Defense robots for 2010 game..

[kapolavery]

I was wondering what the consensus was on building a robot that could play "goalie" or defense.. I think a crab drive system would work since all goalies do is move side to side.

But is it worth building a defensive robot this year?

[Tom I]

I think that a defense robot would bring a asset to an alliance. like imagine if a robot was really good at defense, and had a really good kicker, as in it could kick balls from one end to the other. This would allow the defense bot to play goalie all day, and if it has the opportunity to steal a ball, it could kick it away to its scoring zone, where its alliance partners would take over. its a very good idea. the only way the goalie bot would fail is if two robots ganged up and scored on the two goals alternately, but that would take another robot from another section of the field. It's worth a lot of consideration. Strategy will be key in this game.

[Chris is me]

Defense wins Championships.

There are better ways to prevent scoring in this game than by strafing between the opponent's two goals.

That's all I'd like to say for now.

[Tom I]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

Defense wins Championships.

There are better ways to prevent scoring in this game than by strafing between the opponent's two goals.

That's all I'd like to say for now.

Very true, correct on both things...
But hmmmm... is that a strategy hint from Team 2791 or 1714??

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Tom I

Very true, correct on both things...
But hmmmm... is that a strategy hint from Team 2791 or 1714??

It's a strategy hint for matches I'll be involved in. So.... even I don't know yet o.0 I guess both?

[Tony.Wu]

And perhaps you could use powerful motors with superior torque to pin the opponent.

[Matt H.]

Originally Posted by Tony.Wu

And perhaps you could use powerful motors with superior torque to pin the opponent.

Pinning for any significant amount of time (More than 5 seconds) is forbidden--see Section 7 <G39>.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Matt H.

Pinning for any significant amount of time (More than 5 seconds) is forbidden--see Section 7 <G39>.

But taking them 'for a ride' across the bumps (especially if they cannot traverse them back on their own) isn't forbidden

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

But taking them 'for a ride' across the bumps (especially if they cannot traverse them back on their own) isn't forbidden

I'm kind of curious how refs are going to rule on that sort of thing if you end up tipping or damaging a robot that was never designed to traverse the bumps. Especially if you end up damaging a robot. I know the whole "Build robust" thing, but there's only so much some of the rookies are going to do there.

[Jones571]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

I'm kind of curious how refs are going to rule on that sort of thing if you end up tipping or damaging a robot that was never designed to traverse the bumps. Especially if you end up damaging a robot. I know the whole "Build robust" thing, but there's only so much some of the rookies are going to do there.

I think G38 <A> will apply as if this happens on a regular basis i think it can easily be called aggressive and intentional. As well as G37 <B> which says Incidental contact is generally allowed... So If you are over aggressive and push them over a ramp you may find your self in some serious trouble.

[Tony.Wu]

5 seconds may still be quite significant as this is only a 2 minute game. If you can pin the opponent and kick the balls away from your goal before he recovers?

[eugenebrooks]

Instead of taking them for a ride across the bumps, how about parking
them on top of a bump. Done gently, without robot or field damage,
how is this overly aggressive? The team could just come out and fetch
their robot after the match was over with no harm done.

Eugene

Originally Posted by Jones571

I think G38 <A> will apply as if this happens on a regular basis i think it can easily be called aggressive and intentional. As well as G37 <B> which says Incidental contact is generally allowed... So If you are over aggressive and push them over a ramp you may find your self in some serious trouble.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

I'm kind of curious how refs are going to rule on that sort of thing if you end up tipping or damaging a robot that was never designed to traverse the bumps. Especially if you end up damaging a robot. I know the whole "Build robust" thing, but there's only so much some of the rookies are going to do there.

Truthfully, that probably would depend on if the damage was purposeful or not. I'm not, nor would I ever, advocating damaging another robot (in fact, I talk to my drivers about avoiding damage), but on the other hand there is a level of robot-to-robot and robot-to-field interaction that is to be expected.

Build it robust, and expect interaction. Then go out and have fun.

[Molten]

I have one thing to say for robustness. Build it so you can drop it sideways from 2 feet off the ground. If you can't do that, it's not truly robust. Just remember, any given year tipping is possible. Plan for it and expect it. This holds especially true for years that involve lifting/ramps like this one. I always avoid doing anything that will specifically hurt their robot. However, I've seen some robots that are built flimsy with the assumption that other teams will be careful to not break them. That's not a safe bet. I won't try to hurt you, but I won't try not to. I'm just going to tell the driver to play the game as it was meant to be played.

Note: I'm not a strategy person as usual. 1766 may or may not be using this ideology, however I will bet some team will. Plan for someone to play this way that way they won't have to make the tough call.

[XaulZan11]

I don't think you build a 'defensive robot'. I think you build an offensive robot that can play defense if necessary (due to breakdown in scoring mechanism, poor scoring ability, or specific match stratedgy calls for it).

I think the role of defense will be very similar to that in 2007. In 2007 there were, in my mind, two ways to play defense. The first was a 'man to man' approach, where the defender would harass and push the opponent all around the field (ie, push them when they are picking up a tube, moving towards the rack, trying to score). The second was a 'screening defense'. In this approach, the defender would position themselves inbetween the rack and the opponents, trying to screen the scoring robots from getting into the rack. Each had its strengths and weaknesses.