Team Update #18

[Lil' Lavery]

This strategy was used ONCE in more than 1500 matches played so far this year. Once. It obviously is not a integral part of the game, and in 99% of the matches is really an illogical thing to do (why play 1 vs. 3?). Instead of stacking two dead bots on each other for 30 points, why not help them getting running so they can grant a bigger reward for your alliance?
And the e-stop button only makes it partially more safe, by preventing those 2 teams from causing the "Stack" to tip. There are still 4 other robots and 6 human players introducing energy to the field that could potentially cause a robot to fall from the other one or the whole "stack" to fall over, even if not intended.

[Steve Kaneb]

I agree with Cory that there are enough things going on that changing rules in the middle of the season doesn't help your position.

Legitimately, it can be considered a safety issue, but I'm pretty sure Wildstang and their partners figured out "oh, maybe we should turn off the autonomous and disable the robots as soon as possible."

The fact is that a team update was pretty much entirely about outlawing something that happened once and likely won't happen again, despite the fact that there are quite a few rules that need clarifying. Wouldn't it have been time better spent doing something about the issue of ringers around flags?

[MikeDubreuil]

Can someone provide a video or a lengthy description of what happened during the Wildstang match?

My personal feeling is that this is quite an unbelievable rule change. On one hand I think it is insane that the legality of the strategy could be deemed legal on January 14th and then made illegal 2.5 months later. On the other hand I can understand why the rule changed. A veteran team could pressure a rookie team to just sit on a ramp for the entire match because, "you can't score points anyway."

As Lil'Lavery said, if 1 out of 1500 matches happened this way was it really necessary to make the change? From what I understand it would have basically been 3 on 1 without this strategy resulting in a predicted defeat for Wildstang.

[Eldarion]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

And the e-stop button only makes it partially more safe, by preventing those 2 teams from causing the "Stack" to tip. There are still 4 other robots and 6 human players introducing energy to the field that could potentially cause a robot to fall from the other one or the whole "stack" to fall over, even if not intended.

I must ask, how is this different from a robot deciding to go up another's ramps before the match is over (if an arm broke or someone's ramps deployed early, etc.)?

[Spider-Man]

Originally Posted by Eldarion

I must ask, how is this different from a robot deciding to go up another's ramps before the match is over (if an arm broke or someone's ramps deployed early, etc.)?

At least one robot, a lifter or liftee, must move in the match. As Lil' Lavery was suggesting, this should be the goal, not a stack.

[Eldarion]

Originally Posted by Spider-Man

At least one robot, a lifter or liftee, must move in the match. As Lil' Lavery was suggesting, this should be the goal, not a stack.

I agree with you, but I was asking this question from a safety point of view.

[Spider-Man]

Originally Posted by Eldarion

I agree with you, but I was asking this question from a safety point of view.

Ah, I see. For safety, wouldn't hitting the e-stops prevent the teams from affecting anything for the rest of the match, leaving the robots in what should be an undesigned-for, precarious position? Teams deciding to lift can assess what is happening in the match and how to handle defense. If a robot defends a lift before the end-game, the other robots are not usually voluntarily disabled in advance.

[Brandon Holley]

Does anyone remember the stretchers from 2001??? This strategy to me is like having a stretcher handy.

For those who are unfamiliar...if your robot was down for a match, you could place it (or any part of it) on this wooden cart with casters on teh bottom. Your teammates could then drag you around to score points.

If you have a dead robot on your alliance, than why not go for that 30 pts by just placing it on top of a willing partner.

Major kudos to wildstang for this one....


and P.S...bring back the stretchers!

[Eldarion]

Originally Posted by Spider-Man

Ah, I see. For safety, wouldn't hitting the e-stops prevent the teams from affecting anything for the rest of the match, leaving the robots in what should be an undesigned-for, precarious position? Teams deciding to lift can assess what is happening in the match and how to handle defense. If a robot defends a lift before the end-game, the other robots are not usually voluntarily disabled in advance.

Good point, thanks.

[Lil' Lavery]

To expand upon the difference in a safety perspective:
this
vs.
this

You make the call on which is safer.

[Vikesrock]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

To expand upon the difference in a safety perspective:
this
vs.
this

You make the call on which is safer.

I disagree with this example.

How about
this
Or
this
Or
this
Or the many other times this has happened with no defense.

VS.

this

For the record I think as a last ditch effort this is not a bad idea, but it should be just that, a last ditch effort.

I also happen to disagree with FIRST changing the rules this late into the season.

I don't think that this would have become a widespread strategy with, or without the update.

[David Brinza]

Do you think that stacking one robot (or more) on top of another and sitting there for an entire match is consistent with the spirit of the game or, for that matter, FIRST?

I don't. Teams that wish to adopt this strategy are putting winning ahead of competing (yes, there is a difference - winning at all cost is not GP).

