Summer Design Competition 2015

[evanperryg]

Originally Posted by Kevin Leonard

"Hey guys, remember that terrible Recycling-themed stacking game with no defense? Neither do I!"
-Every FIRST-er after Quad Quidditch

The rules state that a bludger launched or ejected from an opposing robot can "ground" the shooter. How do you qualify "ejected or launched?" Is it still considered "ejected or launched" after it bounces on the ground? If not, they could only be thrown with extreme precision. If there's a time limit on when a bludger not in contact with the robot previously carrying it can take out an opposing shooter, do you honestly expect the refs to keep track of that while managing the rest of the match? Yet, since there is no qualification for "ejected or launched", then a bludger ejected from a robot 2 seconds into teleop couldn't be picked up by the oppposing alliance because it made contact with one of the robots. Hold on, a partial chokehold executed in the first seconds of auto that could decide the winner of the match? I think I remember one of those...

That said, bludgers present an extreme danger to robots. What penalties are given for teams that damage opposing robots with bludgers? How do you quantify "unintentional" bludger damage and "strategic" bludger damage? I get this is for fun, but the entire bludger dynamic combines the demolition derby and subjectivity of Aerial Assist, and the predictability of Recycle Rush.

Another thing, what happens when a snitch inevitably dies in the middle of the field? Would the alliance picking up the dead snitch still get points? How will a ref know the exact 6 foot radius around the snitch, cause there would be plenty of teams arguing with refs about it.

[DesignComp]

Originally Posted by evanperryg

The rules state that a bludger launched or ejected from an opposing robot can "ground" the shooter. How do you qualify "ejected or launched?" Is it still considered "ejected or launched" after it bounces on the ground? If not, they could only be thrown with extreme precision. If there's a time limit on when a bludger not in contact with the robot previously carrying it can take out an opposing shooter, do you honestly expect the refs to keep track of that while managing the rest of the match? Yet, since there is no qualification for "ejected or launched", then a bludger ejected from a robot 2 seconds into teleop couldn't be picked up by the oppposing alliance because it made contact with one of the robots. Hold on, a partial chokehold executed in the first seconds of auto that could decide the winner of the match? I think I remember one of those...

That said, bludgers present an extreme danger to robots. What penalties are given for teams that damage opposing robots with bludgers? How do you quantify "unintentional" bludger damage and "strategic" bludger damage? I get this is for fun, but the entire bludger dynamic combines the demolition derby and subjectivity of Aerial Assist, and the predictability of Recycle Rush.

Another thing, what happens when a snitch inevitably dies in the middle of the field? Would the alliance picking up the dead snitch still get points? How will a ref know the exact 6 foot radius around the snitch, cause there would be plenty of teams arguing with refs about it.

-Only quaffles can be grounded, and the process of clearing quaffles is detailed in the manual

-Launched bludgers must make contact with a robot before contacting the ground for their effect to take place. This has been clarified in the rules under G16. The game design committee believes that a good design will be able to utilize bludgers successfully without a high level of skill or precision. If you feel your design is incapable of this task, we suggest that you spend more time iterating.

-There are no rules supporting your idea that a bludger "ejected from a robot 2 seconds into teleop couldn't be picked up by the oppposing alliance". Unless this is a product of not reading the rules carefully, we ask that you cite the rules that would cause this statement to be true so that we can fix it.

-The game design committee does not believe that bludgers are any more dangerous to robots than prior years game pieces. Design your robots robustly and you should be fine. Intentional damage will be judged as it always has been. The idea of intentional damage is not a new innovation.

-Each alliance provides their own Golden Snitch (which goes through inspection and is regulated so that all are the same), so each alliance is responsible for their snitch not dying on the field. This is similar to the minibots of 2011.

-The 6 foot radius was chosen as an arbitrary value that the game design committee decided was a large enough space to deter robots not in pursuit of a snitch to stay away from, as well as one large enough that pursuit of the snitch could be clear and relatively easy to follow.

-All of our refs are trained in martial arts, and nobody can fight a ref's decision and win unless their robots are powder coated blue (because that's just how we roll).

