, with our low COG we were able to push almost any bot back, we could make it up the ramp with ease, and were good for an easy 10 pts in autonomous whenever we wanted. (Except the time they forgot to close the side doors all the way which caused us to get stuck.)

One thing that hurt us bad was our bad luck at drawing teammates for the qualifying rounds. One match we were the only bot on the field.

All in all I have to say that this was a great experience and some good publicity for our high school which is much needed.This year we have been on the news every night this year for violence, gang activities, guns in school, you name it. I'm sure team 20 can back this one up.

Once again thank everyone and good luck in nationals

Team Albany, Great Job. We want to work with you next year. One thing is we want Albany to have an animation submitted. Our animation was better this year. We set goals to improve it every year. It is amazing with all the problems your school has faced that you even fielded a Robot.
Great Robot!

[AcesPease]

Originally Posted by 1493kd

Thoughts on my first experience as a mentor.. team 1493- Albany High School, Albany, New York

Our team 1493 did the best we have ever done, so that was a nice accomplishment. We didn't meet our goal which was to be selected for the "tourney" (what ever it is called slips my mind this second) Thought that we most certainly were going to be selected. After making many changes to our bot by the last day we were very strong. Our defense was very good, with our low COG we were able to push almost any bot back, we could make it up the ramp with ease, and were good for an easy 10 pts in autonomous whenever we wanted. (Except the time they forgot to close the side doors all the way which caused us to get stuck.)

Once again thank everyone and good luck in nationals

Our scouting had your robot ahead of the four robots that were picked after team 1124. You did yourselves proud during the qualification rounds.

A word of caution to teams picking alliances: At BAE we were picked before a better robot (team 133 BERT) and that alliance defeated us in the finals. In Hartford I think that 1124 was the best third robot, and our alliance eventually won. Choose the third robot very carefully.

Bill Pease
Team 176
2006 UTC New England Champions with 177 and 1124
2006 BAE Granite State Finalists with 319 and 562

[vVigglEs]

In Hartford I think that 1124 was the best third robot

I agree that 1124 was a steal for third round.

[Tom Bottiglieri]

Originally Posted by vVigglEs

I agree that 1124 was a steal for third round.

Note:1124 didnt start scoring in autonomous mode until the elimination rounds.

[Greg Marra]

Originally Posted by Tom Bottiglieri

Note: 1124 didnt start scoring in autonomous mode until the elimination rounds.

I talked to 1124's mentors in the pits before our final qualification match (against 1124), and they showed me all of the improvements they had made to their robot after the matches ended yesterday. Between increasing the squeeze on their throwing and tweaking their autonomous mode (Thanks, Tom!) they had done a lot to improve their robot's functionality. 1124's scoring in auto proved to be extremely important, since it was what won us the autonomous modes in one of matches in the semifinals.

With the 1 to 8 then 8 to 1 alliance selection this year, the second pick is far more interesting than the first one. It's pretty easy to tell who the top notch bots are, but it takes a strong scouting team to figure out the best bots down 24 places. It's largely in thanks to our scouting and alliance selection teams that we were able to select such a strong alliance and compete so well in the eliminations.

[Ben Piecuch]

Guys,

Let's not get into an offense vs. defense arguement here. Both teams 20 and 126 have very strong offensive robots, and were unfortunately the main targets for some very defensive robots at the UTC regional.

I'd like to think that the game design committee designs the games to be offensive minded, and to limit the amount of effective defense. For example, the 2005 game could be played with both an offensive and defensive robot. But, when you watch the national finals, there were 6 highly offensive robots out there, and you got a chance to see how the game was truely designed to be played.

I think we'll find the same thing with this years' game. During the regionals it'll be a great mix of offensive and defensive robots, and it'll be a crap-shot to see who comes out on top. But, by the time the national championship rolls around, I believe it'll be 6 of the best offensive robots out there. At least, that's what I'm hoping for.

Our offensive-minded robot took a great deal of beating, even with the FIRST designed bumpers. Bent frame tubes, bent support pieces, broken ball impellers... It's a rough game out there, and it's unfortunate that a non-ball scoring robot with a powerful drive train can win over some of the best shooters out there. (Please don't feel that I'm describing some specific robots. This is just a general observation...) Let's just see how this game matures over the next few weeks.

