Intentionally tipping and disabling your own robot FTW...

[keen101]

Originally Posted by ida_noeman

How does the ref know exactly when you hit the emergency stop button?

The judges have a little panel that tells them everything. It also has disable buttons for them to use.

Last year, the judges claimed our robot's power momentarily spiked, so they disabled it. We were out an entire match. We never did figure out what went wrong. Our robot worked fine after too.

[Glooper]

Originally Posted by keen101

The judges have a little panel that tells them everything. It also has disable buttons for them to use.

Last year, the judges claimed our robot's power momentarily spiked, so they disabled it. We were out an entire match. We never did figure out what went wrong. Our robot worked fine after too.

Wait, the Judges can tell how much power is going through your robot? 0.0

[IbleedPink233]

Well, to block an entire lane, you don't need a thirteen foot robot. All you need to do is make a 9 foot robot - if it lies in the center, then there will only be 2 ft of clearance on either side. 2 ft will not let the average 28in wide + bumpers robot through. 9 ft is reasonable for scoing over the Overpass - especially if you have a 40 inch manipulator. 9 ft is also easily obtained by a 2 section tower/elevator or a rotating arm. Since most robots will have almost no ground clearance, they won't be able to climb over the bot (and will probably earn themselves a penalty if they tried). A Trackball might be able to get through, but could be easily blocked by another alliance member.
However, even though it is "possible," I hope that no one is seriously considering this strategy. It would definitely make the game mind-numbingly boring - 15 seconds of play and 1 minute and 45 seconds of robots doing donuts in their little quadrants. FRC is not boring, so making the game boring would not be in the spirit of FIRST.
Not to mention that the strategy would reduce your engineers and student designers and their work to making a roadblock instead of a game-playing robot.
I am more worried about a robot that is less likely to incur penalties, but still effectively bolck scoring: one that can go up to their opponents' Overpass and fold out a huge shield that prevents all but the highest-thrown Trackballs from hurdling. In theory, it is perfectly legal, as long as the robot doesn't grapple anything and moves out of the way when someone signals to pass. Excellent defense, but once again, makes the game more dry and frustrating, not fun.

[Libby K]

Emphasis mine...

Originally Posted by eagle33199

I would hope the judges would treat such a blatant disregard for gracious professionalism rather severely.

Originally Posted by keen101

The judges have a little panel that tells them everything. It also has disable buttons for them to use.

Last year, the judges claimed our robot's power momentarily spiked, so they disabled it. We were out an entire match. We never did figure out what went wrong. Our robot worked fine after too.

Originally Posted by Glooper

Wait, the Judges can tell how much power is going through your robot? 0.0

I know this is a really unrelated side note, but reading this thread, I've noticed so many people saying "Judges". Please remember the difference between a Judge and a Referee.

Many judges (blue shirts) don't actually SEE matches until all their decisions are done. They're on the field for opening ceremonies each day, may watch a few matches, and then retreat back to the Judges' room to debate who gets which award.

The referees (zebras) are the ones on the field, watching every match and every team to make sure gameplay is fair and the spirit of FIRST competition is maintained.

It's a minute note, but it does make a difference. However, if teams do something really, really against the spirit of FIRST and Gracious Professionalism, rest assured that the judges DO find out about it and consider it in their decisions.

Sorry for the tangent, but that's about it.

$0.02 -- given.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by dlavery

Notice that the (revised) rule indicates that a disabled Robot will not receive any additional PENALTIES. It does not say anything about being immune from receiving a RED CARD (note that in the formal definitions, they are not the same thing).

There's a practical problem with that, though: you can't directly get a red card for egregious behaviour, only a yellow card (according to <T05>), unless the red card results from two yellow cards in two separate matches (due to <T07>). Also, <T09> tells us that red cards can be recieved directly, for disqualifications that don't result from yellow cards—but then the grounds for disqualification need to be something else. That brings us back to the subject of the thread: there doesn't seem to be a sanction with immediate punitive results, unless the behaviour is repeated in more than one match (in which case another yellow card will quickly deal with the offender).

While the referees will obviously hand out a yellow card every time this happens, that does give a team a theoretical opportunity to use this strategy once in the qualifying rounds and once in the elimination rounds, without being disqualified.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

There's a practical problem with that, though: you can't directly get a red card for egregious behaviour, only a yellow card (according to <T05>), unless the red card results from two yellow cards in two separate matches (due to <T07>). Also, <T09> tells us that red cards can be recieved directly, for disqualifications that don't result from yellow cards—but then the grounds for disqualification need to be something else. That brings us back to the subject of the thread: there doesn't seem to be a sanction with immediate punitive results, unless the behaviour is repeated in more than one match (in which case another yellow card will quickly deal with the offender).

While the referees will obviously hand out a yellow card every time this happens, that does give a team a theoretical opportunity to use this strategy once in the qualifying rounds and once in the elimination rounds, without being disqualified.

Hmmm. Tristan, didn't you ref at one point? If so, would you consider a 9-13 foot tall robot falling towards either the robots or the refs/scorers/judges as a safety hazard? And, if a robot is deemed a safety hazard, it can be DQ'd, right? Not only that, but if it is routinely a safety hazard, the refs can refuse to allow it to compete until it is no longer a hazard, if I read the rules correctly.

