Team Update #18

[Ben Piecuch]

Team Update #18 is posted.

(Sorry Wildstang...)

BEN

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by Ben Piecuch

(Sorry Wildstang...)

There go our big plans. Once again Raul and Wildstang were one step ahead, and we were one step behind. It's too bad, I really liked the pre-stack strategy, it opened up some interesting possibilities.

[Corey Balint]

Originally Posted by Karthik

There go our big plans. Once again Raul and Wildstang were one step ahead, and we were one step behind. It's too bad, I really liked the pre-stack strategy, it opened up some interesting possibilities.

Pardon my ignorance, what did Stang actually do?
I mean I think I know, but I am unsure.

[Joel J]

Originally Posted by Corey Balint

Pardon my ignorance, what did Stang actually do?
I mean I think I know, but I am unsure.

At least one of their alliance partners were dead in a match. They (wildstang) placed the dead alliance partner on top of the third robot in the alliance. Wildstang went out and tried to score, etc, and the other two robots stayed in the end zone for a 30 point bonus.

[TheOtherGuy]

It's good entertainment watching everyone's pre-game strategies go to waste!

[Justin]

Why do I have a disturbing feeling that we are heading for another Update 16 debacle. It seems interesting to me that FIRST wouldn't have learned their less on that one. Also I say props to WildStang for thinking of this one haven't seen anyone else try this in any of the last 3 regionals I've been at/watched I guess because of the size restriction issue. Once again the action of FIRST reversing it's decision mid-season seems far worse than the decision itself. Although this used to be the norm and it may make things more interesting sometimes. I guess FIRST should put a disclaimer in the manual "rules are subject to change until the last match has been played on Einstein in Atlanta."

-Justin

[TVan]

I would very disappoined If the #1 seed was picking teams by how they stacked Just pile up some junk in the cornner and throw for ringers Im glad they made the change.

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by TVan

I would very disappoined If the #1 seed was picking teams by how they stacked Just pile up some junk in the cornner and throw for ringers Im glad they made the change.

Well, not junk exactly. Your junk-bot would have to pass inspection before you could pile it in the corner.

Seriously, I can see both sides of this one. If the rule hadn't been changed, there would have likely been some teams put in the position TVan describes above, and what kind of inspiration is that?

But I can also see the side that says you don't change the rules in the middle of the game. (Jump in any time, Tristan.)

[Dave Flowerday]

Originally Posted by Joel J.

At least one of their alliance partners were dead in a match.

Actually, both robots were non-functional at the time. Our alliance would not have done it otherwise (who would choose to go 1-on-3 on purpose?). And despite what others have posted on here, the refs did not disable either robot. The teams in the stack chose to E-Stop themselves right after autonomous just to make sure nothing moved and caused the top one to fall.

[Nuttyman54]

190 actually considered making a robot which would start like this, with a partner on top. Their wheels would be on some sort of rollers/tracks which would control the drivetrain below. The intent was the have them driving our base, and ensure the 30 points. Logistics and other things kept us from doing it, but it was a legit strategy that was considered. If any teams that have not competed decided to do this, they've just been shafted.

[Jonathan Norris]

Aww they just had to ruin our fun

[Frinkahedron]

Too bad, it'd have been nice to see a few more teams pull that off.

[Alex Cormier]

Another thing for Copioli?

[Kevin Sevcik]

That seems like a pretty big change pretty late in the season. I realize 99% of the teams probably weren't actually planning on this during build season, but it's entirely possible someone was and is now caught out. I could understand changing the safety rules to require those robots to be disabled, but completely outlawing it with 3/5ths of the competitions gone seems odd. I do understand the logic, it just seems like a pretty big change.

[Kevin Kolodziej]

I don't like that the ruling has been changed now, after the strategy was actually used, when the very question was asked in the Q/A forum back in January and it was given the go-ahead.

I'm fine with not allowing it...but don't allow it from the start next time!