What happened in the finals at West Michigan?

[Paul Copioli]

Originally Posted by johnr

So next week we will see a match were no tubes are thrown because HPs are waiting to see what the other HPs are not throwing out.

I doubt it, but that would be funny.

[Alex Dinsmoor]

Originally Posted by johnr

So next week we will see a match were no tubes are thrown because HPs are waiting to see what the other HPs are not throwing out.

If you watch our first QF match in Detroit, the opposing alliance did not throw any tubes, which became a problem where our alliance stopped throwing tubes resulting in a 20-30 seconds of no tubes.

Eventually our HP saw our coach jumping and waving his hands back and forth and began to throw tubes

[mobilegamer999]

For those of you interested in watching the matches, you can find them in our video here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r09qDdMc74

Again, it was great playing with all of you at GVSU

[Chris Fultz]

Originally Posted by Wayne TenBrink

Selective tube starvation - more effective than general purpose tube starvation.

Wouldn't it be worth it to take the penalty and get the tube?
3 point penalty, but completing a top row logo would be worth at least a 12 point increase (3+3=6 becomes 3+3+3X2=18), even more if a ubertube is on a peg.

[mwtidd]

Originally Posted by Chris Fultz

Wouldn't it be worth it to take the penalty and get the tube?
3 point penalty, but completing a top row logo would be worth at least a 12 point increase (3+3=6 becomes 3+3+3X2=18), even more if a ubertube is on a peg.

I had the same question regarding crossing the midfield in autonomous to stop a double cap.

Needless to say many in the FIRST community felt this wasn't GP. You may find a similar viewpoint.

That being said, I think you are absolutely right. Grabbing a tube would definitely be worth it. But by starving teams, you're forcing them to take a 3 point penalty for each tube.

[nikeairmancurry]

Originally Posted by Chris Fultz

Wouldn't it be worth it to take the penalty and get the tube?
3 point penalty, but completing a top row logo would be worth at least a 12 point increase (3+3=6 becomes 3+3+3X2=18), even more if a ubertube is on a peg.

I have thought of this... If I have two ubertubes on the top row and a triangle and a circle up there and this method is in place for squares, im telling my driver to get the darn tube... its worth it...

[mwtidd]

Originally Posted by Adam Freeman

2054 had some type of computer issue, where it would not recognize their joysticks... so they set still during the entire first match.

107 had 201 CAN errors registered at the end of the match. I can't really say what effect it had on their performance....b/c I was busy trying to outscore 1918 and 27 alone, with 3357 playing the toughest defense we have encountered.

I'm praying the new update fixes problems like that.

[Grim Tuesday]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

Yep. We did it on purpose. We were severely outgunned in that match and we figured the only way we could win is starve the logo completion and win the minibot race.

I am afraid that as the HP get better, the tube starvation method will be less effective. I am sure we will come up with something else.

We noticed you guys doing that at FLR. We also like how you play a form of "active defense". When you run over to get another tube, you:

a) Make sure to take the one we need
b) Get in our way
c) Make it hard for us

while still scoring. Well played guys, we have lessons to take from you to Boston.

[Nathan Streeter]

Originally Posted by lineskier

I had the same question regarding crossing the midfield in autonomous to stop a double cap.

Needless to say many in the FIRST community felt this wasn't GP. You may find a similar viewpoint.

That being said, I think you are absolutely right. Grabbing a tube would definitely be worth it. But by starving teams, you're forcing them to take a 3 point penalty for each tube.

Being one of those who agrees that crossing the mid-line for auto is "unGP" I'd like to explain why.

First, I generally think of penalties as a dis-incentive, but nothing more. Penalties for lane infractions are just that. They take 3 points off my score... so, if I can increase my score from 6 to 18 (no ubers) or 15 to 30 (1 uber, already covered) or 24 to 42 (2 ubers, already covered), then it is worth it to pick up that final tube to get 12, 15, or 18 points - well worth it! I am not even acting in some fashion to directly damage your opponents progress by getting this penalty! I don't see anything wrong with this scenario.

Next, I don't approve of autonomous defense for this year's game. Yes, the rules don't start any larger penalty or dis-incentive for defensive autonomous modes, but do you think a ref will look at an intentional prevention of a double-uber auto the same way as an intentional lane infraction to acquire a tube? In this case, the infraction is again intentional; however, now I am writing an auto-program prior to the match to actively prevent a robot from scoring during a protected time/zone. This sounds like an intentional G32, to me:

"If a ROBOT enters the opponent's ZONE and does not make immediate effort to leave OR if it contacts another ROBOT (or GAME PIECE in its POSSESSION) also in the ZONE, then the intruding TEAM will receive a RED CARD."

