Team Update #18

[Dave Scheck]

This was back on page 3 and I felt compelled to respond.

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

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?

This is exactly what we tried to do. 10 minutes before the match we had people in both pits frantically trying to help get these robots back up and running. I don't know the exact details, but one of them had a drive motor that had fallen off, and the other had drive chain problems. Once we determined they weren't going to be able to be fixed before the match, we suggested the stacking plan, both teams agreed, and the rest is history. After the match, we helped both teams get operational again.

While we had this strategy in our heads earlier in the season, we had no intention of ever using it if at least two robots were functional. While it may have won a lot of matches, this strategy doesn't allow teams to go out there, play the game and show what they can do. Nobody wants to work for six weeks just to sit in a corner (unless that's what you designed it to do ).

[flightofone]

Great, spur of the moment thinking!. I'm sure First didn't have this in mind when they responded to the Q&A, they were probably thinking only a rampbot would be used. Now that they've seen the inspired out-of-the-box thinking, it makes sense to limit precariously perched bots for safety. Since it is an exception case that doesn't really impact the game, we should accept the change and move on.

[ALIBI]

Common sense would indicate that most rampbots or liftobots would ramp or lift just over 12 inches, a few that use teetertotter mechanisms may get one side up to 24 inches or so for a brief period of time until gravity takes over. My impression of the orginal Q & A was that if an alliance had a rampbot that had a platform 12 inches above the ground in it's starting position that a dead robot could be placed on it before the match started. I could even see the rampbot moving around the field playing offense or defense if able to. Or a robot with a functioning drivetrain moving around a robot with a functioning arm who's drivetrain was not working. Talk about teamwork! It did raise questions about exceeding the weight limits and how much energy a 290 moving plie of two robots (2 @ 120lbs, 2 batteries and 2 sets of bumpers) could use to impact a much lighter robot on the field. Having the rule open ended could result in a robot sitting six feet off the ground. I don't think anyone wants to see the results of a robot falling from that high up, in or outside the playing field. The alliance station wall is only 6 feet 6 inches high. Maybe the GDC should have simply stated that at no time during a match can a robot be elevated more than 24 inches (or whatever) above the playing field.

[Jeremiah Johnson]

Originally Posted by Dave Scheck

This was back on page 3 and I felt compelled to respond.This is exactly what we tried to do. 10 minutes before the match we had people in both pits frantically trying to help get these robots back up and running. I don't know the exact details, but one of them had a drive motor that had fallen off, and the other had drive chain problems. Once we determined they weren't going to be able to be fixed before the match, we suggested the stacking plan, both teams agreed, and the rest is history. After the match, we helped both teams get operational again.

While we had this strategy in our heads earlier in the season, we had no intention of ever using it if at least two robots were functional. While it may have won a lot of matches, this strategy doesn't allow teams to go out there, play the game and show what they can do. Nobody wants to work for six weeks just to sit in a corner (unless that's what you designed it to do ).

I can back up this post... Wildstang was in every pit that there was no running robot. I thank them for getting 1755 back up and running because we had them the rest of the day.

I commend those who thought up this strategy, but also disagree with those that are complaining because FIRST changed their minds. Without a doubt, many teams would have done this same thing from here on out. Many alliances would have gone onto the feild with this strategy in mind, even with working robots. It's only fair to the competition that now everyone has to earn the bonus points.

[Steve_Alaniz]

As a PURELY HYPOTHETICAL question....
IF two non working robots were stacked in the end zone AND the opposing alliance KNEW it could not score 30 points... WOULD it be legal under the rules for the opposing team robots to BUMP (totally legal under the rules) the bottom robot and if the top robot happened to fall off there would be jubilation in the opposition camp for having made a great and possibly legal play?
LEGALLY speaking bumping is allowed but do the opposing team have to consider the consequences of the action? Would they just be yellow carded if at all? (which they might take since the other side has made winning everything)
(Which has not been used enough in my opinion... several rounds at the NY regional looked like Robot Wars)
That action is not intended to damage the top robot but rather to de-score and FIRST does urge a "Robust" design.

