Who is hanging and how?

[Mr. Lim]

http://mrlim.net/pluginfile.php?file...2FPIC-0039.jpg

[Josh Drake]

Originally Posted by Mr. Lim

http://mrlim.net/pluginfile.php?file...2FPIC-0039.jpg

Would that be considered grabbing the field element? If not, looks good to me

[JamesCH95]

Originally Posted by Mr. Lim

http://mrlim.net/pluginfile.php?file...2FPIC-0039.jpg

We briefly considered a similar mechanism but decided against it in large part because it would only work if there was another robot, like the one you pictured.

Originally Posted by Josh Drake

Would that be considered grabbing the field element? If not, looks good to me

This potential rule violation is another reason why we didn't pursue the idea. I think it would be considered 'attaching to' the field element, but I may be wrong. Depending on how the ramp/robot interacted I could also see great potential for playing field damage too.

[G10]
Robots may not grab, grasp, grapple, or attach to any Arena structure. Robots may not push or react against the top of the Fender. (Robots may push or react against any element of the Arena that is not protected by another rule.)
Violation: Foul

[Grim Tuesday]

There were 29 people who said they would be suspending. Over the entire season there was what, one suspension?

There were 33 people who said they could be suspended from. See above.

There were 14 people who said they would be climbing onto the base of the tower. I don't recall anyone successfully doing that, either.

How did so many teams horribly misread the game that year? Is suspending just like three robots balancing?

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Grim Tuesday

There were 14 people who said they would be climbing onto the base of the tower. I don't recall anyone successfully doing that, either.

One did, using a ramp supplied by another team's robot (1629 was the ramp; don't remember who climbed up).

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Grim Tuesday

How did so many teams horribly misread the game that year? Is suspending just like three robots balancing?

Teams are overconfident every year. Honest evaluation of your capabilities with regard to your design strategy is a skill few teams have.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

Teams are overconfident every year. Honest evaluation of your capabilities with regard to your design strategy is a skill few teams have.

Quoted for truth.


This is a wonderful example of teams not really understanding how difficult some of the tasks are, and their own capabilities.

Build within your capabilities, and understand your capabilities (and what you cannot do) and you will do well.

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

Quoted for truth.


This is a wonderful example of teams not really understanding how difficult some of the tasks are, and their own capabilities.

Build within your capabilities, and understand your capabilities (and what you cannot do) and you will do well.

Which is why I loathe pit scouting.
Too many teams lie. They will tell you their robot can do anything and everything and it can barely move 1o feet.
All pit scouting really does is weed out teams that I never ever want on my alliance. If I can't trust you to tell me honestly what your own robot can or cannot do how can I trust you to execute the strategy in the eliminations?

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

Which is why I loathe pit scouting.
Too many teams lie. They will tell you their robot can do anything and everything and it can barely move 1o feet.
All pit scouting really does is weed out teams that I never ever want on my alliance. If I can't trust you to tell me honestly what your own robot can or cannot do how can I trust you to execute the strategy in the eliminations?

How many of those teams do you think are actually lying instead of citing their designed "upside?" Their robots were designed to do those tasks, and many still believe they'll be able to by weekends' end.

[EricLeifermann]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

Which is why I loathe pit scouting.
Too many teams lie. They will tell you their robot can do anything and everything and it can barely move 1o feet.
All pit scouting really does is weed out teams that I never ever want on my alliance. If I can't trust you to tell me honestly what your own robot can or cannot do how can I trust you to execute the strategy in the eliminations?

100% agree.

I believe that pit scouting is only good for getting close up pictures of each robot, so when you are talking about who to pick you have a picture to reference to in addition to your match scouting data.

[Ian Curtis]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

How many of those teams do you think are actually lying instead of citing their designed "upside?" Their robots were designed to do those tasks, and many still believe they'll be able to by weekends' end.

Oftentimes it is so overstated it is lying even if it is well intentioned. In 2008 at BAE we asked teams in the pit what they though a realistic estimate of their hurdles/match would be over the course of qualifiers. The average team told us 4, yet come noon Saturday only four teams had averaged two hurdles per match, one was very close to three. Interestingly, all five of those teams had come close to correctly guessing how many hurdles/match they would be worth.

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

How many of those teams do you think are actually lying instead of citing their designed "upside?" Their robots were designed to do those tasks, and many still believe they'll be able to by weekends' end.

Practically none.

[Chris is me]

Being asked something like "how well can you score" can put a lot of pressure on an unprepared student. Students are awkward, excited, and optimistic sometimes - I wouldn't blame them for overstating their machine. While I'm not proud, I've gotten a bit excited myself. Especially right after a good match.

My response to this is to just not pit scout. Other than photos. It makes it easier for everyone that way.

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

Being asked something like "how well can you score" can put a lot of pressure on an unprepared student. Students are awkward, excited, and optimistic sometimes - I wouldn't blame them for overstating their machine. While I'm not proud, I've gotten a bit excited myself. Especially right after a good match.

My response to this is to just not pit scout. Other than photos. It makes it easier for everyone that way.

That's why teams should be careful about who is standing in their pits. Make sure they are prepared to answer the questions asked of them or point people in the right direction to properly answer questions about the robot instead of spreading false information about the robot and doing more damage to your teams reputation than having a bad robot will.

[teachsail]

Originally Posted by Ian Curtis

Oftentimes it is so overstated it is lying even if it is well intentioned. In 2008 at BAE we asked teams in the pit what they though a realistic estimate of their hurdles/match would be over the course of qualifiers. The average team told us 4, yet come noon Saturday only four teams had averaged two hurdles per match, one was very close to three. Interestingly, all five of those teams had come close to correctly guessing how many hurdles/match they would be worth.

You ask a team to make a guess about a game they have never played with a robot they have barely driven? No surprise they got it wrong. A bad guess is not a lie. You should give these young and inexperienced teams/members a break. If a team tells me on Thursday morning that they can shoot the moon, I know they are telling me their hopes for their design. If they stick to that story on Saturday morning, and still haven't achieved it, then they are probably lying and trusting them is problematic.