What do you think of a wedge

[Joel Glidden]

Originally Posted by Section 5.2.5 Design and Build Rules

<R10> Teams are expected to design and build robots to withstand vigorous interaction with other robots. See The Game section of the manual.

I think inclined planes (wedges) fit right in here. As I see it there are three ways of dealing with "vigorous interaction". One may let the other guy do what he wants and stay out of his way; stand up to the other guy and take the hit head on and hope you survive the impact; or stand up to the other guy but deflect his charge in such a way that it acts to his determent.

In every 2v2 game I have seen in FIRST, a key metric has been the degree to which one can maneuver in the presence of direct opposition (the proverbial pushing match / tug'o'war / carpet melter). This is why we see FIRST robots with six-motor drive trains that shift on the fly into ultra low gear. This is why we continue to strive for wheels or tracks with the best friction properties vs carpet and HDPE.

As long as there are going to be two other robots with a vested interest in preventing your robot from doing what you want, FIRST competitions will continue to be dressed up tractor pulls. As teams strive to keep a competitive edge in this regard they will all eventually run into certain barriers, i.e. the physical laws that govern our reality and the constraints set forth by FIRST. Once we've all maxed out our mu and squeezed every bit of power out of the kit motors, the only place left to go is, quite literally, up.

We'll go from tractor pull bots to sumo bots. Some teams are already on the way. It's not good. It's not bad. It's not ungracious. It's competition. It's invention. It's engineering. Teams are seeking the best solution within the constraints of the problem.

That's the way I see it.

-Joel

[KenWittlief]

the only time you are allowed to be aggresive is when you have the potential to score points, and the other team is preventing you, like king of the hill last year - if you were blocking the ramp, you were fair game for a bashing

but if another team is scoring points by manipulating scoring objects, then running into them or bashing them would be considered attempted damage, being un-necessarily aggressive, and poor form.

The year that really started the head to head confrontations between bots was 1999 - the puck - you had to be ontop of the puck to get extra points or a multipler (I forget which) and this was the first time we really saw some pushing and shoving and proverbial hair pulling at a FIRST event

in fact it was pretty tame in the seeding rounds, but in the playoffs bots got knocked off, dragged off, RIPPED off, sometimes leaving a trail of parts across the floor.

in this years game, the only time I would expect to see shoving matches would be if a bot was blocking a corral opening, or trying to control access to the chinup bar. If someone comes over and bashes you while you are herding balls, or placing the 2X ball, I would expect them to be disqualified.

[Joel Glidden]

In 2002, it was stated explicity by FIRST that it was permissible and probably a good idea to ram a robot that was trying to dump a basket full of balls into a goal.

Vigorous contact (on the guy who is about to score) != intentional damage

It's just like football. You can hit the guy with the ball. That's defense. You can't go and smash the kicker while he's doing his nails on the sidelines. That's intentional damage.

-Joel

[JVN]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

in this years game, the only time I would expect to see shoving matches would be if a bot was blocking a corral opening, or trying to control access to the chinup bar. If someone comes over and bashes you while you are herding balls, or placing the 2X ball, I would expect them to be disqualified.

I disagree with this analysis.
I expect there will be a great deal of defense in all aspects of the game.
If I decide to cap your "big goal" early in the match to prevent your HPs from scoring... I could then spend the rest of the match blocking you from getting to it. In this case... hits would occur. On stairs...

Anyone else notice the first thing the "kit drivetrain" did during kickoff was drive off the side of the 6" platform sideways? That would be a nasty fall for anyone with a high CG.

Note: I'm not advocating playing dirty, or being overly rough/destructive. We on 229 play clean, but we do play hard. I urge everyone else to do the same.

Build them robust folks... this game is more like '99 than '01.


John

edit: I agree with Joel's above analogy. I think it applies well in this case. If you are scoring... my stopping you from scoring is LEGAL DEFENSE. /edit

[KenWittlief]

In 2002, it was stated explicity by FIRST that it was permissible and probably a good idea to ram a robot that was trying to dump a basket full of balls into a goal.

i would have to see that in the manual - I dont remember that at all. I know they said you should build a rugged robot that year, with those heavy goals being dragged around

but 'a good idea to ram a robot trying to score' ? I think I still have my 2002 manual around here somewhere :c)

[Joel Glidden]

It was on the QnA board, Ken. The question was something like,

Q: Is it legal to ram an opponent who is about to deliver balls in a goal?

A: Yes. See rule <R01>.

-Joel

[KenWittlief]

well, ok - legal is one thing, encourageing them to do so is another. before 1999 teams tried to win matches by scoring points. Teams that rammed other bots or did nothing but interfere with the other team often got BOOED!

there are many examples of teams helping an opponent, for example, in 98 I saw a bot tip over halfway, and it was helpless.

the opponent came right over and pushed it back upright, so it could continue to play the match - they didnt want to win by default.

the crowd was on its FEET after that - talk about good sportsmanship!

[Joel Glidden]

Last year there was quite the controversy regarding teams helping their opponents (read collusion).

Sorry. Off topic. I know.