Just curious

Steve Alaniz

[jarowe]

I've been following this thread, and I think it's taken an interesting turn.

I'm not sure that safety is the reason for this decision. No person would be injured by stacking these robots, no matter how precariously they are arranged. Robots falling over and breaking is part of the game. It's a risk to put the robot on the field in any match-- you don't know what could happen. Any team that attempts to use the stacking strategy is obviously well aware of the risks involved. I trust that the members of FIRST teams are smart enough to disable autonomous modes and hit the E-Stop buttons.

I've wanted to see some changes to this game since the first weekend of regionals. I'd like to see the ramp bonuses worth fewer points so rack scoring actually means something and there are less of the 30-2 matches. I also wish that autonomous mode was more meaningful, especially since most teams aren't doing very much with it which makes for a very boring 15 seconds. However, I'd also be pretty angry if those changes came through after the game has progressed as far as it has.

My personal opinion of this game is that it's either incredibly exciting to watch, or mind-numbingly boring. It truly depends on the alliance structure. However, the stacking method adds to the mind-numbingly boring category. With two robots sitting there for two minutes, it's not fun to watch. It also cheapens the efforts of the other alliance, which is trying to score some points, but the efforts become meaningless because of the 30 points that are due to the other team. Now, after seeing what happened with teams 1755 and 1850, I considered this as a viable strategy that our team might employ in the same situation-- two NON FUNCTIONAL robots, with no other way of scoring points. I applaud this alliance for their attempt to compete to the best of their capability. If it were still legal, we might use this strategy if it were our only option.

That said, I'm glad its no longer legal. The game should not reward us for having non functional robots. We should be rewarded for our efforts to design elegant machines and effective, complex strategy. FIRST is trying to do that.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

A few of the other members of Wildstang have spoken earlier but I want to make a few things clear. When faced with both alliance partners dead and with their permission, the team decided to fallback on a Q&A answered by the GDC in January. Wildstang reads all documents issued by FIRST, as all teams should. As others have posted in other forums, Wildstang was not the first to attempt this strategy this season, just the most discussed. The refs discussed this before the match (for several minutes) was allowed to start and as the Q&A pointed out, they came to the conclusion that there was no rule against it. Had they ruled against it we were perfectly ready to accept the decision of the refs, as we always do, and play 1 vs. 3 with no starting score. I would like to also point out that until TU #18 there was no rule that robots could not start touching each other or stacking. Something that no one has pointed out yet is that we prevailed in this match even without the stacking as the final score would have been 18-10.
BTW, pulling the robots out of the end zone (even just little) would have been a legal defensive strategy that would have negated the stacking bonus.

[Warren Boudreau]

I don't understand what the big deal is. This strategy is so easy to defeat that it is laughable.

Simply push the diabled robots against the back wall where they pin the ringers against the wall.

The robots are then contacting field elements and the 30 points won't count.

[Rob]

If a team designed a "minimum robot" (a battery, RC, radio, yellow light, flag holder, etc.) and put them in a bag with their team numbers on it and a big velcro strap to attach to a partner, their strategy is no longer valid. That could have been a quick 30 points, all the "carrier" robot would have to do is rush back at the last second.

Not that I am suggesting we thought about a "minimum effort machine" (we did that back in 2001...)

I do, however, agree with those saying that this rule change is no big deal.

Good luck to everyone, and have fun.

RAZ

[Nawaid Ladak]

hmm... i want to hear what paul has to say about this one...

and where is dlavery's post on this???

can't wait, the real drama starts soon.

btw: i don't see a saftey problem where two robots are stacked on top of each other. and the teams use the E-STOP button. heck, what if the robots just forgot to be turned on, that would be safe wouldn't it,

robots tipping over is a part of the game, and if those robots are off, and someone did try to intentionally tip them, then they would be panelized, wouldn't they, (yellow card, red card perhaps?).

FIRST might as well cross the last part off of the following

Originally Posted by 5.27 XEROX CREATIVITY AWARD

This award celebrates creative design, use of a component, or a creative or unique strategy of
play.

we won't know now thanks to the GDC.