BEN

[Jeff Rodriguez]

From my observations at regionals, the best alliances are the ones with three good, versatile shooters.
For instance the three robots that won UTC had strong drive trains and could each shoot a few balls.
The benefit of three shooters is in their offensive period. If all three robots can shoot, you can't defend all three. Block two of them and the third one shoots a few. Go block the third one and the one you left starts shooting.
All three of the shooters also had strong, effective drive trains. They weren't easily pushed out of the way, and could be very effective blocking.
The same thing happened at BAE. Three good shooters, with strong drivetrains.

It's not that robot are built to specifically play defense, it's that the robots are versatile. I mean, there is a 40 second period where your alliance has to play defense, so you might as well play it well. That's exactly what these robots did, and did well.

[Jeff K.]

Originally Posted by Ogre

It's not that robot are built to specifically play defense, it's that the robots are versatile. I mean, there is a 40 second period where your alliance has to play defense, so you might as well play it well. That's exactly what these robots did, and did well.

That's very true. I've been noticing that a lot of teams are talking about how much defense is being played this year in comparison to years before and sometimes even complaining about it by flaming a strong defensive team. Ogre is very true, there is a 40 second period where the defensive robots get to show their stuff. We should recognize them for their abilities to stop the best shooter, rather than flame them for being destructive or for how they "smashed Robots".
Our robot is very versatile and can play offense by dumping balls into the corner goals, and then go onto Defense and try to prevent the other alliance from scoring. This is as legal of a strategy as any other strategy and had led us to wins during the qualifying matches and ranked pretty high at BAE.
I'm not trying to say that this game is all about defense, because offense is what scores all the points, but defense is also an important part of the game. This year is a pretty hard hitting game. FIRST hinted at it by recommending bumpers and even showing how to build them in the manual this year.

That's just my 2 cents.

[Frenchie]

Quick reply : tipping robots over is not a valid defensive strategies, and nor is it something to be proud of : during GLR, some penalties were given for intentionally tipping over an opponent, and many thought 5 points penalty wasn't enough.

[Justin]

Originally Posted by Ogre

From my observations at regionals, the best alliances are the ones with three good, versatile shooters.
For instance the three robots that won UTC had strong drive trains and could each shoot a few balls.
The benefit of three shooters is in their offensive period. If all three robots can shoot, you can't defend all three. Block two of them and the third one shoots a few. Go block the third one and the one you left starts shooting.
All three of the shooters also had strong, effective drive trains. They weren't easily pushed out of the way, and could be very effective blocking.
The same thing happened at BAE. Three good shooters, with strong drivetrains.

It's not that robot are built to specifically play defense, it's that the robots are versatile. I mean, there is a 40 second period where your alliance has to play defense, so you might as well play it well. That's exactly what these robots did, and did well.

I have to disagree with this to some extent. I think that you need a versatile alliance. At UTC we witnessed an alliance made up of three amazing shooters but without little defensive capability. In the end they ended up getting d'ed up and fell to the 177 lead alliance. I think there is a lot going on in this year's game and if you can negate even one really good shooter well you might just keep yourself in the match. This is one of the things I like about this year's game it basically forces teams to play defense. If you don't play at least some up against an alliance of shooters you are going to get slaughtered. 177's strategy was exactly what it should have been and was very well executed. Moral of the story from my point of view is don't under estimate defense. Let's also be clear about the fact that 126's alliance was a very good alliance and we haven't heard the last of any of the teams on that alliance in 2006 not be a long shot.

Justin

[John Neun]

[quote=Ben Piecuch]Guys,

Let's not get into an offense vs. defense argument here. Both teams 20 and 126 have very strong offensive robots, and were unfortunately the main targets for some very defensive robots at the UTC regional.

Thanks for the comments (in the whole post), Ben. As I just mentioned in another post, we had a GREAT experience in Hartford, and we hope to return. For the record, our robot had bumpers, sustained some pretty severe hits, and was nonetheless fully functional at the end of the contest. We get the idea of robust design. We also have no animus toward the winning alliance. Quite the contrary. You beat us fair and square, you outplayed us, and congratulations! I say that officially as chairman of our corporation: Congratulations to the winning alliance! Woody Flowers got a look at the structural effects of the defensive game on our robot and he said, "Too bad. You should be happy and proud of what you did in this competition." He was absolutely right, and we absolutely are, especially because this year we were given our own "Woody Flowers" in the person of Paul Kane. I appreciate the advise given previously in this thread, too. We'll do our best to improve our designs.

Of course we have room to improve, but I must also say that I have never been more proud of a machine or the way our students played our robot. Thank you all for the privilege of allowing us to be part of the competition and for allowing us to be on the field with all of you. What a wonderful bunch of people! I hope we can return to Hartford for many years to come.