I hope these answer your questions. Thank you very much for your interest in our project. In the event you still haveconcerns about the viability of the use of bludgers, we suggest that you train your drivers to dodge wrenches.

[evanperryg]

Originally Posted by DesignComp

-Only quaffles can be grounded, and the process of clearing quaffles is detailed in the manual

-Launched bludgers must make contact with a robot before contacting the ground for their effect to take place. This has been clarified in the rules under G16. The game design committee believes that a good design will be able to utilize bludgers successfully without a high level of skill or precision. If you feel your design is incapable of this task, we suggest that you spend more time iterating.

-There are no rules supporting your idea that a bludger "ejected from a robot 2 seconds into teleop couldn't be picked up by the oppposing alliance". Unless this is a product of not reading the rules carefully, we ask that you cite the rules that would cause this statement to be true so that we can fix it.

-The game design committee does not believe that bludgers are any more dangerous to robots than prior years game pieces. Design your robots robustly and you should be fine. Intentional damage will be judged as it always has been. The idea of intentional damage is not a new innovation.

-Each alliance provides their own Golden Snitch (which goes through inspection and is regulated so that all are the same), so each alliance is responsible for their snitch not dying on the field. This is similar to the minibots of 2011.

-The 6 foot radius was chosen as an arbitrary value that the game design committee decided was a large enough space to deter robots not in pursuit of a snitch to stay away from, as well as one large enough that pursuit of the snitch could be clear and relatively easy to follow.

-All of our refs are trained in martial arts, and nobody can fight a ref's decision and win unless their robots are powder coated blue (because that's just how we roll).

I hope these answer your questions. Thank you very much for your interest in our project. In the event you still haveconcerns about the viability of the use of bludgers, we suggest that you train your drivers to dodge wrenches.

I apologize if referring to robots whose quaffles have been grounded as "grounded shooters" was ambiguous. Thank you for providing clarification in G16. I would suggest adding field markings corresponding to the proximity around the snitch release point, as defined in G12. If this game were to be played in reality, it would make G12 penalties more objective.

[DesignComp]

Originally Posted by evanperryg

I apologize if referring to robots whose quaffles have been grounded as "grounded shooters" was ambiguous. Thank you for providing clarification in G16. I would suggest adding field markings corresponding to the proximity around the snitch release point, as defined in G12. If this game were to be played in reality, it would make G12 penalties more objective.

Oh yeah, this would be a terrible game to play.

[evanperryg]

Going along with this whole "first-second" thing, I'd like to present:
Robot in 4 Days Since I Saw This Thread
http://imgur.com/bQrxgob
http://imgur.com/rjDBJIM
http://imgur.com/g0jGvPN
Features:
-Ability to hold 5 quaffles in the hopper, up to 7 balls total
-Ground collection compatible with quaffles and bludgers
-Potential for human loading, just need to change the hopper a little
-collector articulates up to allow balls up into the shooter elevator
-6x 4" custom traction wheels driven by 2 2 CIM custom gearboxes geared for 5.5fps and 16fps
-Anodized black for superior performance

Just like RI3D, very unrefined but demonstrates the concept.

[Kevin Leonard]

Given the rules here, and my lack of desire to actually make a CAD model, I'm just going to theorize a couple of different robot archetypes:
The "Fender Shooter"
Given that the maximum robot height outside of starting configuration is 10 ft, I expect quite a few robots to attempt to shoot and/or dump in the hoops. The high goal is just out of reach for a dump, but also only worth 2 points more than the middle goal.
The biggest problem these robots would have is with extended defense, as the area near the hoops is not a safe area, and there is likely to be a defender there, possibly blocking hoops as well.
The "Key Shooter"
These robots are optimized to shoot from the semicircle, as it is a safe zone, however, since the opposing alliance's semicircle is adjacent, you're not entirely safe from defensive action, and smart teams might touch the circle with just the corner of their robot, or an extension to contact the semicircle while shooting.
The Keeper
Generally defensively-oriented robots with "goalie sticks". Unlike in 2014, the goals are small enough that one goal can be blocked by a goalie stick relatively easily. These robots will be very useful during autonomous if teams aren't planning to have multiple options or trick autos. Some of the better robots of this nature will be able to spend their time clearing quaffles and feeding their partners on the other side of the field. Some of the best might even be able to score quaffles during autonomous or even teleop from the keeper zone.
Keepers will also have to deal with anti-defense teams ready to push them out of the keeper zone during both autonomous and teleoperated periods.
Bludger Specialists
Bludgers are the "X Factor" that makes this game so different from any other game in FRC history. Many top-tier robots will focus on scoring goals in the hoops and capturing snitches, ignoring the bludger mechanic other than maybe grabbing some of them so the other alliance can't have them. Bludger Specialists will be able to shut down top-tier machines who are taking a long time to set up to shoot in their semi-circle, and can destroy alliances who aren't smart about how they play the game.
I think one of the most interesting rules regarding this mechanic is this one: "Bludgers will have no effect if POSSESSED by a robot upon contacting another robot." This makes it sound like if the robot in question catches the bludger, their balls do not become grounded. I wonder if the best robots in this game might have some sort of net-style catching mechanism to ensure they do not take grounding effects.

