Ball eject

[redneckrobot]

Originally Posted by pntbll1313

I'm not sure this really solves the issue. If you load your robot, start autonomous, and your robot never establishes connection for some reason, how does this deadman's switch work to release the ball so that your alliance can score?

that is the programmers job

[redneckrobot]

use a "test for"

[DavisC]

This would be good for the Q&A, maybe they could declare it field debris? Although how would a ref know to declare it as field debris if it is a result of power failure...?

Could they add a button to the alliance station to declare their current ball(s) field debris? That would add an interesting dynamic to the game (if they left the rule open ended).

If open ended, maybe an alliance could even do that to balls left from Autonomous.

If close ended though, let the rule be only for if the ball is trapped somehow.

Otherwise, the strongly robust robots might hold more weight in alliance selection...

[Woolly]

Originally Posted by DavisC

Otherwise, the strongly robust robots might hold more weight in alliance selection...

Well, hypothetically, if you have 2 robots that can throw, none of the robots left available to pick can catch, and one of your robots has a multi-ball autonomous, the safest pick is a box (or ramp if you want to get fancy with loading) with a good drive-train under it.

A release is probably a good idea.

[redneckrobot]

don't you get a redo if there is connection problems

so have a mechanical dead man switch incase there is lost of power

[Whippet]

Sometimes. It really depends on if it's deemed a field fault or a robot fault.

[JohnSchneider]

It's irrelevant which it is. 2 robots on an alliance should never be put in a position where they cant score because some team is adamant in taking in the ball and then not being able to eject it.

[Tungrus]

Our team is planning to join our alliance partner and beat the "ball' out of the third alliance with stuck ball! Pretty sure this is not against GS, which is directed towards opponent alliance and may get red card.

[cbale2000]

My only question would be, how do you design a mechanism that allows you to eject the ball when the robot dies, but NOT when the robot is disabled at the start of the match. I don't really see a simple way to do it.

On top of that, I have to believe that this is the kind of issue that will get addressed by the GDC in a game update or Q&A. I can't imagine they would make a game where one alliance could not score at all if one of their robots died... for that matter, what happens if both alliances have a robot die with a ball? No one scores at all that match? You could effectively have a game that is decided within the first 10 seconds, which doesn't make for a very interesting game.

[AndrewPospeshil]

Originally Posted by cbale2000

On top of that, I have to believe that this is the kind of issue that will get addressed by the GDC in a game update or Q&A. I can't imagine they would make a game where one alliance could not score at all if one of their robots died... for that matter, what happens if both alliances have a robot die with a ball? No one scores at all that match? You could effectively have a game that is decided within the first 10 seconds, which doesn't make for a very interesting game.

I agree. Although we should never plan for new rules being added, I do think that this one has a good chance of happening. There's a few possibilities like a new ball being introduced if the robot controlling is inoperable and would otherwise stop the flow of the match, but there's a chance (and a sizable one in my opinion) that robots will be required to have removable balls so their alliance can still play if the team cannot. Which also presents the opportunity for the opposing team to be able to eject the ball somehow. Another element of strategy for teams to consider.

[JesseK]

Heh, this thread has uncovered a few issues, most of which have been addressed.

- Teams are usually not 100% honest about their capabilities because they're almost always trying to make themselves look good or haven't performed appropriate testing. A vast majority will say 'that cannot happen' or 'yea, but we fixed it' and thus it's really up to fate. I think the best approach it to be watchful after the first time it happens, weary that they couldn't fix it after the 2nd time, and politely assertive after the third. Scouting will be key.

- There will be scenarios, like many years, where a team will feel it may mathematically advantageous for them to keep a ball away from their own alliance in order to lose a match to fall in ranking and thus be available for a 2nd-round pick. It's been publicly discussed before and this year will be god-awful for the alliances which have a team member who exploits it. Hopefully this doesn't happen.

Single-solenoid valves are probably the simplest way of auto-ejection, but such a setup could potentially complicate setup and execution of autonomous. If the ball can't nestle nicely in the carriage ready for launch in steady state, then there's another variable for a consistent and reliable autonomous score.

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by JesseK

- There will be scenarios, like many years, where a team will feel it may mathematically advantageous for them to keep a ball away from their own alliance in order to lose a match to fall in ranking and thus be available for a 2nd-round pick. It's been publicly discussed before and this year will be god-awful for the alliances which have a team member who exploits it. Hopefully this doesn't happen.

Or, even worse, a team holds onto a ball an entire match, so their superior partner cannot seed first, effectively breaking up any super alliances.

Teams that employ that strategy will likely join my extremely exclusive 'do no pick list'.

[sdcantrell56]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

Or, even worse, a team holds onto a ball an entire match, so their superior partner cannot seed first, effectively breaking up any super alliances.

Teams that employ that strategy will likely join my extremely exclusive 'do no pick list'.

Unfortunately, I see this happening more often than many would like to admit this year due to the way this rule seems to be worded. Hopefully a rule clarification will change this.

[redneckrobot]

my team has come up with a pneumatic fail safe using a second cellanode