The Ultimate Game-Breaker Robot: 2012 Edition

[Jared Russell]

So here we are. Week 6. One week until stop build day. By now we have all seen a slew of videos of teams shooting balls, picking them up, autonomous detecting the goals, and even a few of teams auto-balancing on bridges using nothing but sensors and code. We have all seen 179's incredible outside-the-box concept and the word Einstein came up more than once in their teaser thread.

But I am here to say that I believe there is a strategy/concept even more game-breaking than any we have seen (posted publicly on this forum) so far. At least in one aspect of this game. Potentially reminiscient of 469's legendary Breakaway concept (hence the title of this thread, an homage to this).

Anyway, here's the concept...

EXHIBIT A:

Originally Posted by G40

When the final score is assessed per [G37], a Balanced Alliance Bridge will earn points based on the number of Alliance Robots completely supported by the Bridge, per Section 2.2.5, as follows (...table...)

Okay, so a robot must be completely supported by the balanced bridge, per Section 2.2.5, in order to score bonus points.

EXHIBIT B:

Originally Posted by Section 2.2.5

A Bridge will count as Balanced if it is within 5° of horizontal and all Robots touching it are fully supported by it.

Alright. Seems straightforward. Now all we need is a definition of what constitutes the bridge....

EXHIBIT C:

Originally Posted by Q&A Response to team 2826 from 01-17

Q: What physical parts make up the bridge by definition? Essentially, where does the bridge begin and end? For example, does the welded structure under the bridge that the top connects to count as the bridge? Does the lateral bar that rotates with the bridge that count as the bridge?

A: The Bridge consists of all components included in the Bridge Assembly drawing, GE-12017

Alright, let's look there...

EXHIBIT D:
Take a look for yourself: http://www.usfirst.org/sites/default...wings_rev2.pdf

The drawing starts on page 22 of the PDF. Notice Item #9 on Sheet 1 of GE-12017.

The Ball Ramp Assembly.

Now put it all together.

A robot that is 8" tall at maximum (the minimum height from the carpet to the bottom of the bridge platform; see the next page in the Game Drawings PDF). Bumpers at the minimum height (2"-7" off the floor). All it has to do is drive under the bridge platform, park on the ball ramp, and it is considered "fully supported", given all of the information we have so far. On top of that, it is basicaly impossible for the bridge to come down on the side where the robot is now parked; you have a robot in the way!

QUESTIONS:
Does it meet all of the required criteria to be scored as a fully supported robot? I believe so.

Does it break any other rules? I do not believe so. The robot is not grabbing/grappling/grasping any field structure. The bumpers appear to be legal.

Is this what the GDC intended? I don't know, but I have submitted a Q&A question (albeit one with a couple of typos, sorry GDC!) in order to find out.

How many teams are planning on exploiting this? We'll find out. I am sure it is nonzero. My team is not one of them; we didn't see the loophole until we had already designed and built a shooter tower that is far taller than 8".

[Aren_Hill]

From my perspective Engineering drawings don't have grey area, so 100% legal.
If they change the definition of bridge it'll probably mess up other wording and make things nice and confusing, not like they haven't done that before though.

[thefro526]

Originally Posted by Jared341

QUESTIONS:
Does it meet all of the required criteria to be scored as a fully supported robot? I believe so.

Does it break any other rules? I do not believe so. The robot is not grabbing/grappling/grasping any field structure. The bumpers appear to be legal.

Is this what the GDC intended? I don't know, but I have submitted a Q&A question (albeit one with a couple of typos, sorry GDC!) in order to find out.

How many teams are planning on exploiting this? We'll find out. I am sure it is nonzero. My team is not one of them; we didn't see the loophole until we had already designed and built a shooter tower that is far taller than 8".

Jared, I have done similar research on the subject over the last week and here is what I've found.

-A robot in contact with the polycarbonate ball deflector and no other surface is indeed 'Fully supported' by the bridge.

-I don't believe that this robot would break any other rules as it is passively interacting with the field structure. I guess one could argue that the act of wedging oneself between the bridge and the ball deflector is some sort of 'grasp or grapple' or other method of attachment, but I doubt that'll hold true.

-I'm not sure if this is what the GDC intended. With their clear lack of a response to your Q&A, I'd imagine that they're having a lot of internal discussion as to whether or not this is in the spirit of the rules. If this strategy remains legal, I can see Robots with just drivetrains becoming hot commodities for those who know how to exploit this rule.

In any case, a Robot built to exploit this loop hole may struggle during Quals if it's only goal is to balance the bridge. The TRUE game breaker would be a robot that could play the first minute and forty five seconds of the game well and then wedge itself under the bridge for an essentially effortless bonus. I'm not sure what kind of wizard would build that robot, or if they'd be sane after doing so.

[Jared Russell]

P.S.: Why am I posting this?

