What could go wrong?

[KevinG]

This year's kit frame seems ideal for protecting the electronics and other fragile components. You can take advantage of that lip along the bottom of the frame to mount a piece of polycarbonate and use that to hold your electronics and even the battery. Now all of your important stuff is recessed and should be protected.

I think the biggest thing people won't be prepared for is the opponent's ball. If an alliance launches their ball over the truss, and it lands on top of your robot and gets stuck... that's a technical foul. Possibly two if you can't dislodge it. This is particularly important for any team that intends to catch the ball.

Our team is thinking that "catching" the ball is going to be something other teams aren't designing for, and we're designing our robot to accommodate that. This actually lends itself to the previous issue, because if our robot can catch our own ball then it could just as easily catch the opposing alliance's.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by mathking

Good observation. This is going to be a real problem for some teams. I also think that many teams are going to struggle with their own shooter damaging the robot. I see a lot of catapults causing repeated stress damage to the robots on which they are deployed.

What we have deemed the "perfect shot" for our robot requires a whole heaping helping of stored energy. We're looking to design accordingly--stress damage on our own machine is something we very much hope to avoid!

[BBray_T1296]

Originally Posted by bs7280

What do you predict will be the number one thing that teams will fail to prepare for or underestimate that will cause a lot of trouble at competition?

*Consults Murphy's Law*

Everything

[omalleyj]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

This year add successful dry fire tests so scary shooters don't launch objects (robot parts) into the spectator seating areas.

On behalf of audience members everywhere: Thank You!

[magnets]

I predict a 2003 like situation. The high stacks (assists/catches) will be replaced by robots just crashing into each other (a good defense team can stop/slow down all passes/catches, just like a good defense in 03 could destroy stacks)

Oh, and if anything ever goes wrong with the field (or a robot just drops comms), people will be raging mad this year. During week one, I predict multiple "the field ruined my chance of winning, we were the best, but lost, and the FTA didn't listen to us" threads on CD.

[BBray_T1296]

Originally Posted by magnets

I predict multiple "the field ruined my chance of winning, we were the best, but lost, and the FTA didn't listen to us" threads on CD.

Quoted for truth.

[Karthik]

Here are a couple of things that I think will be easy for many teams to overlook:

1. Transitions from intake to scoring/trussing mechanism
This has been touched on by a couple of people, but it's worth reiterating. Looking back at 2008, lots of teams had working catapult devices, but extreme difficulties loading the catapult. It's very easy to design both an intake and auncher, but then to forget to make plans to link the two mechanisms together in a reliable and repeatable fashion. There's a tendency to leave these transitions to the last minute and say "oh, we'll figure that out". That line of thinking has led many teams down a dark road in the past.

2. Penalties for breaking the plane of the field/goal

Let me quote a couple of rules that people seem to be overlooking.

Originally Posted by G21

ROBOTS may not extend outside the FIELD.
Violation: FOUL. If continuous or repeated violations, TECHNICAL FOUL. If contact with anything outside the FIELD, RED CARD and the ROBOT will be DISABLED.

And the definition of the Field:

Originally Posted by Glossary

FIELD: a 24 ft. 8 in. x 54 ft. carpeted area, bounded by and including the GUARDRAILS, ALLIANCE WALLS, and rear faces of the LOW GOALS.

Now for the Low Goals:

Originally Posted by G26-1

ROBOTS may not break the planes of the openings of the opponent’s LOW GOALS.

Violation: FOUL. If extended, strategic, or repeated, TECHNICAL FOUL.

In the past momentary incursions outside of the field and into goals, have been permitted. Think about how frequently you've seen teams hanging over the side of the field in past seasons. If this rule is enforced strictly as written, we could be seeing a lot of 20 point penalties, perhaps even to the same level as the loading zone penalties in 2005.

[JesseK]

#1 Thing teams will overlook:
Reliable & controllable passes which have low kinetic energy so a partner who is close can easily receive the pass. Lack of practice with passing will be just as bad as overlooking it.

It's also the most overlooked thing in Ultimate Frisbee Rec League

[gabrielau23]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

It won't be a robot issue.
It'll be a communication and strategy issue with their partners.
It's hard to get people on the same page in a ten minute period.

It doesn't need to be a ten minute period if you talk to all your alliance partners in the pits a couple matches before your next queue call. Not trying to be snarky, just saying that it's a good way to prepare for a match.

[PayneTrain]

Adding to the calls for transitioning the game piece between the intake and end effector, moving the robot with the ball in one's possesion could be overlooked. Some quality contact by a defender into the side of some robots could easily dislodge the ball and create a huge disruption for an alliance.

[Rypsnort]

I think that in elims teams might pick teams that are all great shooters and over look the importance of the assists.
This brings up the possibility of "upsets" in elims by lower seeded teams who can get many assist points.
But then again the the amount of assist points you team has plays into your seeding which may make the higher seeds be the teams who are good at assisting.

The point is that alliances in elims who have three teams who can get the ball in the 10 point goal but can't pass won't do well.

[Abhishek R]

Originally Posted by Rypsnort

I think that in elims teams might pick teams that are all great shooters and over look the importance of the assists.
This brings up the possibility of "upsets" in elims by lower seeded teams who can get many assist points.
But then again the the amount of assist points you team has plays into your seeding which may make the higher seeds be the teams who are good at assisting.

The point is that alliances in elims who have three teams who can get the ball in the 10 point goal but can't pass won't do well.

Or you could take the top 10 point shooters so other alliances can't have them, I would assume if you can build a consistent high goal shooter, you likely have a good pickup as well, scouting data would confirm.

Robot A: Shooting ability = 8, Pickup ability = 6

Robot B: Shooting ability = 5, Pickup ability = 9

I would probably lean toward A depending on the quantity of effective 10 point shooters at the regional.

[bEdhEd]

Poorly executed strategies and poor communication between teams as to what to do while coordinating assists.

Do I have to have a shamless plug for strategy mats again?

[bs7280]

Do you guys think that the catchers teams will use will work better or worse than planned?

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by bs7280

Do you guys think that the catchers teams will use will work better or worse than planned?

I have a hard time envisioning catching as a strong scoring enhancement--not with full defense allowed.