Why go over the bump

[wireties]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

R22 reads "Moving or positioning a Basketball to gain advantage is considered actively controlling. Examples are “carrying” (holding Basketballs in the Robot), “herding” (intentionally pushing or impelling Basketballs to a desired location or direction) and “trapping” (pressing one or more Basketballs against a Court element in an attempt to shield them)."

Parking a robot in the corner of the court with basketballs between the court boundaries and your robot is neither carrying, herding, nor trapping. No touchy, no trappy.

Better double check, I think I saw a GDC response that make your proposed strategy illegal. In my view, it is less-than-stellar sportsmanship at a minimum. This a game for engineers, not lawyers! ;o)

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by wireties

Better double check, I think I saw a GDC response that make your proposed strategy illegal. In my view, it is less-than-stellar sportsmanship at a minimum. This a game for engineers, not lawyers! ;o)

A. The Q&A is very easy to search by rule. Of the nine questions asked and answered related to G22, one indicates that I'm right (without explicitly saying so, but given that FRC is a restrictive rules set and not a permissive one, they don't have to say so outright) and the rest don't address it.

B. Your opinion on the sportsmanship involved is irrelevant to a discussion of strategy. It would be a mistake to dismiss what could be a valid strategy as "rules lawyering". Even if you have no intention of doing it, you should be prepared in the event that your opponents do.

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

R22 reads "Moving or positioning a Basketball to gain advantage is considered actively controlling. Examples are “carrying” (holding Basketballs in the Robot), “herding” (intentionally pushing or impelling Basketballs to a desired location or direction) and “trapping” (pressing one or more Basketballs against a Court element in an attempt to shield them)."

Parking a robot in the corner of the court with basketballs between the court boundaries and your robot is neither carrying, herding, nor trapping. No touchy, no trappy.

I agree with your interprentation and in no way view it as unsportsmanlike. There has been nothing wrong with slowing the game down and hoarding game pieces in past games (other than 2008 when you couldn't control your opponents trackball).

According to the Q&A, one issue with that strategy is that if you touch the opponents robot in your ally, you get a red card due to G45. Its a ruling I completely disagree with, but it is what it is...

[MichaelBick]

Originally Posted by Leeland1126

I can definitely understand why someone thinking designing only for the bridge and not for the barrier would be totally okay. It's something else to design for, and realistically, will probably only add a few second (if that many) to your trips across field, which, unless you're making frequent trips, isn't really that bad. However, I see only crossing the bridge as a "Well, what if..." situation. There are things that, if you can only cross the bridge, could hurt you.

Well, what if...

• Both of your alliance partners can only cross the bridge: If your match strategy dictates all of your alliance partners (or even just two of you) to be crossing the bridge, it's going to get crowded at times. And unless two of you have a REALLY thin robot you feel comfortable running side by side on the bridge, it's going to cost you valueable seconds of gameplay.
• One of your partners takes a spill on the bridge: Say one of your partners it crossing the bridge and they tip and fall. Not off the bridge, but they fall and block the bridge on one side. Then, not only can you maybe not balance in the end game, but you can't traverse the field via alliance bridge. You can still use the coopertition bridge and the opponent's bridge, but you're not protected by your bridge and alley, and you risk penalty by using the opponent's bridge, especially if you happen to be crossing close to end game time.
• Something malfunctions: Most team's bridge manipulators (from what I've seen, and admittedly partially through assumption) will probably be some kind of arm that swings down and pushes the bridge into position to drive on. And nothing ever breaks If a part of your robot snaps, comes unplugged, or just gets stuck, you suddenly are without a bridge manipulator. While I've yet to see/come up with a passive bridge manipulator, there is at least one way to traverse the bump passively (i.e. with the right kind of wheels, you can just cross the barrier).
• You ARE making frequent trips: Teams like 1114, 254, 217, etc. will probably be looking to make frequent trips across the field if they don't have a good feeder bringing balls to their side. Say they are sinking all 3 shots (entirely possible), not leaving any rebounds to get. If they want to make 5-10 trips a match (just throwing out numbers), say crossing the bridge takes 3 seconds and the barrier only takes 2 seconds a match. Overall, the bridge takes 15 - 30 seconds, while the barrier only takes 10 - 20. As the match progresses, the bump with allow more time for scoring. These are, of course, hypothetical numbers. In practice, we'll actually see how things turn out. Conversely, if these elite powerhouse teams can only cross the bridge, maybe you don't want to use the bridge, for risk of getting in their way? Just a thought.