Lastly, the golden snitch. Not every robot will have the ability to capture a golden snitch, as only two robots on any alliance can be chasing down the snitch, and the snitch is worth nothing if the alliance scores no hoop points during the endgame period. Most of the top seeded teams in their divisions will, as that endgame score is the tiebreaker for seeding, and it would be interesting to see what kinds of mechanisms would emerge for this task.
As such, does the keeper stay where he is to lower the opponent's endgame score? Does he go for the snitch? Does the Bludger Specialist save a bludger or two for the endgame to ensure the opponents get no points during this period? How does the endgame strategy differ between qualifications and eliminations?

A couple questions now:

• What defines "attach" in G11: "Robots may not climb the the goalpost that supports the HOOP, nor attach to the goalpost or the HOOP."
• Would a robot with an appendage on either side of the goalpost count as being attached?
• Would having a slot in the robot to surround the goalpost count as attached?
• How about having the robot long enough to brace itself against two goalposts if hit from one side?

This is a really cool game to think about, and it supports a wide variety of robots to play this game. 2012-style shooters, 2014-style goalies, 2009-style power dumpers, and a bunch of crazy styles of play yet to be seen in an FRC game. The wide open field necessitates robot durability, and the bludger mechanic even more so. Good strategy and good robots would be required to win this game, and I appreciate that.
Thank you for posting this game and giving us an exercise in strategic design during this part of the off-season.

[DesignComp]

Originally Posted by Kevin Leonard

I think one of the most interesting rules regarding this mechanic is this one: "Bludgers will have no effect if POSSESSED by a robot upon contacting another robot." This makes it sound like if the robot in question catches the bludger, their balls do not become grounded. I wonder if the best robots in this game might have some sort of net-style catching mechanism to ensure they do not take grounding effects.

A couple questions now:

• What defines "attach" in G11: "Robots may not climb the the goalpost that supports the HOOP, nor attach to the goalpost or the HOOP."
• Would a robot with an appendage on either side of the goalpost count as being attached?
• Would having a slot in the robot to surround the goalpost count as attached?
• How about having the robot long enough to brace itself against two goalposts if hit from one side?

Thank you very much for the time you put into designating the robot archetypes. This type of analysis is what we love to see over these kinds of games, and we're sure that it will help others with less experience understand how the game would play out, and how to better refine their robot(s).

A note before answering your questions - The rule stating that "Bludgers will have no effect if POSSESSED by a robot upon contacting another robot." was made with an intention of preventing teams from just holding a bludger in front of them and playing tag with the opponent's robots, however we really like your interpretation that would facilitate catching as a means to cancel the bludger's effects. Unfortunately that would change the game mechanics to ones that some others who have already started did not interpret, and it would not be professional for us to change the intention of a rule after releasing the game, so we must leave the catching aspect out for now.

