The REAL chokehold of 2016

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by IronicDeadBird

Has someone actually made a FRC dictionary of strategic terms that are used weirdly only in FRC

Maybe not for all of them. However, for "choke hold" I think most of the FRC community relies on the definition Karthik gave many years ago:

Originally Posted by Simbotics Strategic Design Case Study 2002

The Chokehold Strategy

• A strategy which, when executed, guarantees victory, independent of any action by your opponents
• FIRST tries to design games with no reasonable chokehold strategy
• If one exists, it will be very difficult to perform

• Team 71, Beatty & Hammond, 2002

[Knufire]

Originally Posted by notmattlythgoe

*applause*

[Sperkowsky]

Originally Posted by Richard Wallace

Maybe not for all of them. However, for "choke hold" I think most of the FRC community relies on the definition Karthik gave many years ago:

Well, choke hold is a real phrase with a dictionary entry
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/choke%20hold

[Knufire]

Originally Posted by Sperkowsky

Well, choke hold is a real phrase with a dictionary entry
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/choke%20hold

So what's more important: what the dictionary says or whatever everyone else understands the word to be?

*cue needlessly long CD debate about the meaning of the world chokehold*

[nuclearnerd]

Originally Posted by Knufire

*applause*

... Humbug. The margins of the rules are where real creative change can happen. A commercial firm would spend good money on a design which gave them a unique advantage in the market. This is healthy.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by nuclearnerd

... Humbug. The margins of the rules are where real creative change can happen. A commercial firm would spend good money on a design which gave them a unique advantage in the market. This is healthy.

While I applaud the thought exercise, this design road of thought will likely not pay off over the rest of this season due to increasing numbers of high goal shooting robots. Effort would likely be better spent refining either the actual competing robot OR refining the process by which the no longer competing robot was designed to facilitate being more competitive.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by IronicDeadBird

Has someone actually made a FRC dictionary of strategic terms that are used weirdly only in FRC

This is the definition that shows up, but the key word here is "absolute".

absolute dominance or control <had a choke hold on the city's finances>

Blocking only the low goal doesn't make this absolute except in a special circumstance. It's easily defeated by high goal shooting.

[GeeTwo]

It's not a chokehold, as it does not prevent a breach, and there is a counter-strategy for the tower.

That said, a robot with a roughly 44"x15" frame perimeter COULD be made to block both low goals and high goal batter shooters, which would be useful as a "fourth robot" in CMP playoffs, when playing against alliances with those sorts of shooters.

A major weakness of the design as initially shown (and adjusted for bumper rules) would be that it could not challenge the tower or climb it in the same orientation it defends without blocking its alliance partners from their challenges or climbs. As such, it would be essential that a robot of this design be able to scale "sideways" (probably ending up with the frame perimeter in a vertical plane) or at least semi-scale so that it can be fully supported within one third of the tower.

Between the unusual frame perimeter and the requirement to scale, this would not be a cheesecake so much as a replacement robot that would have to be built during an event from almost entirely COTS parts.

Making a robot that could play this function from the carpet and defending with 15" extensions from the frame perimeter sounds like a serious problem in making the robot sufficiently robust for game play.

[jeremylee]

Just park a robot on the middle batter so the defender can't get in place and low goal away.

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by Richard Wallace

Maybe not for all of them. However, for "choke hold" I think most of the FRC community relies on the definition Karthik gave many years ago:

A legitimate as-defined chokehold exists this year. It's just insanely hard to pull off as it requires a marvelous ballet of great robots and great inter-team communication since pursuing it also poses a reasonable risk of irrecoverably falling behind because something went wrong. It will definitely come out if the GDC ups the tower strength at champs. As we move into Weeks 5-7, I suspect we'll see small signs of it. I call it 'BB' for short.

[GeeTwo]

Originally Posted by jeremylee

Just park a robot on the middle batter so the defender can't get in place and low goal away.

If you're giving up a robot to counter-defense, then the the defensive robot can play traditional defense against fewer offensive robots while neutralizing the parked robot. Still sounds like an advantage.

[anishde]

Originally Posted by jeremylee

Just park a robot on the middle batter so the defender can't get in place and low goal away.

Is it really worth 1/3 of your alliance to sit stationary on the batter for an entire match? Much easier would be to keep the defender off the batter by brute force.
This design, while innovative, would make gameplay completely static and perhaps boring for the driving team. Each match starts in the neutral zone, over a defense once, onto the batter, and just sit the entire match after that. Alternatively, they're as likely to spend the entire match being pushed around by the offensive bots.

[rich2202]

IMHO, it won't help at Champs. At the Champs level, the better robots will be the accurate high goal shooters. Especially ones that can shoot from the Outer Works to avoid defensive robots. The extra points makes a difference.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by anishde

Is it really worth 1/3 of your alliance to sit stationary on the batter for an entire match? Much easier would be to keep the defender off the batter by brute force.

Considering the other alliance has already devoted 1/3rd of their alliance to having no function other than to sit on your batter for the entire match, preventing them from doing so basically makes 1/3rd of their alliance completely useless. Particularly if they have the kiwi drive proposed in the OP and thus have trouble crossing most obstacles.

This design is a solution searching for a problem, and is very far from a chokehold even if it did work.

[jdunston94]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

G25B may be employed here as the robot is attempting to blockade the goals.

Also, if this strategy was used against me, I'd instruct my driver to pin the offending robot at 30 seconds left in the match and then back off, and when the offending robot chases me, pin it again ... since it can only drive in one direction to extract itself. This will allow 3 automatic scales as the alliance tries to take the batter.

one small issue here... you yourself will not only receive G22 but also G11. please don't leave parts of the rules out to fit your argument the way you choose. you don't have to have contact to constitute a pin read the blue box for G22. By pinning someone in there own courtyard, yes what you would be doing is a pin, you would also be looking to get them the foul of contact in the last 20 seconds thus G11 could be called on you.

G22 ROBOTS may not pin an opponent’s ROBOT for more than five (5) seconds. A ROBOT will be
considered pinned until the ROBOTS have separated by at least six (6) feet. The pinning ROBOT(s)
must then wait for at least three (3) seconds before attempting to pin the same ROBOT again.
Pinning is transitory through other objects. If the pinned ROBOT chases the pinning ROBOT upon
retreat, the pinning ROBOT will not be penalized, and the pin will be considered complete.
Violation: FOUL. For every five (5) seconds in which the situation is not corrected, FOUL. If
extended and egregious, RED CARD
There is no FIRST Robotics Competition specific definition of pin, so a
general definition applies; “to prevent or stop something from moving.”
As a result, contact is not required for pinning to occur. For example, a
ROBOT parked right behind an opponent that is on the BATTER could
be considered pinning because the dividers on the BATTER and the
parked ROBOT prevent the opponent from moving.
Generally, pins that exceed fifteen (15) seconds are considered
extended and egregious, regardless of a pinning ROBOT’s mobility,
however circumstances vary and the assesment is open to REFEREE
discretion.