Best Feeder Bot of 2012

[akoscielski3]

What I think a lot of you are missing about 16 and 4334 is that when they fed balls, though they had to go to the bump to do this but, all the balls the fed were grouped together. Then their alliance partners could quickly get those 3 balls from them. While 125, though was amazing at feeding to the other side, would launch the balls causing them to bounce everywhere around and they would be all scattered around the field.

Also 125 usually (from the matches i saw) would just grab 3 balls from the human player and shoot them to the other side, rather than picking up balls and shooting them over.

In my honest opinion the best feeder was 16, then 4334. But I would take 4334 over 16 because of the bridge balancing and the great "man on man" defense they can play. Great driving from both teams.

[Hjelstrom]

Originally Posted by BrendanB

Any robot can be a great feeder like 33, 1114, 987, 233, 2056, 118, 148, 254, 341.....

I thought so too but in one match in Vegas, we (987) tried to feed and our shooter has so much backspin that the balls would bounce back across the barrier towards us! We couldn't get balls to the other side of the field very well.

One nice thing about 207 was that it could unload balls so fast that 3 balls show up on the same video frame in some cases. They really didn't have to spend any time at all sending the balls across.

[Akash Rastogi]

16.

Their intake and driving allows for the best feeding to a specific targeted area.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman

Every match? I think we had plenty of ammo.

Please excuse the detour for a stupid question: why didn't they just cross the blue bridge?

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

16.

Their intake and driving allows for the best feeding to a specific targeted area.

Without a doubt, the truth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjFNk-aEvgc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReyI_2NJDsQ

I guess we had a burning desire to address defensive feeder bots at IRI. After 16 was so effective in littering our side of the field with balls when partnered with them (and that whole Galileo thing), we kinda sorta knew they'd have to be dealt with.

By the way, props to 447 for effective feeding at IRI.

[JB987]

Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman

Without a doubt, the truth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjFNk-aEvgc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReyI_2NJDsQ

I guess we had a burning desire to address defensive feeder bots at IRI. After 16 was so effective in littering our side of the field with balls when partnered with them (and that whole Galileo thing), we kinda sorta knew they'd have to be dealt with.

By the way, props to 447 for effective feeding at IRI.

Why no penalty for 16's contact with blue alliance bridge at one minute mark of match 62?

[IndySam]

Originally Posted by JB987

Why no penalty for 16's contact with blue alliance bridge at one minute mark of match 62?

You cannot be pushed into a penalty by another bot [G44], the only exceptions is if the penalty involves an opposing robot in contact with the key, alley or bridge [G28]

[KrazyCarl92]

One feeding strategy that I would suppose 4334's design allows would be picking up balls on the opposing side, then placing them on their alliance's bridge 3 at a time. Sure the partners would have to go to the bridge to get them, but the opponents would have to draw a penalty to either get in 4334's way while doing this or to get the balls off the bridge. Did they ever use this method of feeding? This would seem like a rather unique way they are capable of feeding that many other robots simply cannot.

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by JB987

Why no penalty for 16's contact with blue alliance bridge at one minute mark of match 62?

Originally Posted by IndySam

You cannot be pushed into a penalty by another bot [G44], the only exceptions is if the penalty involves an opposing robot in contact with the key, alley or bridge [G28]

Wouldn't have mattered anyway, due to the inevitable triple at the end by the one alliance in the match capable of doing it.

Regarding the can't be forced into a penalty thing....I seem to recall a qualifying match in which 2168 was given the death penalty for blocking a triple in which they were pushed into a bridge, and I do not believe any bot on the bridge ever touched them. I might be wrong about the details, though. I'd love to watch vid of that specific match again.

This match ultimately made me laugh in hindsight, as the win was the reason 16 was #8 seed instead of a very valuable 2nd pick of the top-seeded alliances. As it is, 16 picked a tough alliance and gave people a run for their money.

Getting a bit off topic from the feeder bot discussion. I wish 269 had attended IRI. I bet they would have made elims as a widebot feeder. They did an excellent job at Wisconsin for the winning 48/2826/269 alliance.

[scott]

Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman

Without a doubt, the truth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjFNk-aEvgc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReyI_2NJDsQ

I guess we had a burning desire to address defensive feeder bots at IRI. After 16 was so effective in littering our side of the field with balls when partnered with them (and that whole Galileo thing), we kinda sorta knew they'd have to be dealt with.

By the way, props to 447 for effective feeding at IRI.

Thanks Travis! Definitely a new strategy for us at IRI. We felt that it was best way to find ourselves on an alliance of IRI caliber.