-Joel

[Solace]

when people think wedge, they automatically think a very long wedge that flips opponents by the dozens. Why do you need such a large wedge? If your bot has a wedge that's, say, only 10 degrees off of straight up and down or something like that, it gives you enough of an advantage to win a pushing match but isn't nearly steep big enough to flip another robot outright.

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

well, ok - legal is one thing, encourageing them to do so is another.

Since 2002, the announcers have been encouraging more aggressive play at every event that I have attended.

When the rules book states that you should make your robot "robust" to withstand "vigorous robot interaction," I find it hard to believe that you will be disqualified or booed when you engage in vigorous robot interaction that furthers game objectives.

IMHO this year's game is going to be much rougher than last year's game, which was an extremely vigorous contest.

Let me make sure I get the contra opinion straight.

If I design a robot that can snag all of the small balls (bonus balls included) in autonomy, the opponent alliance is expected to let me park in front of my alliance station and deliver them to the human player at my own pace for the next 1:45. And, when my alliance partner goes over to cap the goal, the opponent alliance is expected to let that happen as well.

[KenWittlief]

even in physical body contact sports there are rules against aggresively attacking a player

you cant body-check someone who is shooting in basketball

you cant tackle the kicker in football

in baseball the catcher cannot knock the batter over, or grab his bat just as he is about to swing

you cant push someone who is about to pass you in a foot race

you cant jam your tire pump in the front wheel of an opponent in a bicycle race

Again: if a team is slamming their bot into their opponent to prevent them from collecting balls, delivering them, or capping a goal, I EXPECT to see them disqualified.

that is not the spirit of FIRST - teams are encouraged to compete by building machines that can perform the scoring objectives - not to be battlebotwannabees.

building a robot that does nothing but drive around slamming into the opponents machines - what does that say about your team?

"We couldnt figure out how to collect the balls, or deliver them, or pull the goal closer, or handle the 2X ball, or climb the bar, so all we did was make a chassis with a bushwacker bumper on the front, too bash your bot with"

[Ben Mitchell]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

building a robot that does nothing but drive around slamming into the opponents machines - what does that say about your team?

"We couldnt figure out how to collect the balls, or deliver them, or pull the goal closer, or handle the 2X ball, or climb the bar, so all we did was make a chassis with a bushwacker bumper on the front, too bash your bot with"

Well said. However, blocking is still a valid part of the game.

So placing a robot in between the goal and the opposing team should be fine, but going out of your way to smash for the sake of smashing is not.

[KenWittlief]

yes, I would agree that blocking is a worthy defensive strategy - you have to be fast to be able to get infront of someone and stay there, to block their way

and you have to be fast to get to the other side of the field, and scatter their balls, or capture them for yourself

if a team is going to get in your face, they will need a bot that is able to do that, and if someone is blocking you from scoring you can try to push them out of your way

in the past the general principle has been if someone is blocking you from scoring you can get physical with them, but pushing other bots around to prevent THEM from scoring, or simply bashing them, is frowned on.

[Gary Dillard]

We built a deployable wedge at nationals in 2002 (started fabrication Friday morning and installed it Friday afternoon) and only used it once - defeating Wildstang in the Newton Division Finals (or semis?). It still has the skid marks from their tank drive on it.

The intent was not to flip anyone; we built it as a counter to anyone who had better traction than us (actually we had Beatty in mind). Because when you wedge under them, their normal force to the carpet goes down at the same rate that your's goes up from their weight pushing down on you. We were fighting for a goal with Wildstang, who had engaged their center tank and was winning the fight. We deployed the wedge, turned around, and pushed/lifted them across the field for the win.

If only we'd thought to use it on RAGE in the finals... but we ran out of time. Hat's off to Mr. Nye the science guy

Think out of the box - don't assume that every wedge is like Battlebots. If you're fighting for position you need to find an advantage.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

even in physical body contact sports there are rules against aggresively attacking a player

you cant body-check someone who is shooting in basketball

you cant tackle the kicker in football

in baseball the catcher cannot knock the batter over, or grab his bat just as he is about to swing

you cant push someone who is about to pass you in a foot race

you cant jam your tire pump in the front wheel of an opponent in a bicycle race

Again: if a team is slamming their bot into their opponent to prevent them from collecting balls, delivering them, or capping a goal, I EXPECT to see them disqualified.

that is not the spirit of FIRST - teams are encouraged to compete by building machines that can perform the scoring objectives - not to be battlebotwannabees.

building a robot that does nothing but drive around slamming into the opponents machines - what does that say about your team?

"We couldnt figure out how to collect the balls, or deliver them, or pull the goal closer, or handle the 2X ball, or climb the bar, so all we did was make a chassis with a bushwacker bumper on the front, too bash your bot with"

2002 and 2003 would've been mighty boring if everyone played this way.

Sure, there is a limit to what can be called defending, or blocking, and what can be called a malicious attack. FIRST *told* us to expect our robots to take a beating. They are obviously expecting pushing matches, at the least.

We have totally digressed from the original topic of this thread. Someone needs to either start a new one, or agree to disagree (preferable)

Cory