Einstein?

[Alex Cormier]

Originally Posted by Alex Cormier

Einstien
1126, 229, 191
233, 71, 179
1114, 469, 1523
190-987-177

not bad, 2/4. with only watching matches on Gal.


Here it is for real:

Einstein
Curie: 330, 910, 1270
Newton: 987, 190, 177
Galileo: 173, 1902, 1319
Archimedes: 233, 71, 179

[Freddy Schurr]

What happens if a robot is disabled during the Finals of the Champiosnhip?

[Jeff Rodriguez]

Originally Posted by Freddy Schurr

What happens if a robot is disabled during the Finals of the Champiosnhip?

By disabled I'm assuming that you mean broken, and the alliance needs the backup bot.
The backup bot for each division winning alliance is the alliance captain of the respective division finalist.
I believe the finalist captain can decline to be the backup and in that case the first selected team by the finalist captain is the backup.

If a robot is disabled during the match, by the referees, well, that's how the game works.

[clean399]

so did we get another clue about a three colored light or was that just some toy that somebody at first threw together. What do you guys think?

[Conor Ryan]

Originally Posted by clean399

so did we get another clue about a three colored light or was that just some toy that somebody at first threw together. What do you guys think?

They actually had that last year, and said that you could expect it in next year's game (what would become Rack n' Roll), but nothing is ever set in stone. I believe the GDC uses Atlanta as their first major meeting for 2008 and they start throwing around ideas for next year. Well I guess we can expect to see the Light back next year, but in 3 colors? Sounds like a challenge.

[KTorak]

I doubt we would see 3 colors when 1 color doesn't even work right half of the time. I kinda want to blame the stage style lighting that FIRST uses and how it varies from field to field because no setup is exactly the same. But that's another discussion.

[Miss]

Originally Posted by Freddy Schurr

What happens if a robot is disabled during the Finalist of the Champiosnhip?

Im not sure if you're talking about the 330/910/1270 DQ, but what happened to was 1270 was disabled on either "intentionally flipping" or "contact outside the bumper zone". We're still not sure what exactly was the call, but the alliance was DQed in SF 2-1.

Does anyone have this match on footage? The blue alliance has it, but it doesn't show our interaction with 71. I couldn't see exactly what happened; I was behind the drivers’ station so I want to see what the actual contact looked like from other people's point of view. But I do want to say that I know my drivers and they would not intentionally flip another robot, that’s not the kind of game play we promote. 1270 was trying to get in a position to score the ringer that was in our claw when 71 ended up on top of us and flipping.

Anyhow, congratulations to 71, 233, and 179 on the win. The last match (Einstein: SF2-2) was intense! Great driving 179, making it up that ramp was game ending!


I want to especially say thank you to our alliance, teams 330 and 910.
In all my years, this was the smoothest working alliance I’ve been in. The 3 drive teams made smart decisions on the field and covered each other’s backs. You all did a great job and better be proud of yourselves! Thanks again and good luck in future competitions!

[David Brinza]

Originally Posted by Miss

Im not sure if you're talking about the 330/910/1270 DQ, but what happened to was 1270 was disabled on either "intentionally flipping" or "contact outside the bumper zone". We're still not sure what exactly was the call, but the alliance was DQed in SF 2-1.

Does anyone have this match on footage? The blue alliance has it, but it doesn't show our interaction with 71. I couldn't see exactly what happened;

I watched the match from the stands and thought I saw both robots with ringers trying to score the same spider on the scorer's side of the field. The next thing I saw was 71 flipping backwards and the 1270 robot backing away with the ringer still in its gripper. The head ref immediately ran over to the red alliance station and disabled 1270.

When I got home, I watched the match again (I had recorded NASA TV's broadcast), but during the critical moment, the TV coverage was showing 330 and 179 battling on the crowd side of the rack. The next view had 71 already on the ground and the ref heading towards the red alliance station. Given the head ref's decisive action, he must have felt that 1270 had intentionally tipped 71.

After the very rough play I had just witnessed on Curie, I was somewhat surprised to see the red card flashed on 1270. The message here is that different referees will have different levels of tolerance for aggressive play. After 13-14 matches with a referee crew that "just let's them play", a less tolerant referee can catch you off guard.

It's a hard thing to swallow, but the ref's have a very difficult job and are doing their best to enforce the rules.