I may be lawyering the rules a bit much, but I think this is the easy way to discourage this/allow red cards. Also, this effectively disables other robots (even more of a stretch).

[IbleedPink233]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

There's a practical problem with that, though: you can't directly get a red card for egregious behaviour, only a yellow card (according to <T05>), unless the red card results from two yellow cards in two separate matches (due to <T07>). Also, <T09> tells us that red cards can be recieved directly, for disqualifications that don't result from yellow cards—but then the grounds for disqualification need to be something else. That brings us back to the subject of the thread: there doesn't seem to be a sanction with immediate punitive results, unless the behaviour is repeated in more than one match (in which case another yellow card will quickly deal with the offender).

While the referees will obviously hand out a yellow card every time this happens, that does give a team a theoretical opportunity to use this strategy once in the qualifying rounds and once in the elimination rounds, without being disqualified.

Ummm, as a general rule, you don't want to nitpick the words of someone on the GDC! When they deal with the intent or organization of the rules, especially, they know more about it than any of us!

Also, why would you build a robot that is designed to fall once during an entire regional? That means that you either have to waste the resources to actuate something strong enough to tip over your bot and make the entire robot durable enough to withstand the impact (ie lots of weight and engineering time) for such a tiny gain OR you have to risk the safety of your robot to tip it over when it is not designed to do that. Either way, you are hurting yourself in the long run, if not the short run, as well.

[Koko Ed]

Unless your robot is completely offensively inept I cannot see any reason to purposely disabling it. And considering that any robot that can move can score this strategy shouldn't be given any consideration unless you are completely insane.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by EricH

Hmmm. Tristan, didn't you ref at one point? If so, would you consider a 9-13 foot tall robot falling towards either the robots or the refs/scorers/judges as a safety hazard? And, if a robot is deemed a safety hazard, it can be DQ'd, right? Not only that, but if it is routinely a safety hazard, the refs can refuse to allow it to compete until it is no longer a hazard, if I read the rules correctly.

I may be lawyering the rules a bit much, but I think this is the easy way to discourage this/allow red cards. Also, this effectively disables other robots (even more of a stretch).

I was actually considering posting exactly that, but decided against it. I figured that if the team is smart (and crazy) enough to plan out a strategy using this technique, they'll also be smart enough to fall toward the centre divider.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

I was actually considering posting exactly that, but decided against it. I figured that if the team is smart (and crazy) enough to plan out a strategy using this technique, they'll also be smart enough to fall toward the centre divider.

Yeah, but the best-laid plans...

The main thing is that this can effectively disable other robots. Call me a lawyer if you will, but that is explicitly prohibited and is a cardable offense, up to a Red Card for the first attempt/success and at minimum a penalty at first.

And the GDC will probably take measures as soon as someone tries this. (And, if the refs are smart, as soon as the robot starts going over, they will start pulling out flags for impeding/80" violation.)

[Compnerd]

Has anyone considered that if your robot is tipped and is laying down, and robots are running into it, my bet is that your going to have some serious damage to your bot... Penalties would be the least of my worries in this situation, as this could potentially take you out of the entire competion depending on the severity of the damages..

[Mr. Lim]

A couple people have posted responses as to why a team would even consider a strategy like this. Why waste your engineering resources on this type of mechanism, etc. Why not try and score instead?

Consider a few things:

1) What does your perfect alliance consist of? Mine is 2 extremely effective hurdlers, and one other robot. There are only two alliance trackballs, and assuming your 2 hurdlers can maintain possession of the ball throughout most of the match, your 3rd robot should never interact with a trackball. There is no "viable" defensive strategy, so what is your ideal 3rd robot supposed to do?

DRIVE REALLY FAST, make 10 laps, and score 20 points right? THAT, in my opinion, is waste of engineering resources. Most every FIRST team probably feels they are capable of doing much more, and I predict most will! But a 3rd robot that can herd or hurdle is no better than one that can't. It should never touch a ball, so why bother having the capability of herding or hurdling?

I'm looking for a 3rd robot that doesn't need to herd or hurdle, but can still change the outcome of a match. Wouldn't a robot like this fit the bill?

If you're an alliance captain making your last pick, and you have a field of mediocre herders and hurdlers, or a speedster that can spontaneously decide to be "tippy, disably, and extendy" at the perfect moment, who are you going to pick?

If your team consistantly qualifies 16 or lower at an event, will be fighting for a 3rd robot spot in the eliminations, and you are seriously thinking about WINNING an event (remember, it's not everything, but it IS important to many), these are viable strategy decisions.

2) Over the years, the serpentine draft has added some interesting complexion to 3rd robot picks. No doubt, this "tippy, disably, and extendy" speedster will be offensively weak. During qualifications, I would expect it to do very poorly, and rank at or near the bottom, which is actually a very good thing for the team. Most "terrible" robots that rank dead last with no discernable scoring capabilities tend to not be picked.

