Defensive Strategy - cornering opponents ball

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Shadow503

I guess this is where our opinions split. I believe a team with a half-done robot should not be able to effectively compete.

Teams like us have spent too many hours building a powerful bot to have our scoring potential neutralized by a half-done box bot ("defensive bot"). The game creators intended to reduce pinning. This can be found by the lack of any 90 degree corners in the track. Unfortunately, teams are still able to pin a ball.

If your "powerful bot" can be neutralized by a "half-done box bot" then I put forth that your bot isn't all that powerful.

More likely, the fact is your team did not take into account defensive strategies ... so now you are crying foul.

Originally Posted by Shadow503

I've done the math and I have a counter pinning strategy: high speed ramming. If I can get our 120lb bot moving at 20 ft/s we should be able to disable/dislodge the defensive bot/track ball. A single lap w/ hurdle will be sufficient to cover 10pt penalty. After this, one of four things happens:
A) The defensive robot has been damaged and is no longer able to play defense
B) The defensive robot is still working, but we are able to keep control of the ball
C) The defensive robot, while still working, has realized it is in their best interests to not pin the ball
D) The defensive robot, still working, pins the ball after we come around the track again. We repeat the ramming maneuver and hurdle (with no net point loss) and hope for conditions A),B), or C) next time around.

1> High speed ramming is against the rules
2> Strategies designed to damage other bots or the field will get you DQ'd
3> Most defensive bots I've encountered are built stronger than their offensive counterparts because they 'expect' contact.

Have fun with your strategy. I'll be there to assist the other guy putting his robot back together while your team goes home after being DQ'd

Originally Posted by Shadow503

Most defense bots are weak KOP bots, so I have a feeling condition is A) is the likely outcome.

Please show me your evidence that defensive bots are weak KoP bots.

Originally Posted by Shadow503

Yes, it might not be the most GP solution, but neither is pinning. Pinning was not in the intent of the game creators and promotes laziness in bot design and construction. Pinning will lead to boring, low scoring matches. I intend to change that. I encourage other teams with competitive robots to do the same to keep this years game interesting.

See you at Nationals!

Please show me your evidence that pinning was not the intent of the game creators. My guess is that they knew some teams would try this strategy and a few would actually get good at it.

If you try to destroy others robots and encourage others to do the same ... don't be surprised when it happens to you.

Have fun at the nationals

[SL8]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

If your "powerful bot" can be neutralized by a "half-done box bot" then I put forth that your bot isn't all that powerful.

More likely, the fact is your team did not take into account defensive strategies ... so now you are crying foul.


1> High speed ramming is against the rules
2> Strategies designed to damage other bots or the field will get you DQ'd
3> Most defensive bots I've encountered are built stronger than their offensive counterparts because they 'expect' contact.

Have fun with your strategy. I'll be there to assist the other guy putting his robot back together while your team goes home after being DQ'd



Please show me your evidence that defensive bots are weak KoP bots.



Please show me your evidence that pinning was not the intent of the game creators. My guess is that they knew some teams would try this strategy and a few would actually get good at it.

If you try to destroy others robots and encourage others to do the same ... don't be surprised when it happens to you.

Have fun at the nationals

I'm hearing yet another echo.
I think the concensus is that if you can be stopped by a defensive bot then it is your problem to deal with, not complain about. ( or at least not ours.)

[Shadow503]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

If your "powerful bot" can be neutralized by a "half-done box bot" then I put forth that your bot isn't all that powerful.

More likely, the fact is your team did not take into account defensive strategies ... so now you are crying foul.

I'm curious how you suggest teams take into account for defensive strategies. If a ball is pinned against a wall, what can a team do besides ignore it and do laps? My point is that any offensive bot can be neutralized by this technique.

If a ball is pinned against a wall there is nothing even the best bot can do about it. That is the biggest thing that separates pinning from previous defensive strategies. In previous years, a defensive bot had to be robust and have a solid drive train. This year, the rules protect a pinning bot from contact so a cardboard box with wheels could effectively carry out this "strategy".

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

1> High speed ramming is against the rules

Yes, and a single hurdle + lap will eliminate that penalty.

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

2> Strategies designed to damage other bots or the field will get you DQ'd
3> Most defensive bots I've encountered are built stronger than their offensive counterparts because they 'expect' contact.

If they are built so robustly then they have nothing to worry about. I don't intend to damage the robot. I simply wish to dislodge the ball. If the robot gets damaged, then so be it. A yellow card is just a warning, and it also disappears once the finals start.

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

Please show me your evidence that defensive bots are weak KoP bots.