(A) It will be out in the open pretty soon anyhow.
(B) It will make for a pretty interesting discussion.
(C) I am curious to see if Chief Delphi can find something wrong with this strategy that renders it illegal.
(D) It is week 6, this strategy was first mentioned in this thread, and there haven't been any Q&A responses or team updates on the matter since. I personally hope that it is ruled illegal, as I feel it basically breaks an aspect of this game

[Brandon Holley]

I agree that as its written right now its legal. What I find funny is that there has been an obvious attempt by the GDC to mitigate "outside the box" ramping strategies. At least in the way I've seen the rulings come down (ie: no suction cups, no grasping, etc.). It would be almost comical to allow this through as a balancing strategy while ruling the others illegal.

-Brando

[Clinton Bolinger]

The only thing I can see that could make this boarder line is the potential of damaging the field elements. I am not for sure what this strategy will do to the cables and zip ties that hold the ball ramps to the bridge, after repeated abuse.

If this strategy stays legal, I can see a lot of rookie or chassis bots converting at the events. If done right there is nothing saying a team can't remove their shooter after the qualification matches. As long as they don't add anything else on or weigh in with all of their components.

We will have to see what the GDC says.

-Clinton-

[DampRobot]

As presented, the strategy seems legal. However, I really hope that this strategy is deemed "illegal" in Q and A. To me, a robot that purely wedges itself under the bridge seems like it would exploiting a loophole, not an innovative game strategy. Now, a robot as mentioned that plays the first minute and then goes under the bridge does seem more reasonable.

This reminds me of hanging on the tower in 2010. A number of teams realized that they could hang on to the side of the tower and still be defined as supported by it. However, these teams still played the rest of the game.

[Jared Russell]

Originally Posted by DampRobot

This reminds me of hanging on the tower in 2010. A number of teams realized that they could hang on to the side of the tower and still be defined as supported by it. However, these teams still played the rest of the game.

The tower was worth 2 points in 2010. Making a triple balance trivial is worth 40 in 2012.

[Colin P]

I don't think this is game-breaking as it doesn't provide a serious advantage. Balancing on the bridge isn't all that difficult and wedging under would only save you a few seconds of effort. It would be nice for eliminations to get that extra 20 pts a lot more easily, but qualifications would be a mess. As mentioned by some others before, it would be hard to make this sized robot perform well during teleoperated mode.
I think if a team could fit this size without sacrificing any scoring performance, it'd be a very good strategy, otherwise it doesn't really seem worth it and I don't anticipate many teams actually doing it.

[Siri]

Yeah, we talked about this back when it first popped on the Q&A and noticed it as feasible about three weeks ago. I think it's entirely legal, and don't expect it to be ruled illegal at this point (nor should it be). However, I think it's going to take some care not to break the ball ramp, which is a G12. I'd like to see someone do it right.

[MrBasse]

I think this could be huge if done right, in fact I brought it up a few weeks back and the idea was met with a lot more questions of legality and general harassment of the idea. Most of that probably had to do with the fact that I saw no way to practically implement such an idea so I didn't take too long in wording my idea eloquently. If I remember right I referenced the dukes of hazard for better imagery. But then lack of sleep can do that to you...

I think a short robot with a flip out manipulator or a way to Oudh balls as a feeder that can also prop the bridge would be a huge benefit. 5 degrees is a pretty small target, this idea can guarantee that you make the 5 degree window every time. Makes it good for end game even out of eliminations...

[JesseK]

There is a large difference between a 11-oz ball and a 50-lb robot. That polycarb probably won't hold up over the course of a competition.

[XaulZan11]

Looks legal to me. I wonder how willing box bots will be to risk their robot under the bridge while their partner(s) attempt to balance. Could make for some interesting qualification match strategy discussions.

[MrBasse]

I don't know why people would consider there being risk to a robot under a bridge, if you build the frame so that it will hold the weight, all you need to do is ensure that your machine could hold up at least 120lbs or so and you'd be good. With thick axles and heavy duty wheels, I don't think there would be an issue. If the machine is less than 8" tall, I doubt anyone would have a weight issue to worry about.

I also feel the lexan would hold up just fine, the majority of the weight would be on the ground, there is one point where the lexan would be slightly off the ground that would see some strain, but probably not enough to break it. The key is making sure you know how high off the ground the mounting point is and building to ensure that you have no sharp edges that could possibly scratch or damage that lexan surface. We held a piece of lexan under stress for almost a year and the only thing that broke it was applying more force after bending it a full 270 degrees in a 2" radius curve. When it finally gave way it was exciting though...

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

Looks legal to me. I wonder how willing box bots will be to risk their robot under the bridge while their partner(s) attempt to balance. Could make for some interesting qualification match strategy discussions.

How much of a risk is it, really? Back in Rack 'n Roll, teams had multiple robots on top of them all the time!

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/27516