(im going to create a secrete thread where im going to rant on this and other things after the season is over.)

[Rich Ross]

What we call 'Progress' is the exchange of one nuisance for another nuisance.
Havelock Ellis (1859 - 1939)

If it isn't one thing its another.

Teams were awarded points for just sitting there in previous years (2002 i believe) and in 2005 only one robot had to move for you to win bonus points at the end. That being said, we can obviously understand why, i think that for many people, the issue is when. An issue that was already raised should be legal or not. Its silly to let some teams do it at one regional and not let other teams do it at other regionals.

Contact the high-ups around you if you really are concerned, like i said earlier. Tell it to people who can actually change it.

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by Rich Ross

What we call 'Progress' is the exchange of one nuisance for another nuisance.
Havelock Ellis (1859 - 1939)

If it isn't one thing its another.

Teams were awarded points for just sitting there in previous years (2002 i believe) and in 2005 only one robot had to move for you to win bonus points at the end. That being said, we can obviously understand why, i think that for many people, the issue is when. An issue that was already raised should be legal or not. Its silly to let some teams do it at one regional and not let other teams do it at other regionals.

Contact the high-ups around you if you really are concerned, like i said earlier. Tell it to people who can actually change it.

There is nothing more depressing than finsihing below a team in the standings that never came out of the pits like what happened to us in 2002.
It was very clever to discover the loophole but it needed to be changed.Have a little pride and put some effort into your points.

[Rich Ross]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

There is nothing more depressing than finsihing below a team in the standings that never came out of the pits like what happened to us in 2002.
It was very clever to discover the loophole but it needed to be changed.Have a little pride and put some effort into your points.

It may be depressing, but its part of the game. I know i wouldn't like finishing below nonfunctional teams, but obviously this wouldn't even be a factor. The thing is, if at this point another update came out saying that stacking is ok, then it should never be used. So many people on CD and amongst each other have discussed the fact that this strategy is RIDICULOUSLY EASY TO STOP. You slide them out. Or even better, you drag them across the full field into your home zone, thus incurring 60 points of penalties against the opposing alliance. That, in many matches, will guarantee you at least a tie, if not a win. It's not something to be legislated. its not required that teams have a drive train, but its something that people realize is fairly necessary. Teams will realize that stacking is not practical. It's a last ditch effort.

[Liz Smith]

Originally Posted by Warren Boudreau

I don't understand what the big deal is. This strategy is so easy to defeat that it is laughable.

Simply push the diabled robots against the back wall where they pin the ringers against the wall.

The robots are then contacting field elements and the 30 points won't count.

I believe, according to the rules, that they would still recieve 30 points if touching a ringer. They just can't be supported by that ringer.

As for my opinion? I think that this update is being stressed about way too much. I don't think many, if any robots were designed to hold other robots in their starting position (remember, all robots must start in a 28x38 box). No ones strategy for the whole competition is ruined. From what it seems like from what the members of 111 have been saying, it was a last minute strategy.

I also don't think this is really "flip flopping" on FIRST's part. The relevent Q&A response only pointed out that there was no rule against it. Now there is a rule against it.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by Liz Smith

I also don't think this is really "flip flopping" on FIRST's part. The relevent Q&A response only pointed out that there was no rule against it. Now there is a rule against it.

Liz,

There is currently no rule against using sprockets, gears, COTS transmissions, etc. Specifically in the Q&As, the GDC has said:
There is no rule limiting the number of spike relays
There is no rule against using IR LEDs on the OI

The set containing all rules for a given season is far, far smaller than the set of all rules not for a given season. Do you think it would be right for the GDC to then, in the middle of the competition season, declare a rule that outlaws sprockets, gears, or COTS transmissions? Limits the number of spikes you may use to 3? Outlaw your nifty IR OI system? Outlaws the use of black paint? Decrees that sans serif fonts are unacceptable for robot team numbers? Mandates that 2 wheel robots suck and won't pass inspection?

Just because there wasn't a rule against something shouldn't give the GDC license to make up a rule that could seriously impact a team's robot and strategy in the middle of the competition season 5+ weeks after a teams has finished building their robot.