Robots vs. Humans

[Pretzel]

Originally Posted by Kevin Leonard

2013: Humans would be able to basically dunk 4 discs into the 2-pt goal easily, and some would be able to do the same for the 3-pt goal. Humans could easily climb the pyramid and dump colored discs, as well as block the robot's full-court shooters with ease.

Considering the fact that Team Titanium's frisbees sounded like a .50 caliber rifle going off over my head whenever I played against them at Cowtown Throwdown, I'm going to suggest that blocking the frisbees would have ended poorly for humans.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by artK

Back to the original topic, one of my questions for a version with this game: Can people have (unpowered) ramps? Because some people felt it was a bit cheap to use a ramp tethered to a robot to help them score, would humans have the same freedom?

I would, personally, say no on the ramp. See, most robots don't have 2x 4-DoF arms with opposable thumbs on the multi-jointed manipulators, with built-in 3D vision sensing to know where to place objects. A human can grab a tote and slap it onto a stack or throw it to another human, who can catch it, with minimal difficulty. FRC robots? Not so much.

[FrankJ]

Since the rules where written with no consideration for human vs robot, this is more of an interesting thought exercise rather than a meaningful comparison.

Autonomous would be trivial for the humans. Tote stack & recycle containers in auto zone with extra seconds to start stacking. Humans would be able to climb on the land fill to grab the containers on the step. Once they had a container, the tug of war would always go to the human so the robot would have to be able to pull it to their side before the human got to it. Noodling the container would be trivial for the humans. (throw the noodle on the field & let the human pick it up.) Humans could completely empty the landfill.

Other games would be more difficult because of issues with robot human contact.

[GreyingJay]

Originally Posted by FrankJ

Autonomous would be trivial for the humans. Humans would be able to climb on the land fill to grab the containers. Once they had a container, the tug of war would always go to the human so the robot would have to be able to pull it to their side before the human got to it.

Given the speed of some of those canburglars, I'm pretty sure the robots would win that match. The average human reaction time is about 0.2 seconds. By the time you heard the starting sound and lunged forward over the landfill to grab a can, it would be gone.

The margin is close enough that, assuming it was safe, I would love to see this competition happen.

[planetbrilliant]

Would they have to make the weight limit? I remember we were messing around one day and a couple freshmen took turns on the scale and we joked about turning a small one in as our robot.

[carpedav000]

Originally Posted by Poseidon1671

I think that humans could probably win 2011

No.

[FrankJ]

Originally Posted by GreyingJay

Given the speed of some of those canburglars, I'm pretty sure the robots would win that match. The average human reaction time is about 0.2 seconds. By the time you heard the starting sound and lunged forward over the landfill to grab a can, it would be gone.

The margin is close enough that, assuming it was safe, I would love to see this competition happen.

I agree that the only way to prove this is to try it. But for the robots to win they would have to to get all 4 of them. A 2/2 tie or even a 3/1 split would be a human advantage. If any part of the can is on the step, the Human could recover them. Also no reason that all the noodles on the human side not to be in the land fill.

[carpedav000]

1992- Humans would be unholy.

[pmangels17]

Originally Posted by carpedav000

1992- Humans would be unholy.

Unless they got hungry....

[AmoryG]

2011 it depends... does each human get a hypothetical minihuman for pole climbing?

2013 definitely not with a few athletic humans can can dunk and each hang from the top of the pyramid.

2015 is tricky because although the best canburglars could beat any human, I don't think they can pull away fast enough for a human to get their arms around the can. If it comes down to a wrestling match a human would tear a robot apart. The only robot I know I would lose to however would be 1114, because I would be too afraid of getting impaled by their harpoons to even try.

Anyway, if defense is allowed I think humans who are strong enough could bully robots and prevent them from scoring any points.

Also, if robots are allowed bumpers that means humans are allowed safety gear?

[Nemo]

Originally Posted by tindleroot

I doubt any human could defeat 71 in 2002, any of the tall stackers from 2005, 148 from 2008 (In laps anyways), or any of the top teams from 2009.

How did 71's arms attach to the goals? Were they just hooks, or did they somehow actuate and close around the goals? Depending on the setup, it might not be hard for a human to unhook the goals.

[Mrcope9]

It depends, especially how the rules would go. Speaking of the past four years:

2012-Humans, definitely. Especially if NBA players are involved. Also I think it's much easier to fit 3 people sitting down on the little bridge than 3 robots.

2013- Kindo of a toss up. Full court shooters can definitely make more shots, but humans can easily pick up from the floor and I think the average person can climb the tower quicker than most robots.

2014- Well the defense would make it difficult for us carbon based lifeforms, but humans can catch, and pick themselves up if they get tipped over. All in all, if standard rules apply, robots win.

2015- I would say humans on this one. I think a skilled player could win a can battle, assuming they grip correctly and apply the right force. Also, humans can deal with the upside down totes and litter everywhere much more efficiently than a robot can.

[ArtemusMaximus]

Originally Posted by z_beeblebrox

We've considered this one extensively:

2015 - Robots win. Humans lose canburglar battles and can't carry many big, heavy game pieces at once.

2014 - Robots win. Humans are good at catching but have fragile ankles.

2013 - Humans win (maybe). Humans have no problem with the pyramid, but can't throw frisbees as fast or accurately as good robots.

2012 - Humans win. Humans can balance and shoot baskets no problem.

2011 - Robots win. Humans are short and lack minibots.

2010 - Humans win. Humans can control a soccer ball.

2009 - Robots win. Humans can't store many game pieces or easily pull a trailer.

2008 - Humans win. A human can run around the track and throw the trackball quickly.

I don't know enough about older games to evaluate human performance.

In my opinion humans would win most of the games.
1. If you only compare performance of very good robots then you need to compare with very good human players.
2. Humans are more versatile creatures, so strategies can be very complex and effective.

I am familiar only with last 2 games, so here it goes

2015 - Humans win. Even with cans stolen by robots, starting in autonomous mode humans can stack 10-12 or more stacks. If robot teams dare to throw noodles, humans can clear it in no time.

2014 - Humans win. Sheen pads, steel toed boots, superior passing and scoring game, tall goalie, superior speed and torque. Just have to remember that beam in the middle, but helmets will help . The only way humans will lose is because of those insane penalties.

[SavtaKenneth]

I think that in order to balance auto mode humans should be blind-folded and given instruction via walkie-talkies or something. Otherwise it'll skew the scoring too much between the robots and humans.

[ArtemusMaximus]

Originally Posted by SavtaKenneth

I think that in order to balance auto mode humans should be blind-folded and given instruction via walkie-talkies or something. Otherwise it'll skew the scoring too much between the robots and humans.

If you going to handicap humans then it would be fair to handicap robots in something else.