These are all very real possibilities and, though you may not see them happening every match, even just happening once can cost you. Being able to cross the barrier may not be a necessity, but having the added versatility will almost definitely come in handy several times at a competition.

One the other side, however, designing for the bridge ONLY does have it's advantages.

• Less to design: If you're a team with limited resources, you're almost definitely going to want to design a simple robot at possible. Adding design for the barrier can take valuable time and resources, as well as adding wait and, depending on the method, complexity.
• Focus on one thing: If you take the attention that could be divided between bridge and barrier, and focus only on one of them, then you should have a bridge or barrier manipulator that is doubly effective. With the major impact of the end game this year (either by being able to use the co-op bridge, or getting the points for your own bridge), having an effective bridge manipulator can make an alliance successful, as well as making you highly desirable in alliance selections.

So only being able to use the bridge may not kill you. Just having the added versatility can help you out a lot.


I hope this helps!
-Leeand

While our bridge mechanism is not passive, once we "deploy" it, it is then passive

[LeelandS]

Originally Posted by MICHAELABICK

While our bridge mechanism is not passive, once we "deploy" it, it is then passive

I assume you're referring to the 3rd point under why to design for the bump.

This is true, but it does have to be deployed. And whether by motor or pneumatics (or some other system), there will be some chance for the system to fail. Like last year, with the minibots. If a team had a pneumatically powered deployment system, and a pneumatic tube got loose or for some other reason that team lost air pressure, the team would be unable to deploy their minibot. The minibot itself was still functional, but useless since it couldn't be conveyed to the pole. Same case here. The mechanism itself may be passive, but the system by which it is deployed may have a chance of failure.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

According to the Q&A, one issue with that strategy is that if you touch the opponents robot in your ally, you get a red card due to G45. Its a ruling I completely disagree with, but it is what it is...

Right, but if you're positioned so that they can't touch the balls without touching you, and your robot does not move, you're in the clear because you're not causing the penalty by hitting them.

I honestly don't think it's a winning strategy, but it's possible that it could be in some circumstances, and thus teams should be prepared to face it just in case.

[wireties]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

Right, but if you're positioned so that they can't touch the balls without touching you, and your robot does not move, you're in the clear because you're not causing the penalty by hitting them.

It may come as a surprise but no one person is the sole arbiter concerning what opinion is relevant and what is not. All strategies are essentially opinions. Is this kind of problem solving approach what mentors want to be teaching students?

[Chris is me]

From a strategic standpoint, going over the bump allows for more mobility, and if you could design it in with relatively little effort, then it's a no brainer.

One of the most important pieces of advice I heard was that crossing a steel bump was dramatically different and harder than a wooden bump. Shaker's limited testing had difficulty even with the wooden one. With our build schedule and design process, we abandoned it.

There are a lot of aspects of this particular game that make the midfield barrier interesting. Recall the last time we had zone play with a ball supply nearly as limited. I see stronger parallels between this game and Breakaway than the free-roaming nature of Aim High. If you're good enough at what you specialize in, a combination of good strategy, great execution, and healthy use of alliance partner assistance will take you far.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by wireties

It may come as a surprise but no one person is the sole arbiter concerning what opinion is relevant and what is not. All strategies are essentially opinions. Is this kind of problem solving approach what mentors want to be teaching students?

You seem to have taken personally something which was not. I apologize.

My point was that feeling should not get in the way of fact, and if in fact the strategy is even potentially legal, it is better to plan for the eventuality than to dismiss it. And yes, that is absolutely something I would like my kids to learn.

[wireties]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

You seem to have taken personally something which was not. I apologize.

I am not offended - no worries here. But when one apologizes, it is normal/genuine to do so w/o caveats

Originally Posted by pfreivald

My point was that feeling should not get in the way of fact, and if in fact the strategy is even potentially legal, it is better to plan for the eventuality than to dismiss it. And yes, that is absolutely something I would like my kids to learn.

