Blocking 2 ball autons

[Donut]

Have your 3rd robot start with a ball in its intake lined up directly with the boulder the 2 Ball opponent would grab. Reverse intake at high speed, hitting the ball on the center line and hopefully knocking it out of position enough that the 2 Ball robot fails to acquire either ball. Alternatively if the ball does not move far you have now placed two balls very close together and the autonomous 2 Ball robot runs the risk of possessing two balls simultaneously while trying to acquire the center ball. If this occurs the 2 Ball robot will incur both a G38 and G41 foul for crossing the defense with 2 boulders, at worst cancelling out the extra goal with the 10 point plus tower strength increase penalties (this assumes the robot somehow scores despite 2 balls in an intake not designed for it).

You run no risk of penalties for crossing the midline or contact with this strategy. You sacrifice scoring a ball yourself, but for a low goal or defensive third pick defending a 10 point goal is a net positive versus 5 or no points yourself.

[BenHildy]

Originally Posted by Donut

Have your 3rd robot start with a ball in its intake lined up directly with the boulder the 2 Ball opponent would grab. Reverse intake at high speed, hitting the ball on the center line and hopefully knocking it out of position enough that the 2 Ball robot fails to acquire either ball. Alternatively if the ball does not move far you have now placed two balls very close together and the autonomous 2 Ball robot runs the risk of possessing two balls simultaneously while trying to acquire the center ball. If this occurs the 2 Ball robot will incur both a G38 and G41 foul for crossing the defense with 2 boulders, at worst cancelling out the extra goal with the 10 point plus tower strength increase penalties (this assumes the robot somehow scores despite 2 balls in an intake not designed for it).

You run no risk of penalties for crossing the midline or contact with this strategy. You sacrifice scoring a ball yourself, but for a low goal or defensive third pick defending a 10 point goal is a net positive versus 5 or no points yourself.

I like this! However you do run the risk of having the robot intake both balls and being charged for forcing a penalty on another team. Also, if the balls collide, the the robot, however unlikely, may still pick up the ball launched at their original target. However, both of these issues are quite minor and unlikely. This solution is innovative and certainly would be entertaining to witness! I hope we do!

[headlight]

Originally Posted by BenHildy

I like this! However you do run the risk of having the robot intake both balls and being charged for forcing a penalty on another team. Also, if the balls collide, the the robot, however unlikely, may still pick up the ball launched at their original target. However, both of these issues are quite minor and unlikely. This solution is innovative and certainly would be entertaining to witness! I hope we do!

Its kind of an interesting situation, I wonder if it would really be considered forcing a penalty. On one hand, you didn't load the ball into their robot or otherwise force the ball upon them. On the other hand, you're taking advantage of a pre-programmed behavior to cause their robot to commit a foul.

If this was during teleop there would be no question, the robot that intakes two balls gets the penalty, putting the balls close together is in no way an attempt to cause the other robot to get a penalty. Is autonomous judged differently?

[jspatz1]

Originally Posted by Donut

Have your 3rd robot start with a ball in its intake lined up directly with the boulder the 2 Ball opponent would grab. Reverse intake at high speed, hitting the ball on the center line and hopefully knocking it out of position enough that the 2 Ball robot fails to acquire either ball..

"G13 During AUTO, ROBOTS may not enter the volume above the MIDLINE.
Violation: FOUL. If contact is made with an opponent ROBOT beyond the MIDLINE (either direct
contact or transitive contact through a BOULDER), an additional FOUL is assessed and the
opponent ROBOT is immediately awarded the CROSSING of the closest DEFENSE from the point
of contact."

[Abhishek R]

Well, it's possible that you start with no ball, grab the ball the two-baller intends to take, then score that ball by crossing over the nearest defense and shooting. The risk you run in that case is "are you fast enough to grab the ball before the other team does?" Because if you don't get the ball, you won't score any balls in auto.

Furthermore, the teams most likely capable of this are probably doing their own two-ball or a one-ball over a tougher defense than the low bar, so their priorities may be elsewhere.