[Tom Bottiglieri]

So, what stops alliances on Einstein from swapping out teams to create stronger alliances. For example, what if 177 "broke" on Einstein and needed to be replaced by 1124? What if 910 "broke" and needed to be replaced by 1732 who also "broke", so was replaced by 67?

[henryBsick]

Originally Posted by Tom Bottiglieri

So, what stops alliances on Einstein from swapping out teams to create stronger alliances. For example, what if 177 "broke" on Einstein and needed to be replaced by 1124? What if 910 "broke" and needed to be replaced by 1732 who also "broke", so was replaced by 67?

Tom, thats odd, the 6 or so other 125 mentors were thinking the exact same thing.
Ethics Q: Would such a move be called good strategy or ungracious play?
If ever teams were required to demonstrate a lack of functionality, who is to decide just how functional robot in question should be?
To sum our talks, we were theorizing that in a division, the three best robots could play WITH each other... depending upn their seed and alliance selection.

[Corey Balint]

Originally Posted by Henry_222

Tom, thats odd, the 6 or so other 125 mentors were thinking the exact same thing.
Ethics Q: Would such a move be called good strategy or ungracious play?
If ever teams were required to demonstrate a lack of functionality, who is to decide just how functional robot in question should be?

If this was in effect last year, there is no way I wouldn't have tried something. It is smart play, and it is in the rules as fair. We had a half functioning robot, and by all means we would have easily taken them out. And by chance, maybe that first alliance captain would have been "broke" as well, and we could've gotten some other fantastic alliance partner.

It might not be ethical, but it is fair.

[Nuttyman54]

Originally Posted by Henry_222

Tom, thats odd, the 6 or so other 125 mentors were thinking the exact same thing.
Ethics Q: Would such a move be called good strategy or ungracious play?
If ever teams were required to demonstrate a lack of functionality, who is to decide just how functional robot in question should be?

I don't think it would be a strategic decision. Your alliance has worked with you though the division eliminations. They know how to play your strategies, and suddenly having to replace them on Einstein should probably only be used if your partner is disable, not just to get a "better" robot. This game is not won by robots, it's won by alliances.

[Corey Balint]

Originally Posted by Nuttyman54

I don't think it would be a strategic decision. Your alliance has worked with you though the division eliminations. They know how to play your strategies, and suddenly having to replace them on Einstein should probably only be used if your partner is disable, not just to get a "better" robot. This game is not won by robots, it's won by alliances.

It may be won by alliances. But if you have three offensive powerhouses....I think it might do just as well, if not better.
The example Tom and I have been discussing today is of ours last year on Einstein.
195 was having issues, from Newton Elims, that we could not identify, but they were still semi functional. With this option, we could have put in 111 as our third partner (note, they were the first pick of the A.C., this is what we were told and basing our theory off of).
The question we had was "Which would win; 25, 968, 195, or 25, 968, 111?" We both had a hearty laugh about it, and continued on with different ideas.
While yes, the A-Bomb, would not have been implemented without 195, but with 111 on our side, why would we need it? This year was different as you know, and definitely very alliance oriented though. I was talking to some other s online at the time of selections, and as soon as you made your alliance, I had declared you guys the clearcut winner of Newton, and my odds-on favorite for Einstein, just because I knew the compatability, and the style you guys woudl play.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Corey Balint

It may be won by alliances. But if you have three offensive powerhouses....I think it might do just as well, if not better.
The example Tom and I have been discussing today is of ours last year on Einstein.
195 was having issues, from Newton Elims, that we could not identify, but they were still semi functional. With this option, we could have put in 111 as our third partner (note, they were the first pick of the A.C., this is what we were told and basing our theory off of).
The question we had was "Which would win; 25, 968, 195, or 25, 968, 111?" We both had a hearty laugh about it, and continued on with different ideas.
While yes, the A-Bomb, would not have been implemented without 195, but with 111 on our side, why would we need it? This year was different as you know, and definitely very alliance oriented though. I was talking to some other s online at the time of selections, and as soon as you made your alliance, I had declared you guys the clearcut winner of Newton, and my odds-on favorite for Einstein, just because I knew the compatability, and the style you guys woudl play.

Had the rule existed then, you actually would have gotten 176, not 111. It's the alliance captain of the finalist alliance, not the alliance captain's first pick.

[Corey Balint]

Originally Posted by Cory

Had the rule existed then, you actually would have gotten 176, not 111. It's the alliance captain of the finalist alliance, not the alliance captain's first pick.

Yeah, I understand that now, I was talking about what we were first told.