"Moving or positioning a Basketball to gain advantage is considered actively controlling. Examples are..." The bizarre "protect the balls in the corner" strategy is not enumerated in the examples but that does not make it legal. The GDC can't cover every crazy possibility, nor should they have to. In my opinion, the intent of this rule is beyond question. If one (with intent, not accidentally) put 4 balls in the corner and parks in front of them, you are controlling them - period. Further I think most refs would red card (per G45) a robot for repeating this offense.

Feelings (aka integrity, sportmanship and ethics) play a unique role in the engineering world. It is simply not possible for a customer to create a SOW or reqs that cover every possible design flaw or feature. It is ethical to point this out to the customer and (if there no cost/schedule impact) to act in accordance with the clarified intent of the design. This is the proper path for an ethical young engineer - might as well start teaching them (and setting the example) now.

This question is on point and the GDC did NOT choose to reply. As I said above they can't comment on every silly scenario.

Q. Do balls positioned behind a robot but not touching it, previously put there by the robot or an inbounder, count as being controlled?
A. Hypothetical game situations are highly context dependent. It is not practical for us to provide definitive answers for all individual situations which may be presented.

This question is also on point and the GDC reply is definitive (says my son the lawyer ;o). "Intent" is key.

Q. Is G45 violated if a robot herds balls into their alley and waits nearby so if/when an opposing robot attempts to retrieve said balls they can contact them resulting in a foul as per G44?
A. Yes. It could also be considered trapping depending on how the strategy is executed.

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by wireties

"Moving or positioning a Basketball to gain advantage is considered actively controlling. Examples are..." The bizarre "protect the balls in the corner" strategy is not enumerated in the examples but that does not make it legal. The GDC can't cover every crazy possibility, nor should they have to. In my opinion, the intent of this rule is beyond question. If one (with intent, not accidentally) put 4 balls in the corner and parks in front of them, you are controlling them - period. Further I think most refs would red card (per G45) a robot for repeating this offense.

Feelings (aka integrity, sportmanship and ethics) play a unique role in the engineering world. It is simply not possible for a customer to create a SOW or reqs that cover every possible design flaw or feature. It is ethical to point this out to the customer and (if there no cost/schedule impact) to act in accordance with the clarified intent of the design. This is the proper path for an ethical young engineer - might as well start teaching them (and setting the example) now.

This question is on point and the GDC did NOT choose to reply. As I said above they can't comment on every silly scenario.

I think this strategy is far from "bizarre, crazy, and silly". Game piece starvation and hoarding has been used frequently in previous game (2011, 2009, 2008, 2006). The only time ethics even came into the conversation was in Galileo 2008, when robots couldn't possess their opponent's trackballs and obviously tried to.

[wireties]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

I think this strategy is far from "bizarre, crazy, and silly". Game piece starvation and hoarding has been used frequently in previous game (2011, 2009, 2008, 2006). The only time ethics even came into the conversation was in Galileo 2008, when robots couldn't possess their opponent's trackballs and obviously tried to.

I refer you to the rules cited above. There is no reasonable room for disagreement.

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by wireties

I refer you to the rules cited above. There is no reasonable room for disagreement.

I don't see any rule that prohibits a robot from sitting in its own ally while in contact with no balls as long as the robot makes no attempt to contact an opposing robot.

Per the blue box in G22 (see below), a robot is 'trapping' and thus controlling balls only when the ball is pressed up against their robot and the wall. Blocking opposing robots from getting access to balls is not trapping nor controlling.

"Moving or positioning a Basketball to gain advantage is considered actively controlling. Examples are “carrying” (holding Basketballs in the Robot), “herding” (intentionally pushing or impelling Basketballs to a desired location or direction) and “trapping” (pressing one or more Basketballs against a Court element in an attempt to shield them)."

[slijin]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

Game piece starvation and hoarding has been used frequently in previous game (2011, 2009, 2008, 2006).

I'd say that one of the most extreme examples of this was 469 in 2010.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by wireties

I am not offended - no worries here. But when one apologizes, it is normal/genuine to do so w/o caveats

The apology was that what I said seemed to have been misinterpreted as a personal statement. It was not, so the fault may well be mine.

That has nothing to do with the argument, and I stand by my statements. You are of course free to disagree.