unfairness?

[dense]

After Reading the thread by Martin on unfairness...

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...=&postid=21716

...and the student/machine-shop teams VS. engineer/big-sponsor teams

The problem, imho, seems stems from the nature of this years game.

There isn't a complex strategy or challenge to acually building a neat robot. All you have to do is build a TANK and that's what most of the experienced teams and the ones I've seen are doing.

Is there a challenge in creating a TANK? The largest monster, which has the greatest gear reductiuon will win. That means the teams with the greatest resources.

There is no incentive to build an interesting robot, or to even manipulate balls.

This years challenge has become another version of BattleBot, that's right, BattleBots. Imho, that is.

If this years game depended on how creatively you could solve a problem, rather than building the biggest baddest tugging machine, then perhaps it would not depend as much on the resources of a team and make it more fair between big-sponsor/engineer teams VS. student/machine-shop teams.

[GregT]

You must not see what i see.

my team spins it's wheels in our high gear, low gear is worthless without goal lifting which is a design challenge.

[Matt Reiland]

There was a major dilema this year, build a machine to get the most points to get you to the finals OR build a robot that will get you automatically picked by design to be in the finals (i.e. three goal handler) We decided to go with a ball/goal handler which will do us well in the qualifying rounds but I don''t know how to deal with some of the robots I have seen with the design we have come up with. So I think the problem is less Engineer and Student as it is building either a robot that can get you points and possibly to the finals or a robot that is designed to win in the finals. I haven't seen many designs that can do BOTH well although they may be out there. This was similar to the y2k game where some teams built defensive only robots some built offense only and some were both. The robot is done so we will give it our best shot.

Somehow I have to believe that goal only handling robots WILL take a beating this year by all teams. What are your options if a robot has a superiour drivetrain to your own and it posseses the goals??? The obvious answer turns out to be 'ramming speed'. Will this be a DQ probably in some cases but seriously what are your options. I think we will see more battlebots this year than any one wants to admit.

Note: Make sure your electronics are protected everyone they cost waaay too much to be trashed in your first round

[kacz100]

If someone has two goals then the goals must be a fair distance apart from each other. So if i remember correctly (Torque = moment arm * force) and if you push on the farthest point you can they would have to have twice or even more torque than you, so the biggest and baddest tranny will still lose if you use your MIND or your alliance member and push with two robots!

Just my thought for the day!

[asher]

The second the game was revealed I believe it was the biggest let down of my 17 years of life. Our team took on the problem more as we didn't want to be a boring 2 goal handler like everyone else, even if it was the obvious way to win, so even if we do horribly lets build something a little more fun for us. Its was almost a waste of time to try and build something amazing when it wasn't necessary, kind of a why-read-the-book-when-you-can-watch-the-movie situation. I'll gladly say we read the book instead, we probably wont win, but we sure had a lot more fun and a lot more though go into our machine than how much torque can we get.

asher
proud to be a 31er

[meaubry]

IMHO, Haven't we all jumped to alot of conclusions regarding this years game - yet we haven't even seen a single seeding match (everyone does better, if we all work together) or elimination (bash em up) final. (opps, see even Ijust did it)
Dense - there are many reasons to build a "Tank" besides what someone thinks is required to win the match, or even the championship. Concentrating on doing fewer things better can also help you maintain control of time, and resources during the 6 week design and build process. Some teams will find this an advantage because they do not have as much of a problem meeting the weight restriction (less allocation to multiple sub-systems) I hope that this year will NOT turn into a Brute force tug -o war and that there is opportunity for ALL designs to shine or at least contribute to the FUN!
Asher - I'm sorry you were so disappointed - I hope through the next few months that you can continue the same enthusiasm that your team has evidently been able to create using the "read the book" mentality - personally, I think your team "got it" right! Have fun, continue to look for the bright side of the things!

[Matt Ryan]

This year's game has alot more strategy than last years and the year before...

This year's game will be very interesting in what we see...

I don't think the tanks are going to be even close to being the better-seeded teams out there...you don't need a tank to win.

[Matt Ryan]

Originally posted by Matt Reiland
There was a major dilema this year, build a machine to get the most points to get you to the finals OR build a robot that will get you automatically picked by design to be in the finals (i.e. three goal handler) We decided to go with a ball/goal handler which will do us well in the qualifying rounds but I don''t know how to deal with some of the robots I have seen with the design we have come up with. So I think the problem is less Engineer and Student as it is building either a robot that can get you points and possibly to the finals or a robot that is designed to win in the finals. I haven't seen many designs that can do BOTH well although they may be out there. This was similar to the y2k game where some teams built defensive only robots some built offense only and some were both. The robot is done so we will give it our best shot.