IMO the risk and comparative resources of the alliance necessary to pull this off will not make it worthwhile and we'll see more teams just focus on having all three of their robots drive over the defenses and score a ball. That doesn't mean it won't happen at all, I just don't see it being as big of a focal point as the can races last year.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by Abhishek R

Well, it's possible that you start with no ball, grab the ball the two-baller intends to take, then score that ball by crossing over the nearest defense and shooting. The risk you run in that case is "are you fast enough to grab the ball before the other team does?" Because if you don't get the ball, you won't score any balls in auto.

Oh man, not this again. At least it's optional this time and not as likely to end with two robots semi-permanently attached...

Seriously, though, it seems like everyone is dropping a ball off by the wall. Instead of a drag race, it seems like you would be better off outtaking your own ball at the dropped ball to disrupt its position and cause a hiccup that way.

I actually think this is the only viable option, since it's really unlikely you can successfully start between the midline and your opponent's secret passage. Here's what the auto would look like:
Setup: In front of defense 1 lined up to intake ball 2 (one down the line from the one you opponent's intaking).
1.Rotate to face your opponent's dropped ball, outtake at high speed.
2.Rotate straight, intake mid-line ball.
3.Cross defense in front of you.
4.Score ball in auto.

Super simplified, of course. You can skip 2 and 4 if you're already not scoring a ball in auto, though. I think it'd be doable, the question is whether you can hit the dropped ball accurately enough and hard enough to disrupt things. And whether you'll get a foul for using a boulder to make a defense harder if one or both carom into the low-bar and jam things up there.

[Donut]

Originally Posted by jspatz1

"G13 During AUTO, ROBOTS may not enter the volume above the MIDLINE.
Violation: FOUL. If contact is made with an opponent ROBOT beyond the MIDLINE (either direct
contact or transitive contact through a BOULDER), an additional FOUL is assessed and the
opponent ROBOT is immediately awarded the CROSSING of the closest DEFENSE from the point
of contact."

In my interpretation, transitive means direct contact. Once I release a boulder from my robot I can no longer be in transitive contact with an opposing robot through that boulder. I do not think that an opposing robot will get to the mid-line ball faster than the ball reversed out of the defensive robot will. Transitive is not defined in the game manual glossary, so it is open to interpretation.

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

I actually think this is the only viable option, since it's really unlikely you can successfully start between the midline and your opponent's secret passage. Here's what the auto would look like:
Setup: In front of defense 1 lined up to intake ball 2 (one down the line from the one you opponent's intaking).
1.Rotate to face your opponent's dropped ball, outtake at high speed.
2.Rotate straight, intake mid-line ball.
3.Cross defense in front of you.
4.Score ball in auto.

This is more along the lines of what I think would work, but for a mid-line block rather than finding the opposing dropped ball. There is no rule that a robot start with bumpers parallel to the field walls, a robot could start angled so that it can immediately release its intake ball to knock the mid-line ball off course. Then it can either cross or (in your more daring method) attempt to intake a mid-line ball itself before crossing. I think the strategy only really makes sense if your robot has little to no chance of scoring a high goal in autonomous (low goal only bot, defense bot with less shooting capability), in which case the extra mid-line ball after defending the 2 Ball auto is a pretty low benefit for the effort involved.

[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

Seriously, though, it seems like everyone is dropping a ball off by the wall. Instead of a drag race, it seems like you would be better off outtaking your own ball at the dropped ball to disrupt its position and cause a hiccup that way.

That sounds like a G39 violation to me.

However, I should make it clear that I'm not a ref, so I don't even have the right to comment.

[apm4242]

Originally Posted by Caleb Sykes

That sounds like a G39 violation to me.

However, I should make it clear that I'm not a ref, so I don't even have the right to comment.

Yeah, this may be a dumb question, but how do all 2-ball autos not violate G39?

G39 ROBOTS are prohibited from launching BOULDERS unless they are in contact with the opponent’s TOWER or carpet in the opponent’s COURTYARD, and not in contact with any other carpet.

Isn't launching defined as intentionally imparting any momentum to the ball? Therefore, wouldn't intentionally dropping the 2nd ball be launching?

Similarly, how does the 2-ball auto defense by launching a boulder to disrupt the pickup not violate G-39?

EDIT: This was all I could find on Q&A:

Q533
Q. Can you further clarify the definition of "launching" as it applies to G39? Would either of these actions be considered a G39 violation if performed while in contact with the Neutral Zone or a team's own Courtyard: A. A robot very weakly ejects a BOULDER through an upward-facing mechanism normally used for shooting, such that it rises a minimal height required to clear the mechanism and then drops to the ground. B. A robot forcibly ejects a ball at ground level, rolling it across the field.