Now for your questions:

Attach is meant in the terms of grapple, or to securely hold on to. In short, the intent was to prevent teams from grabbing / climbing the poles. A good test to see if your design matches the intent of the rule is to ask yourself, "Can another robot push me away?" if not, then you are in violation of the rule. If so, you're perfectly fine (this would make the slot you are referring to, as well as the long robot, perfectly legal). During design we often likened the poles to the bases of the minibot poles from 2011, in regards to attachment rules.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by DesignComp

Attach is meant in the terms of grapple, or to securely hold on to. In short, the intent was to prevent teams from grabbing / climbing the poles. A good test to see if your design matches the intent of the rule is to ask yourself, "Can another robot push me away?" if so, then you are in violation of the rule. If not, you're perfectly fine (this would make the slot you are referring to, as well as the long robot, perfectly legal). During design we often likened the poles to the bases of the minibot poles from 2011, in regards to attachment rules.

All emphases mine. I think I understand what you mean to say, but to clarify, are you missing a negative in here? (Thus the correct interpretation is that if you can be pushed away along some vector, you're legal.)

[DesignComp]

Originally Posted by Siri

All emphases mine. I think I understand what you mean to say, but to clarify, are you missing a negative in here? (Thus the correct interpretation is that if you can be pushed away along some vector, you're legal.)

Rule update 3: Forgot a negative in that past post. Has been corrected.

[DesignComp]

As we're getting into our final 20 or so days of the competition, we'd like to post a reminder of how to make your submission:

For submission, if you use Solidworks, Pack and Go your assembly and put the zipped folder in a folder with your documentation. Otherwise simply send a STEP file along with your documentation. Submissions should be emailed to DesignComp2015@gmail.com.

Submissions may be turned in at any point in time (the earlier the better), but anything received after 11:59pm PST on August 15th will not be accepted.

We look forward to seeing the solutions you have all come up with.

[DesignComp]

Thank you to everyone who submitted. We will be reviewing the entries over the next few days and will announce a winner shortly.

[hectorcastillo]

Any word on the results?

[DesignComp]

This season, for Quad Quidditch, we decided to have two awards. These awards are the following:

The Design Award : This award is design specific. The design is visually appealing, and contains some sense of practicality in designing. It demonstrates a large variety of techniques used in CADing.

The Strategy Award : This award encompasses both the written component and the design component. The robot displays a well thought out strategy, and proper documentation of the design process further displays this. The strategy is the most ideal/points worthy/useful out of all submissions.

And now, our winners.

The design award goes to 955. Their robot was a work of art, utilizing several mechanisms to cover a large variety of the possible tasks in the game. Their design can be seen as outside of the box, and a very modular robot in the sense of what it can do for their alliance (shooting at different areas, etc.)

The strategy award goes to 3481. Their design encompassed some of the key strategic points the GDC decided were the most important. They included a shooter and a snitch capturing mechanism in a very compact space, maintaining a low center of gravity.Their design can be seen as a sturdy and efficient robot, and demonstrated key strategic principles.

Thanks to those who participated, and congratulations to our winners.

(On an extra note, participants, individual feedback will be sent to your shortly.)

[z_beeblebrox]

Originally Posted by DesignComp

This season, for Quad Quidditch, we decided to have two awards. These awards are the following:

The Design Award : This award is design specific. The design is visually appealing, and contains some sense of practicality in designing. It demonstrates a large variety of techniques used in CADing.

The Strategy Award : This award encompasses both the written component and the design component. The robot displays a well thought out strategy, and proper documentation of the design process further displays this. The strategy is the most ideal/points worthy/useful out of all submissions.

And now, our winners.

The design award goes to 955. Their robot was a work of art, utilizing several mechanisms to cover a large variety of the possible tasks in the game. Their design can be seen as outside of the box, and a very modular robot in the sense of what it can do for their alliance (shooting at different areas, etc.)

The strategy award goes to 3481. Their design encompassed some of the key strategic points the GDC decided were the most important. They included a shooter and a snitch capturing mechanism in a very compact space, maintaining a low center of gravity.Their design can be seen as a sturdy and efficient robot, and demonstrated key strategic principles.

Thanks to those who participated, and congratulations to our winners.

(On an extra note, participants, individual feedback will be sent to your shortly.)

Will you (or the winners) share information about the winning submissions?

[hectorcastillo]

Originally Posted by z_beeblebrox

Will you (or the winners) share information about the winning submissions?

Here's 3481's submission:

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...highlight=3481