The caveat is that during the last round of picks, generally, the last to pick, higher ranked teams have more scouting and strategy experience. They would be the most likely to recognize that your "tippy, disably, and extendy" speedster is actually an EXCELLENT 3rd robot.

From this standpoint, strategy decisions like this can vault your team from the bottom of the rankings, to regional winners before you even cut your first piece of metal.

I personally don't think it would be so strange for a team to consider doing something like this.

It would kill me though if I ever saw it done on purpose.

[IbleedPink233]

Originally Posted by SlimBoJones

A couple people have posted responses as to why a team would even consider a strategy like this. Why waste your engineering resources on this type of mechanism, etc. Why not try and score instead?

Consider a few things:

1) What does your perfect alliance consist of? Mine is 2 extremely effective hurdlers, and one other robot. There are only two alliance trackballs, and assuming your 2 hurdlers can maintain possession of the ball throughout most of the match, your 3rd robot should never interact with a trackball. There is no "viable" defensive strategy, so what is your ideal 3rd robot supposed to do?

DRIVE REALLY FAST, make 10 laps, and score 20 points right? THAT, in my opinion, is waste of engineering resources. Most every FIRST team probably feels they are capable of doing much more, and I predict most will! But a 3rd robot that can herd or hurdle is no better than one that can't. It should never touch a ball, so why bother having the capability of herding or hurdling?

I'm looking for a 3rd robot that doesn't need to herd or hurdle, but can still change the outcome of a match. Wouldn't a robot like this fit the bill?

If you're an alliance captain making your last pick, and you have a field of mediocre herders and hurdlers, or a speedster that can spontaneously decide to be "tippy, disably, and extendy" at the perfect moment, who are you going to pick?

If your team consistantly qualifies 16 or lower at an event, will be fighting for a 3rd robot spot in the eliminations, and you are seriously thinking about WINNING an event (remember, it's not everything, but it IS important to many), these are viable strategy decisions.

2) Over the years, the serpentine draft has added some interesting complexion to 3rd robot picks. No doubt, this "tippy, disably, and extendy" speedster will be offensively weak. During qualifications, I would expect it to do very poorly, and rank at or near the bottom, which is actually a very good thing for the team. Most "terrible" robots that rank dead last with no discernable scoring capabilities tend to not be picked.

The caveat is that during the last round of picks, generally, the last to pick, higher ranked teams have more scouting and strategy experience. They would be the most likely to recognize that your "tippy, disably, and extendy" speedster is actually an EXCELLENT 3rd robot.

From this standpoint, strategy decisions like this can vault your team from the bottom of the rankings, to regional winners before you even cut your first piece of metal.

I personally don't think it would be so strange for a team to consider doing something like this.

It would kill me though if I ever saw it done on purpose.

You are very much limiting the strategies that a team can use - even to the point of being unrealistic. I can almost guarantee that there will be no robot that will be able to perfectly keep control of their ball for an entire match while Hurdling - the rules appear to be designed to prevent that. Also, a robot without a Trackball is still able to do things such as: play defense (which there are plenty of "viable" ways to do, just poke around the forums), herd opponents' balls, etc. Limiting them to doing laps and the freak chance that tipping over can help you win one match is making that robot a very inflexible robot, and thus, a poor pick for any alliance. Even ignoring any possible penalties, I know that my team - with a great scouting and intelligence system that I am a part of - would only pick that robot over another that could only go around the Track 9 times, they are by no means an "EXCELLENT" pick.
Not to mention - if you are going to be 9 ft tall anyway, why not try to score? Why would you design a bot that had a tower that would only be used once per regional?

[ALIBI]

Originally Posted by SlimBoJones

Team Update #2 had an excellent resolution to some questions posed in the Q & A. This change made me wonder about an interesting strategy:



DISCLAIMER: I in no way support this strategy. Please don't misinterpret this post as intent to use this strategy myself or for my team. This question is asked as a result of investigating "game-breaking" strategies, which is something we do as part of our game analysis.

Suppose you built a robot that extended upwards, that if tipped, would block an entire lane of traffic, such that no other robot could pass. Attempting to push this robot out of the way would also be futile.

If at any time during the match, your alliance gained a lead (i.e. maybe 12 to 8 after hybrid mode), if your robot were to tip and be e-stopped, effectively blocking all traffic, would that not prevent scoring for the remainder of the match, thus securing the win?

Simply can not be done:

If you had a mechanism that purposely tipped over the entire robot, that would also be a mechanism that articulated the standard bumpers outside the bumper zone and it would not pass inspecition. The key here is to get the E-stop for tipping. You can not just raise something up ten feet or so, hit the E-stop as it is falling and then say you tipped to avoid further penalties.

EDIT: I could see a mechaism getting past the inspectors, however, after the first time it was used on the field I could see a Head Ref. sending it back for inspection and not allowing it back on the track until the design has been corrected (S01). Anything 10-12 feet tall that that could tip where the guardrail is only 20 inches high should be considered unsafe.

[JesseK]

Disabled ROBOTS
may be pushed out of the path of travel without PENALTY.

You better believe that if you try this strategy against our team (or even if you're on our alliance?!) we will use all of our 105-constant-amp drive train to move you out of the way without any detriment to our own robot