Team Update #18

[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.

[GaryVoshol]

Hmm, add a FLL-like rule (for NEXT YEAR, please!):

No robot can score points until it moves completely outside the home zone.

Of course, that rule would be viable only for some types of games. It wouldn't have worked for Triple Play.

[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.

[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.

[Protronie]

okay... so all three robots must be inside their home zone... and can not be touching.

And the problem is? I just don't see why you would want your robot starting on top of, or making contact with another robot at the start.

[Brandon Holley]

Originally Posted by Protronie

okay... so all three robots must be inside their home zone... and can not be touching.

And the problem is? I just don't see why you would want your robot starting on top of, or making contact with another robot at the start.

Please go back and read the rest of this thread, before you post...to see what the controversy is about

[ChuckDickerson]

There is a lot of discussion here about non-functional robots. What if some so far unseen rookie robot at some regional yet to be played just couldn’t get together anything more than a wood box bot with 2 broken BaneBot gearboxes because they didn’t know about all the BaneBots problems and simply show up with little more than a box. Just a wood box with a flat top, no arm, no ramps. We have all seen them. We have all been proud to have them on our alliance and see the looks in their faces when we said “OK, what we need you to do is go play defense against team number X” and then we win the match together. But this year they can’t play defense because their drivetrain is so messed up they can’t get it going before those early matches. We all try to help them but it just can’t be done in time. Now wouldn’t it make them feel better if instead of thinking they are going to suck because they can’t even drive and help with defense but rather found themselves a good partner because they could guarantee 30 points if needed? For those of you that say this isn’t the way the game is supposed to be played I respectfully argue that indeed this IS the way it is supposed to be played, overcoming adversity using creative thinking. Yesterday that wood box was worth 30 points. Unfortunately, today it is just a wood box.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Protronie

okay... so all three robots must be inside their home zone... and can not be touching.

And the problem is? I just don't see why you would want your robot starting on top of, or making contact with another robot at the start.

I guess you missed the part where 2 non-functional robots were stacked to get the 30-point bonus?

[Brandon Holley]

Originally Posted by DeepWater

Yesterday that wood box was worth 30 points. Unfortunately, today it is just a wood box.

What you stated right there is exactly what people are trying to say here.

This is not my opinion but here is what others are trying to get across..

You put 6 weeks into creating a magnificent robot that can score a few ringers and can lift 2 of your partners off the ground 4 inches.

You can score 30+ points every match...

This wooden box can now score 30 pts every match by doing NOTHING. Yes it is unfortunate that they were unable to secure enough help to make a more competitive machine, but they need to learn eventually.

What others are trying to express here is that this shouldnt be a strategy because it rewards teams that may not deserve it as much as others.

[Rich Ross]

I wouldn't want to be the one to say who deserves to win and who doesn't. Do you really want to?

We need to figure out a solution and adress the people who can change it. Otherwise, it will stay how it is

[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.