I'd assign a red card... perhaps only a penalty and yellow card for the first offense. I really don't want to risk throwing away my RP for that match if it's a qualifier or the win if it's an elimination match! Now the analysis isn't XX points prevented vs. 3-point penalty, it's XX points prevented vs. 3-point penalty plus yellow or red card.

Let's say I could be certain I wouldn't be carded and that I could get there in time to block both their ubers... now I've brought the scores 21 points closer together (24 prevented, 3 lost for penalty)! That's a big deal, right?! Well, what if I can score 1 ubertube on my own rack? If it's the case, then it's only a 9 point difference between scoring one of my own and blocking two of theirs. If I can't get there in time to block the first uber or if I have a double-uber myself, I lose 3 points for the penalty with no score change. On top of all that, in the qualifying matches I don't want to reduce my opponents score any more than I have to to win. Really, I'm not seeing the point analysis provide much (any?!) incentive for the autonomous defense... particularly when you add in the likelihood to earn a red or yellow card.

On top of all the pure point analysis, I don't think it's a GP move to intentionally inhibit protected actions. For me, FIRST is all about people competing to their potential in a fair-as-possible competition to learn and inspire. GP is about helping other teams achieve this, often at your own expense. Does this rule out legal defense? I don't think so. Part of this competition is mastering all aspects of the game... including penetrating defense. Part of the competition is fulfilling your robot's design to play optimal defense. I don't see anything wrong with legal defense. I do see plenty of things wrong with illegal defense. First of all, it breaks the whole "fair-as-possible" thing. That's not all that big a deal... life isn't fair... I can handle that. I disapprove of the fact that it breaks the game. The game was intended to have a defense-free autonomous mode. The teams designed to account for variability in the field, potentially bumping an alliance partner, acquiring a tube, etc.... they had no reason to figure they need to shelter their protected autonomous mode. No longer is it about helping everyone achieve their potential, now it's about me achieving my potential so I can win at your expense. That sounds pretty selfish, to me.

By contrast, 2006, 2008, and 2009 all had autonomous modes designed for defensive interaction. 2006: charge across to stop the auto high scorer from getting in scoring position/knock them off-line. Teams like ours expected that and designed to auto-track the target with our turret. That was an accepted design challenge, it'd be pitiful to gripe about such defense when it was within the game! 2008: I need to tear around the track to get lines and knock off balls... obviously there are going to be 5 other robots there, only 2 of which I'll be coordinating with! Now, perhaps I'll drive forward a few feet and try to prevent their robot from getting more lines or maybe I'll just rack up my own lines, while avoiding the other teams... again, well within the challenge. 2009: now I want to pin my opponents to our HP station (or score on them), which was obviously well within the rules and expectations of the game.

Really, I do disapprove of the defensive auto on both the cost-benefit issue and on the GP issue. This may be different for other teams. Without some provided definition for GP to rule out some behavior, I can't say my GP-compass is the same as yours. Without knowing what your auto is like, I can't rule out whether or not the cost-benefit analysis works for you. I do know that we have a reliable 1-tube auto and are working on a 2-tube auto. For the 1-uber auto vs. blocking 2-ubers auto, I have a relatively low-gain (9 pts.), very high-risk situation (my defense failing to block the first tube or getting a red card both look pretty likely)... I know enough about betting to avoid those situations.

My $0.02... As I said, they're mine not yours... :-)

[GaryVoshol]

In 2010 we had a good autonomous rule:

Originally Posted by 2010 manual

<G28> AUTONOMOUS PERIOD ROBOT Movement - During the AUTONOMOUS PERIOD, a ROBOT cannot completely cross the CENTER LINE. Violation: Two PENALTIES; plus two PENALTIES and a YELLOW CARD if a BALL or ROBOT is contacted after completely crossing the CENTER LINE, and two additional PENALTIES for each additional BALL or ROBOT contacted.

This provided for Penalties for a simple incursion, and escalating consequences for contacting other Robots or Balls.

With all the RED CARDS in this year's game, I'm surprised that there is no additional sanction for interefering with an opponent ROBOT after crossing the CENTER LINE. Although if your ROBOT gets as far as the other ZONE, you'll get 2 PENALTIES ...

[Siri]

Originally Posted by Grim Tuesday

We noticed you guys doing that at FLR. We also like how you play a form of "active defense". When you run over to get another tube, you:

a) Make sure to take the one we need
b) Get in our way
c) Make it hard for us

while still scoring. Well played guys, we have lessons to take from you to Boston.