Originally Posted by s_forbes

. . .
but there are always going to be teams that cannot complete the task and end up with a half-done robot that can't run fast laps or hurdle the ball. I think this was anticipated, and so no rules were made to stop these teams from intercepting/playing keep away with the other alliance's trackballs.

Originally Posted by lukevanoort

I don't think anyone is proposing building your robot with this as its sole purpose. If your [mechanism] breaks and you're up against a couple of good hurdlers, this might be a very useful strategy in your repertoire. You could drive in circles for a couple points a lap, or you could pin the ball and reduce one of your opponents' scoring ability from ten points per lap down to two. That seems like a useful backup strategy to me.

Ok, maybe not KOP bots, but many people are suggesting that defense be used by defective/half-finished bots.

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

Please show me your evidence that pinning was not the intent of the game creators.

135 degree angles on the walls. A right angle would be much more easily manufactured, but the GDC still chose to use 135 angles (which make it more difficult to pin). If you also look at the other rules, they discourage defensive play this year. I'm pretty sure the GDC doesn't want four bots to park themselves in the corners pinning balls while the other two remaining bots run laps. That leads to very dry gameplay.

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

If you try to destroy others robots and encourage others to do the same ... don't be surprised when it happens to you.

Have fun at the nationals

I don't encourage the destruction of other robots, I'm simply suggesting a way to prevent a loophole from ruining this years game. And as you've previously stated, defensive bots are built strong, so they should have no problem holding up to our attempts to bring the track ball back in to play.

See you at nationals!

[SL8]

Originally Posted by Shadow503

135 degree angles on the walls. A right angle would be much more easily manufactured, but the GDC still chose to use 135 angles (which make it more difficult to pin). If you also look at the other rules, they discourage defensive play this year. I'm pretty sure the GDC doesn't want four bots to park themselves in the corners pinning balls while the other two remaining bots run laps. That leads to very dry gameplay.


I don't encourage the destruction of other robots, I'm simply suggesting a way to prevent a loophole from ruining this years game. And as you've previously stated, defensive bots are built strong, so they should have no problem holding up to our attempts to bring the track ball back in to play.

See you at nationals!

I think you're forgetting the diversity that occurs every year.

[Herodotus]

Originally Posted by Shadow503

I'm curious how you suggest teams take into account for defensive strategies. If a ball is pinned against a wall, what can a team do besides ignore it and do laps? My point is that any offensive bot can be neutralized by this technique.

Very simple, push them out of the way. There is nothing to prevent bumper to bumper contact. If we had chosen to use our drive train from last year we could have pushed any of the defensive bots out of the way, very easily. We could even have pushed other bots sideways in some cases. Also, you could simply not let them pin in the first place. Part of the game this year, I would almost say the most important part, is ball control. You must be able to pick up quickly and reliably and a team that does this can make it so another team never has the chance to play defense in the first place.

Finally, I direct you to the eliminations at GLR. There you can see a very fine showing of counter-defense between us (910) and the Thunderchickens. Above all else teamwork can prevent defense from shutting you down.

Also the 135 degree walls are likely there to give the track a somewhat oval appearance, to simulate a race track. Not for any specific anti defense reason.

[lukevanoort]

Alex, I'll be honest with you, I think that your argument is baseless. Defense is a valid strategy, and as an offensive robot, you must play through it or lose. Also, if defense-oriented robots were so weak and flimsy, you should have no trouble dealing with them unless your robot is similarly weak or flimsy; all you have to do is push them out of the way. In addition, a strategy that has severely damaging or destroying opposing robots as one of its main goals has no place in this game, and I would hope the refs would DQ any team trying such a foul strategy. A side note, calling other robots "half-finished" or "defective" is just bad manners, and is very rude.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Who said anything about running laps. Our bot, in low gear, drives @ 5' per second and has 175+ LB pushing force. Very few "half-done box bots" won't be pushed by us. And we don't need to ram.

Design for defense ... because it will happen once you prove yourself a scoring threat.


Planning on high speed ramming will get you DQ'd under <G37>

ROBOT to ROBOT Interaction - Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage, tipping over, or entanglement of ROBOTS are not in the spirit of the FIRST Robotics Competition and are not allowed.

Originally Posted by Shadow503

I've done the math and I have a counter pinning strategy: high speed ramming. If I can get our 120lb bot moving at 20 ft/s we should be able to disable/dislodge the defensive bot/track ball. A single lap w/ hurdle will be sufficient to cover 10pt penalty. After this, one of four things happens:
A) The defensive robot has been damaged and is no longer able to play defense
B) The defensive robot is still working, but we are able to keep control of the ball
C) The defensive robot, while still working, has realized it is in their best interests to not pin the ball
D) The defensive robot, still working, pins the ball after we come around the track again. We repeat the ramming maneuver and hurdle (with no net point loss) and hope for conditions A),B), or C) next time around.