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman

Wouldn't have mattered anyway, due to the inevitable triple at the end by the one alliance in the match capable of doing it.

Regarding the can't be forced into a penalty thing....I seem to recall a qualifying match in which 2168 was given the death penalty for blocking a triple in which they were pushed into a bridge, and I do not believe any bot on the bridge ever touched them. I might be wrong about the details, though. I'd love to watch vid of that specific match again.

This match ultimately made me laugh in hindsight, as the win was the reason 16 was #8 seed instead of a very valuable 2nd pick of the top-seeded alliances. As it is, 16 picked a tough alliance and gave people a run for their money.

Getting a bit off topic from the feeder bot discussion. I wish 269 had attended IRI. I bet they would have made elims as a widebot feeder. They did an excellent job at Wisconsin for the winning 48/2826/269 alliance.

I'm sure a lot of teams had expected to take 16 early with the 2nd pick.
If we had stayed an alliance captain, we would have taken them 1st. We actually discussed this with their coach who approached us 1st, not knowing that we would have done it anyways.
Its ironic that they chose us 1st anyways and couldnt believe Pink was available with the last pick.
I agree with the whole #1-8 being all excellent. As an alliance, we may have not been triple balance compatible (other than our backup 2834), but felt that we could score just as effectively as #1-7.
A lot of teams could be excellent feeder bots, if given the chance and opportunity. 16 chose that role, and did it the best.

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by Dchandler

Although the argument to this question will be between "who is better 16 or 4334" I want to bring more attention to 125. One of the biggest differences between 125 and 16/4334 is size. Both Bomb Squad and ATA were compact compared to the NUtrons. I'm unsure of their dimensions but they were similar to ours which were 26"X34"X50".

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel that their feeding strategy didn't come from design but rather by strategy. Where as 4334 designed their robot to be primarily a complimentary bot instead of a main scorer, I see it as once 125 realized how good they were at feeding they stuck with it and honed that ability.

Even though, our teams played together twice this year I never realized, just how good they are at feeding until qualification rounds at IRI.

I wish someone had video of match 46 when 125's alliance pulled off the upset victory against 1114 and 67. That match definitely goes in my list of favorite matches this year.

No offense Karthik, Mike and Adam.
But when I saw this match when we got the schedule, I knew it would be tough. There was no other strategy to employ other than ball starvation and feeding. We knew at the get go that no triple balance was going to happen.
The key to us winning this particular match however was during hybrid.
At one point before the other alliance made a single hybrid shot, I saw us winning 36-0 at one point.
We shot lights out during that match with 68. Every time we needed to load up balls, they were right there.

[Siri]

^reported

(direct quote off Meredith)

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman

Regarding the can't be forced into a penalty thing....I seem to recall a qualifying match in which 2168 was given the death penalty for blocking a triple in which they were pushed into a bridge, and I do not believe any bot on the bridge ever touched them. I might be wrong about the details, though. I'd love to watch vid of that specific match again.

I'm not sure if this is the match you're speaking of, but at least twice we called the death penalty for a robot that set up "too close" to the bridge for the sole purpose of interfering with the robot being able to get on the bridge and balance. This was the interpretation that was used at CMP, to counter the so-called "Cincinnati defense". And since only 2 of the ref crew were at CMP, maybe we didn't get the interpretation completely correct. Stu attempted to explain it at the driver meeting Friday. The interpretation derived from the "otherwise interfere" wording in [G25].

[Siri]

Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman

Regarding the can't be forced into a penalty thing....I seem to recall a qualifying match in which 2168 was given the death penalty for blocking a triple in which they were pushed into a bridge, and I do not believe any bot on the bridge ever touched them. I might be wrong about the details, though. I'd love to watch vid of that specific match again.

I don't know the specific match, but the rule at Worlds (the interpretation reaffirmed at the IRI meeting) was that if BlueBot1 purposefully puts themselves in the area around RedBridge*, they are liable for any penalties incurred from being pushed into RedBridge. This is in contrast say, BlueBot2 being by RedFender and getting pushed all the way into RedBridge, which wouldn't inherently result in any penalties.** However, if BlueBot1 can stay in front of RedBridge and never contact either RedBridge or RedBot-in-contact-with-RedBridge, Blue is not penalized (yay, high traction!)


*"the area around the bridge" was deliberately not fully clarified, but it was indicated as something in the vicinity of one robot/half a bridge distance.

**Of course, if BlueBot1 were pushed into RedBot2 who was in contact with RedBridge, there's potential for both Blue G28 and Red G45, depending on exact circumstances.