Somehow I have to believe that goal only handling robots WILL take a beating this year by all teams. What are your options if a robot has a superiour drivetrain to your own and it posseses the goals??? The obvious answer turns out to be 'ramming speed'. Will this be a DQ probably in some cases but seriously what are your options. I think we will see more battlebots this year than any one wants to admit.

Note: Make sure your electronics are protected everyone they cost waaay too much to be trashed in your first round

FIRST has repeatedly asked that we build robust robots, for they expect full-speed head on rams to occur. It is not a DQ unless it is done with the explicit intent to damage...if they are trying to dislodge you from a goal, pin you, interupt your ball gathering operations, keep you from getting to your (or their) endzone, should not be a DQ. It is up to the ref's, though.

[nuggetsyl]

I read a responce that this game is like battle bots ok lets bring ourselves back to earth. Battle bots has one objective and that is to destroy the other robot. We are not going to do that here in first because that could be you parnter next round and it would be stupid to break your parnter robot up. Also there is a game to be play unlike battle bots there you have to over come you and you parnters problems. This game is harder than battle bot because you have only 6 weeks to make a robot and the game changes every year. SO if you think this game it like battle bots you are dead wrong

[junkyarddawg]

One aspect of the challenge every year is the diverse approaches to a solution. If we all thought the same way, we would all show up with the same robot and the competition would be extremely boring, especially to the noninvolved spectators.
No sport that I can think of survives without offence and defence. Just imagine football without defence. Each team takes turn going onto the field and running/passing the ball from one end to the other as fast as possible and the winner is determined by which team had the lowest average time. It would certainly not compete against sports with offence/defence. The defence is really what drives the mix of plays in a sport. Even in chess, defence is extremely important. Offence/defence in a sport generates the most diversity and requires the most strategy.

[l1jmx]

Although this game seems to tend towards one of 2 different designs, I have still seen a number of very innovative robots out there.

Yeah, the majority of people are either A) tanks, or B) something resembling a robotic scorpion. We were going to name our robot the something or other scorpion until like 5 teams beat us to it. The combination of claws for holding the goal and some sort of ramp/bin for moving balls into just favors the shape, and I guess people think scorpion sounds cooler than "clawed giraffe."

Anyways, some of the very cool designs I have seen are Team 857's bot, with the 3 omniwheels, and another robot whose number I can't remember at the moment where the robot actually sort of folded out to grab onto 3 sides of the goal (and place themselves in a position to allow for much better torques on the goal /manueverability while dragging it).

There are also some other aspects of the challenge that a number of teams simply failed to observe such as the necessity to hold your goal in your zone while at the same time scoring points back in your home zone, as well as the issue of guranteeting that the opposing team scores points. As some other people have pointed out though, I guess it boils down to whether you want to do something boring and have a chance of winning, or do something amazing for the fun of it. I think there there was plenty of room for low-budget innovation whether or not all of the teams capitalized on it.

[ReijiH]

even if the game happened to be in favor of the so called "most robust tank" like robots, i don't see any problem with rookie teams making something like that. For one, FPM and drill motors have the same rpm(therefore easy to couple or use in-line), and very strong and rigid frame can be made out of extrusion if there's few guys in the team who knows something about load distribution from highschool physics course

[Mike Norton]

Haven't we all jumped to alot of conclusions regarding this years game - yet we haven't even seen a single seeding match

some of us have seen matches. That is why it is very important to have your robot done early so you can go and play with other before you ship your robot.


tanks will do fine. You will be see high scores during seeding rounds by tanks.

Our best round without picking up balls was 56 to 50 It was a close match because of what we did but we gamble and it paid off

so teams better be afraid of the teams that have a lot of power.

simple game plan; play hard don't break and go onto the next match.

Nobody here has ever mention there partner lying to them.

when you plan something and your partner will tell you they can do it and don't even come close of what they said they can do.

[Todd Derbyshire]

The key to winning is speed to the goals and pushing ability. The pushing ability is what alot of teams are questioning about and that answer all boils down to how well do you know the small parts catalog. Also this is why many teams refuse to reveal their robots as they don't want teams to copy some advantage they have in a certain area. Ok I'm done ranting now

[THE EDGE]

battle bots is great it gets ratings and is interesting, we all know that dean-y boy loves to watch it, i say the game should be more like battle bots