A. Good question. Releasing a BOULDER such that it is not shot in the air, but dropped from a certain height is not launching. A ROBOT that "forcibly ejects a ball at ground level" would be considered "launching," and this will be clarified in Team Update 03.

Although, I still think it's vague

[jspatz1]

I think it is very unlikely for an "arms race" of speed to the first ball to become a thing. Firstly, there are only a handful of robots, out of hundreds at CMP, that have demonstrated the 2-ball auto. The odds of meeting one in a match and being prepared to reach this ball faster than them (< 0.5 seconds?) in a match where they decide attempt it is extremely small. Can burglars in 2015 were much, much more common.

Secondly, the space available between this first ball and the berm on the defensive side is very narrow. Most robots would not fit in this space facing the ball. We once tried to place a dead partner in this space, and could not fit them there even sideways. Any movement required by the defensive bot is unlikely to win a race to the ball, the 2-baller has a significant set-up advantage.

[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by jspatz1

Secondly, the space available between this first ball and the berm on the defensive side is very narrow. Most robots would not fit in this space facing the ball. We once tried to place a dead partner in this space, and could not fit them there even sideways. Any movement required by the defensive bot is unlikely to win a race to the ball, the 2-baller has a significant set-up advantage.

Starting the match partially inside of the secret passage is perfectly legal.

[jspatz1]

Originally Posted by Caleb Sykes

Starting the match partially inside of the secret passage is perfectly legal.

I only meant that this area is not clear and is obstructed by the berm.

[Donut]

Originally Posted by apm4242

Q533
Q. Can you further clarify the definition of "launching" as it applies to G39? Would either of these actions be considered a G39 violation if performed while in contact with the Neutral Zone or a team's own Courtyard: A. A robot very weakly ejects a BOULDER through an upward-facing mechanism normally used for shooting, such that it rises a minimal height required to clear the mechanism and then drops to the ground. B. A robot forcibly ejects a ball at ground level, rolling it across the field.

A. Good question. Releasing a BOULDER such that it is not shot in the air, but dropped from a certain height is not launching. A ROBOT that "forcibly ejects a ball at ground level" would be considered "launching," and this will be clarified in Team Update 03.

Well scratch my idea off the list. Under this strict interpretation any reversing of an intake with decent speed while in the Neutral Zone should be called as a launching violation. This was not something we were watching for when I was reffing and I would not have called a penalty for that without having this Q&A brought up.

[The other Gabe]

Originally Posted by apm4242

Yeah, this may be a dumb question, but how do all 2-ball autos not violate G39?

G39 ROBOTS are prohibited from launching BOULDERS unless they are in contact with the opponent’s TOWER or carpet in the opponent’s COURTYARD, and not in contact with any other carpet.

Isn't launching defined as intentionally imparting any momentum to the ball? Therefore, wouldn't intentionally dropping the 2nd ball be launching?

Similarly, how does the 2-ball auto defense by launching a boulder to disrupt the pickup not violate G-39?

Actually, based on the information you currently have, not a dumb question at all. my guess would be that the refs are only considering it "launching" if you're trying to score a boulder in a goal. otherwise, teams potentially wouldn't be able to do two rather important things:
1. eject boulders that are improperly loaded into their machines
2. eject a second boulder if they accidentally pick up 2 of them
without being subject to a G39

now as for how this relates to autonomously blocking their autos, I see this as very grey area. there's certainly nothing outright prohibiting it, but there's nothing that out rightly allows it either

personally, I think they should allow it. I'd like to see these battles happen

(I don't have any official weight behind what I say here, just how I think it's being/should be interpreted)

[apm4242]

Originally Posted by The other Gabe

personally, I think they should allow it. I'd like to see these battles happen

I agree. Anyone else think it's odd that dropping a boulder and having it hit your bumper which causes it to roll across the floor is ok but rolling a boulder across the floor is not?

I'm definitely not against 2-ball autos - they're undeniably awesome and should be allowed. It just seems like this Q&A response is written to specifically allow them...

Anyway, just a thought.