This is the most un-GP statement I've ever seen, and shows that you are far more interested in winning than in doing what is right.

135 degree wall sections proves nothing other than it's different from years ago ... not that the GDC did not want or expect pinning of the trackballs. At best it's your estimation of what the GDC wanted. And your opinion is biased because your "powerful bot" was unable to compensate for this "simplistic" defense (in fairness, my opinion is probably just as biased even though we built a lap bot this year).

Also think that your arm / gripper / manipulator very well could be outside the bumperzone and any interaction with that will give you another 10 point penalty and may get you disabled / Yellow carded / DQ'd.

Again, have fun with your strategy at the championships.

[SL8]

I gotta say, it seems like we are going in circles with this one. I'm gonna run out ways to reword what I've already said.

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by Shadow503

The game creators intended to reduce pinning.

Then why didn't they simply outlaw it? Reduce <> prohibit.

I have a counter pinning strategy: high speed ramming.

So to counteract a strategy that is not prohibited in the rules, you will employ a strategy that deliberately breaks the rules. And you're questioning the other team's GP?

Originally Posted by Shadow503

A yellow card is just a warning, and it also disappears once the finals start.

But a second yellow card results in a DQ. And each and every one after that results in a DQ. You won't be racking up many wins in qualifying matches that way. And who would choose a robot in an alliance that might get the whole alliance DQ'd in the eliminations?

135 degree angles on the walls. A right angle would be much more easily manufactured, but the GDC still chose to use 135 angles (which make it more difficult to pin).

And it would be easier to hurdle if the overpass was only 4.5 feet tall, not 6.5. I guess that means the GDC didn't intend us to hurdle, else they wouldn't have made it so difficult.

If you also look at the other rules, they discourage defensive play this year.

Some kinds of defense are outlawed. How do you jump to the conclusion that this discourages all defense?

I'm pretty sure the GDC doesn't want four bots to park themselves in the corners pinning balls while the other two remaining bots run laps. That leads to very dry gameplay.

If they had not wanted that, why didn't they say so in the rules? There's been no Team Updates since Week 2. Don't you think they would have changed the rule if that's what they really wanted?

[Shadow503]

Originally Posted by lukevanoort

Alex, I'll be honest with you. Your argument reminds me of one you would hear from a spoiled rich kid with a sports car who gets pulled over for speeding.

Geez, has our discussion really regressed to personal attacks? I care little for how you interpret my arguments.

Originally Posted by lukevanoort

Defense is a valid strategy, and as an offensive robot, you must play through it or lose. Also, if defense-oriented robots were so weak and flimsy, you should have no trouble dealing with them unless your robot is similarly weak or flimsy; all you have to do is push them out of the way. In addition, a strategy that has severely damaging or destroying opposing robots as one of its main goals has no place in this game, and I would hope the refs would DQ any team trying such a foul strategy.

You're sending mixed messages. At first you say that offensive bots should have no problem dealing with defense bots if they are weak. Then immediately after that you condemn damaging opposing robots. I'm not sure I understand exactly what you propose offensive bots do.

I'll clarify my previous statement. The goal of my strategy is to simply dislodge the ball. The last thing I want to do is to destroy another teams robot. Herodotus suggested pushing, and I agree with him. This will allow competitive bots with a good drive train to move the pinning bot. Yes, my suggestion for high speed ramming may have been blunt. Pushing is a more reasonable solution.

Originally Posted by lukevanoort

A side note, calling other robots "half-finished" or "defective" is just bad manners, and is very rude.

I'm only using words that were used by supporters of pinning in the past few pages. Is it really rude if I haven't actually named any robots? Please consider your own personal attacks when you wish to point fingers about being rude.

[SL8]

I really don't like the way this thread is going,
how about we have some hot chocolate and heatedly discuss, rather than argue, about it eh?

Really, words do not peirce hearts, people do. So no, it is only the usage and implications of said usage that render words poisonous.

-Jesus

Edit. Or Lemonade.

[Shadow503]

Yes, lemonade would probably be a better idea right now!

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Lemonaid sounds real good

[lukevanoort]

Alex, I apologize, I did not mean to attack you, just your argument. On a second reading, I see how easily that difference is missed, and so have modified the line.

Now, lacking lemonade, I'll go play some guitar.

[SL8]

Originally Posted by lukevanoort

Alex, I apologize, I did not mean to attack you, just your argument. On a second reading, I see how easily that difference is missed, and so have modified the line.

Now, lacking lemonade, I'll go play some guitar.

I can only play real guitar so-so, so onward to Rock Band.