I'm not slamming Wildstang here; their alliance partners were basically non-functional and this strategy gave their alliance the possibility of winning that match. I doubt that any competitive teams would consider doing this with functioning partners. It's just too much fun to drive your robot and earn a victory!

Maybe Update #18 falls in the category of "legislating morality", but I don't think we want to see a lot of matches with an alliance just parked in their home zone for 2+ minutes. The lack of autonomous action is dull enough for me...let's PLAY the game!!!

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by David Brinza

Do you think that stacking one robot (or more) on top of another and sitting there for an entire match is consistent with the spirit of the game or, for that matter, FIRST?

Actually I do think it is consistant with FIRST.

Teams that are overcoming adversity is exactly what FIRST is about. Both robots were (from my understanding) broken and would not have been able to do anything. So what do they do, they stack and help their alliance to a win.

Thats teamwork. Thats overcoming adversity. Thats innovative thinking. Thats FIRST.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by David Brinza

Do you think that stacking one robot (or more) on top of another and sitting there for an entire match is consistent with the spirit of the game or, for that matter, FIRST?

I think that's completely beside the point people here are trying to make. Many people arguing against this call see perfectly clearly the logic and reasoning behind it and don't have all that big a problem with that logic. The issue we have is with the complete and utter arbitrariness that FIRST and the GDC have been exhibiting this year. This very issue was asked in the Q&A just one week into the build season. The answer then was that it was ok, so presumably the GDC had no problems with it then. Then, after 3 weeks of competition have gone by and they've seen it happen just once, they suddenly decide they don't like it anymore and arbitrarily rescind their approval. They don't even attempt to smooth over their change of mind with any of their own reasoning along the lines of all these arguments we're having about safety and the spirit of the game. It's frankly getting a rather lot like something out of "Through the Looking Glass" trying to guess which way the wind is blowing each week. The Q&A question is particularly weird. The original question and answer came just before Update #3. And the GDC's followup suggests you consult Update #18 to discern their latest state of mind.

We don't mind picky rules, weird rules, somewhat unfair seeming rules, so long as the rules actually stand still for most of the season. Aiming at a target that's still moving long after build season is over asks far too much of teams.

[David Brinza]

Originally Posted by David Brinza:

Do you think that stacking one robot (or more) on top of another and sitting there for an entire match is consistent with the spirit of the game or, for that matter, FIRST?

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

I think that's completely beside the point people here are trying to make. Many people arguing against this call see perfectly clearly the logic and reasoning behind it and don't have all that big a problem with that logic. The issue we have is with the complete and utter arbitrariness that FIRST and the GDC have been exhibiting this year. This very issue was asked in the Q&A just one week into the build season. The answer then was that it was ok, so presumably the GDC had no problems with it then. Then, after 3 weeks of competition have gone by and they've seen it happen just once, they suddenly decide they don't like it anymore and arbitrarily rescind their approval. They don't even attempt to smooth over their change of mind with any of their own reasoning along the lines of all these arguments we're having about safety and the spirit of the game. It's frankly getting a rather lot like something out of "Through the Looking Glass" trying to guess which way the wind is blowing each week. The Q&A question is particularly weird. The original question and answer came just before Update #3. And the GDC's followup suggests you consult Update #18 to discern their latest state of mind.

We don't mind picky rules, weird rules, somewhat unfair seeming rules, so long as the rules actually stand still for most of the season. Aiming at a target that's still moving long after build season is over asks far too much of teams.

So, your issue is with FIRST GDC flip-flopping on rules interpretation, and perhaps that's a valid concern. However, I think that as the season plays out, events will occur that the GDC didn't anticipate. I don't think the FIRST community has the expectation that the GDC has all identified ALL of the potential game scenarios by kickoff or even before the first week of competition. I suspect that the "stacked robots at start" scenario, when witnessed in competition, was deemed by the GDC to not be a good thing for the competitions. I would not like to see this as a widespread practice in matches. If I saw robots stacked at the start of a match, the temptation to "destack" them would be great - if a 10-pt penalty were incurred, it's a 20-pt net win to knock down the stack. To avoid alliances from trying to score an "easy" 30 points and to avoid the risk to robots from executing the obvious defensive action against this ploy, I suspect the GDC felt it necessary to close this "loophole".

I'm not attacking you here (I'm directing this question to the broader CD community), but would you put your functional robot on top of a partner's robot and sit there the entire match in order to win? Would you intentionally make your robot appear non-functional (remove breakers, break your chain, etc.) in order to stack your robot if the rule was written such that only non-operational robots would be permitted to stack? I think these sorts of questions are pondered by the GDC in making/changing rules for the game. Please keep in mind that we see a new FIRST game every year and even in sports that have been around for a long time, the rules change season-to-season (and maybe even mid-season).

BTW, If you answer "yes" to either of the above, I guess that the GDC has really impacted your strategy. I, for one, feel that the rules should NOT allow this strategy. Even if the rules are written later rather than sooner.