Well summarized. I'd never learned so much playing against a single alliance as I did in the FLR SFs. Definitely taking those lessons to Philly, but I dread to think what their post-tube starving plan is!

Side note: if you plan on tube-starving, have an override signal for your HPs. 201 wasn't the only coach out there jumping around like a lunatic when the plan changed. And plans can always change.

[tr6scott]

Side note: if you plan on tube-starving, have an override signal for your HPs. 201 wasn't the only coach out there jumping around like a lunatic when the plan changed. And plans can always change.

Hum... So those teams at kettering that thought our LED lighting scheme was pretty neat decoration...

Here is a crop of one of Daniel Ernst's pictures, anyone notice something with our LED decorations?

[mwtidd]

Originally Posted by Nathan Streeter

Being one of those who agrees that crossing the mid-line for auto is "unGP" I'd like to explain why.

By contrast, 2006, 2008, and 2009 all had autonomous modes designed for defensive interaction. 2006: charge across to stop the auto high scorer from getting in scoring position/knock them off-line. Teams like ours expected that and designed to auto-track the target with our turret. That was an accepted design challenge, it'd be pitiful to gripe about such defense when it was within the game! 2008: I need to tear around the track to get lines and knock off balls... obviously there are going to be 5 other robots there, only 2 of which I'll be coordinating with! Now, perhaps I'll drive forward a few feet and try to prevent their robot from getting more lines or maybe I'll just rack up my own lines, while avoiding the other teams... again, well within the challenge. 2009: now I want to pin my opponents to our HP station (or score on them), which was obviously well within the rules and expectations of the game.

Really, I do disapprove of the defensive auto on both the cost-benefit issue and on the GP issue. This may be different for other teams. Without some provided definition for GP to rule out some behavior, I can't say my GP-compass is the same as yours. Without knowing what your auto is like, I can't rule out whether or not the cost-benefit analysis works for you. I do know that we have a reliable 1-tube auto and are working on a 2-tube auto. For the 1-uber auto vs. blocking 2-ubers auto, I have a relatively low-gain (9 pts.), very high-risk situation (my defense failing to block the first tube or getting a red card both look pretty likely)... I know enough about betting to avoid those situations.

My $0.02... As I said, they're mine not yours... :-)

I totally see where your coming from, and I think most would agree with you.

Again just as with ethics, things are never cut and dry, and now I'll explain why I think stealing a tube would be GP, and it somewhat follows 2006. In 2006 we killed it in autonomous, actually our autonomous basically got us into the finals. In the finals we ended up getting blocks (which as you said was perfectly legal). In my case smart and tactful defense is different from just defense.

Crossing the centerline to come barreling at an opponent is IMO certainly not GP.

I stated this in another thread, but for me something is GP if it is intended to progress both FIRST and the world, and at the same time does not break your ethical beliefs.

Barreling across the field does not progress FIRST in anyway. In 2006 it did because it made you think about avoiding obstacles (a very real problem).

However I don't think 2011 is the same.

That being said I would think stealing a tube would be GP because it would progress FIRST. To be able to scan your opponents side of the field, find a tube, sneak over and take a tube, all while not contacting another robot, would be an incredible feat.

The camera which should be the ultimate sensor in the FIRST arsenal is used in most cases by the driver, but doesn't actually act like a sensor. However by using the camera to find and an acquire the ubertube in autonomous would emphasize the actual value.

I only think it would be GP if you did not touch another robot, this should absolutely be a yellow card (red card second offense). but if you're able to sneak onto the opponents side, and make a tube disappear. that would truly progress FIRST.

As always some people look to the rule book as a basis for GP, but I don't look at the rule book as the laws of FIRST, and even if it was breaking the midfield is obviously a civil offense. Most people speed, which is illegal, do you think they are being unGP?

Again life is all about assessing cost to benefit ratio. Sometimes civil offenses are okay.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by tr6scott

Hum... So those teams at kettering that thought our LED lighting scheme was pretty neat decoration...

We actually have HP indicator lights (not as cool as yours, though). And we were using them. And we were flapping our claw. And we were coming down our lane and sitting in front of the HP. And I was waving my arms like crazy.

...Perhaps what I means is, make sure your HP responds to your override signal.

[Josh Fox]

Though I am surprised there's no further penalty for contacting an opponents robot, like Gary mentioned above, if I were in charge of strategy for a match and a situation arose where taking a three point penalty would guarantee a team not score an ubertube, then I would almost certainly go for it.

In my opinion it's a perfectly viable strategy, though potentially quite risky/challenging. Obviously it's hard to predict where a robot will be at a given moment in autonomous mode, and then there's always the possibility of a team being able to compensate and undo whatever "damage" you're capable of doing using sensors.