On the Platform for three points.

[Lee Reid 3136]

I think that having robot the platform during a game of Breakaway should have been worth three points and I have more justification for it then "It would have made my team win that match."

As we all know a suspend robot is one robot hanging off of another robot that is also hanging from the tower. This is worth three points. It also requires two well designed robots, robots designed to go above the normal call of the game, two skilled drivers, and maybe some luck. It nets your alliance 5 points.

Getting a robot on to the platform also requires two well designed robots, also designed to go beyond the normal call of the game, two skilled drivers, and maybe some luck and yet it nets your alliance only 2 points.

Both getting a suspended robot and having a robot on the platform are amazing feats and I think they should be awarded more equally.

[Chris is me]

Let me spin this the other way. Isn't the fact that the challenge was only worth two points a sign that such a design endeavor wasn't worth it? FIRST has game objectives every year that are generally "not worth it" (like suspension), perhaps teams that built ramps did a poor job of identifying what was worth the risk and reward.

[Basel A]

Chris, that suggests that absolutely any point values are fine, because teams will adjust accordingly. What is being suggested is that there would be a more balanced/diverse/enjoyable game if point values were different.

I don't absolutely agree with the pros, but here's a problem for you. If you say 'platform elevation' is touching the platform but not the tower bars, then it's way too hard to line up. If you say touching platform and/or bars, teams hanging primarily on the bar can just release fabric or something similar onto the platform and get extra points.

[Cory]

I'm trying to understand what you're getting at here, but I can't get past your statement that getting a robot onto the platform requires 2 robots to earn 2 points.

If it requires 2 robots to earn 2 points, yet 2 robots can get 4 points if they both hang, why would you ever attempt the former?

[Brandon Holley]

Originally Posted by Cory

I'm trying to understand what you're getting at here, but I can't get past your statement that getting a robot onto the platform requires 2 robots to earn 2 points.

If it requires 2 robots to earn 2 points, yet 2 robots can get 4 points if they both hang, why would you ever attempt the former?

Building off of this, it doesn't necessarily require 2 robots to get onto the platform either, which eliminates the bonus you are suggesting for a collaboration of sorts between teams to get onto the platform

-Brando

[DivisionDragons]

Originally Posted by Cory

I'm trying to understand what you're getting at here, but I can't get past your statement that getting a robot onto the platform requires 2 robots to earn 2 points.

If it requires 2 robots to earn 2 points, yet 2 robots can get 4 points if they both hang, why would you ever attempt the former?

So its a 3 robot team, one has no suspension system, one has the ramp but no suspension system, and the other can hang. If the 2nd robot were to deploy the ramp and let the 1st robot climb onto the tower, and the 3rd robot were to hang, then you would get 4 bonus points.
However, if the 2nd robot DID NOT have a ramp, the 1st robot has no way of getting onto the platform, therefore the team would only get 2 points from the 3rd robot hanging.
The problem with your idea is that you are assuming all 3 robots can hang, and that is not the case in most instances.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by DivisionDragons

The problem with your idea is that you are assuming all 3 robots can hang, and that is not the case in most instances.

Maybe they should be...

Regardless of that, why build a robot that depends on your opponent to get two points when you could elevate yourself for 2 points? Teams that built ramps chose their design poorly, in my opinion.

[NickE]

There are multiple ways to get on the platform. In theory, a robot could be built to drive onto the platform from the bump. For most teams, this was probably harder than simply hanging, so they chose to hang instead.

[Lee Reid 3136]

I would like everyone to keep in mind that I am biased in this discussion and since the season is over it doesn't really matter. This was just an idea I had one day. I think even if it is not worth an extra point game point, some seeding points should be awarded to the rampbot's team. It is because of them that their alliance gets those points and yet they don't have anything to show for it.

As for the comments about how it was unwise to build rampbots in the first place. Some teams don't have the funds, time, weight, manpower, etc. to build a hanger but still want to be able to contribute to their alliance in some way. It is a team sport we're supposed to work together.

Originally Posted by NickE

There are multiple ways to get on the platform. In theory, a robot could be built to drive onto the platform from the bump. For most teams, this was probably harder than simply hanging, so they chose to hang instead.

It would be harder and that is why I think it should be worth more points.

Originally Posted by TEE

And Lee, did your team try building a hanging mechanism?

No we didn't, we lost 2 weeks of build season due to snow and we were lucky to have a kicker. If we had qualified for nationals we would have worked on hanging.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Lee Reid 3136

I would like everyone to keep in mind that I am biased in this discussion and since the season is over it doesn't really matter. This was just an idea I had one day. I think even if it is not worth an extra point game point, some seeding points should be awarded to the rampbot's team. It is because of them that their alliance gets those points and yet they don't have anything to show for it.

All members of the alliance get the finale points.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Lee Reid 3136

It would be harder and that is why I think it should be worth more points.

Just because something is harder does not mean it is better.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by DivisionDragons

So its a 3 robot team, one has no suspension system, one has the ramp but no suspension system, and the other can hang. If the 2nd robot were to deploy the ramp and let the 1st robot climb onto the tower, and the 3rd robot were to hang, then you would get 4 bonus points.
However, if the 2nd robot DID NOT have a ramp, the 1st robot has no way of getting onto the platform, therefore the team would only get 2 points from the 3rd robot hanging.
The problem with your idea is that you are assuming all 3 robots can hang, and that is not the case in most instances.

How many teams had ramps that consistently allowed their partners to get on the platform?

Not very many from what I saw.

[ratdude747]

well, any vertical pole hanger that touches the platform to keep it from sliding below 18" would technically be on the platform. so, here are the teams that i can think of that would get 3 points:

33
1625
135
1114
and MANY more!

so it is not as exclusive as one would think.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by ratdude747

well, any vertical pole hanger that touches the platform to keep it from sliding below 18" would technically be on the platform. so, here are the teams that i can think of that would get 3 points:

33
1625
135
1114
and MANY more!

so it is not as exclusive as one would think.

33 and 1114 both use friction to stay above the platform, they don't actually touch it.

[EricH]

330 has long had a desire to be able to win a match regardless of partners' ability. If a strategy relies completely on partners, they just won't do that as their primary strategy. Building a ramp to the platform relies on partners that can climb it. Being a climber relies on partners with ramps that you can climb.

Too hard to pull off reliably to be viable. Make it 10 points, and we'll talk.