Small balls in 2001 competition

[archiver]

Posted by Patrick Dingle at 04/29/2001 4:33 PM EST


College Student on team #639, Red B^2, from Ithaca High School and Cornell University.



After reading some of these posts about the game, I think the game could have been given another dimension if they made small balls worth more than one point. Almost all teams decided not to design their robots to handle small balls, since they were worth so little, and humans could load one goal anyway.

Now say the small balls are worth three points, and that the four-team alliance only has 10 balls in their human player station. Now, if there is a robot that can quickly load a goal with about 6-8 balls, then that's another 20 points or so. It would also make a much more interesting combination of robots. Instead of having balancers, wedges, and big-ball handlers, we would also have small-ball handlers.

If we do stick with a 4vs0 type setup next year, then I think the game can be made better by making these different scoring options (e.g. big ball, small ball, balancing) all worth relatively the same amount of points... Even if this means removing multipliers, I think it would make each match different, depending on the alliance, and would be somewhat more exciting to watch.

So say we do keep 4vs0 for another year... Regardless if you like 4vs0 or 2vs2 better, how do others think the 4vs0 can be improved?

Patrick

[archiver]

Posted by Scott England at 04/29/2001 5:05 PM EST


College Student on team #401, The Hokie G.U.A.R.D, from Virginia Tech/MCPS and Virginia Tech/VBEP.


In Reply to: Small balls in 2001 competition
Posted by Patrick Dingle on 04/29/2001 4:33 PM EST:



I tend to think from the way Dean said things, it will be an alliance vs the field again, not head to head combat.

Personally, I think that an idea someone mentioned earlier would be interesting to see, like football, offense vs defense

lets say 4 robots have the field and 2 minutes to manipulate stuff, put balls in goals, tires over bowling pits, knock a pendulum one way or another, do everything imaginable to score points.
and then 4 other robots get like 30 seconds to play defense, undoing as much as they can.
then the teams switch positions and do it again,

so while this wouldn't be exactly head to head combat, there would be more of a sense of competition. Also, with this structure, 8 teams would have a round in relatively short order, all the teams right there, with just a short amount of time to reset the field and less introductions before putting the robots back on the field. just an idea, not even saying its the best one, just one way that a bit of the competitive air could be added to the competition without teams antagonizing eachother
~Scott

KAMEN FOR PRESIDENT 2004 !!!



: After reading some of these posts about the game, I think the game could have been given another dimension if they made small balls worth more than one point. Almost all teams decided not to design their robots to handle small balls, since they were worth so little, and humans could load one goal anyway.

: Now say the small balls are worth three points, and that the four-team alliance only has 10 balls in their human player station. Now, if there is a robot that can quickly load a goal with about 6-8 balls, then that's another 20 points or so. It would also make a much more interesting combination of robots. Instead of having balancers, wedges, and big-ball handlers, we would also have small-ball handlers.

: If we do stick with a 4vs0 type setup next year, then I think the game can be made better by making these different scoring options (e.g. big ball, small ball, balancing) all worth relatively the same amount of points... Even if this means removing multipliers, I think it would make each match different, depending on the alliance, and would be somewhat more exciting to watch.

: So say we do keep 4vs0 for another year... Regardless if you like 4vs0 or 2vs2 better, how do others think the 4vs0 can be improved?

: Patrick

[archiver]

Posted by ChrisH at 04/30/2001 1:50 PM EST


Engineer on team #330, Beach 'Bots, from Hope Chapel Academy and NASA JPL, J & F Machine, Raytheon, et al.


In Reply to: Small balls in 2001 competition
Posted by Patrick Dingle on 04/29/2001 4:33 PM EST:



I don't know about other teams, but we deliberately decided not to handle small balls because of the low effort/points ratio. It was almost as much effort to pick up a small ball as a big one for far less payoff.

This was in spite of having a robot design from the previous year that would have easily picked up three or four small balls and deposited them in the goal within 30 seconds with only slight modification.

I think the worst part of this game was that there was one critical operation, balancing goals. Further, it could only be performed by one robot. As I understand it most discussion in stratgey sessions revolved around who would accomplish this task. Finally, if this task was not accomplished the whole alliance suffered, but there was no way to tell for real if a team could accomplish it but to let them try, and possibly suffer for the result

While it would be theoretically possible to design robots to work together to accomplish the balancing task it is very difficult to do this without collaborating on the design. ( Congrats to Wildstang and the other rampbots for figuring a way around this)This is hindered by the random assignment of partners. Why design your robot to work with a particular other robot when there is no guarantee you'll ever get to work together?

A large part of this could be eliminated by increasing the number of scoring possibilities. For example, how would it have changed things if there were TWO bridges? For even more fun add two more goals. Leave all the other rules the same and you have a totally different game. Of course, big ball limbobots might not be in such demand, but you would have vastly increased the number of potential goal balancing robots and reduced the failure risk in each match.

It was very frustrating to get a poor ranking in spite of accomplishing your assigned tasks more than 90% of the time because your partners did not accomplish their tasks. Especially when they often were fighting hard to get the chance to fail. Very similar to being the star player on a bottom of the standings team.

Just my thoughts

Chris Husmann, PE
Team 330 the Beach'Bots

[archiver]

Posted by Patrick Dingle at 04/30/2001 3:16 PM EST


College Student on team #639, Red B^2, from Ithaca High School and Cornell University.


In Reply to: One chance to score big
Posted by ChrisH on 04/30/2001 1:50 PM EST:



You got me thinking... How about two bridges in the middle, but with an 8-foot gap in between (e.g. swap the positions of the 1 1/2' high bars and the goal). In the middle, you add a 2000 goal. Black balls in the 2000 goal count as three points each. Big balls only count when they are on 2001 goals. Black balls in the 2001 goals count one point. For each goal balanced on a bridge, each ball in that specific goal counts twice as much, including big balls. However, if both bridges are balanced (one goal on each bridge), all balls in either balanced goal count four times as much. There are no time multipliers, and no endzone. Each robot counts as an extra 25 points if they lift themselves off the ground by attaching to the 2001 goal. Any questions?

Now this seems a lot more complex, but without the time multiplier it's a lot easier to understand. I think this type of setup is better for several reasons. First, as Chris suggested, two brides allows two different robots to balance. Now you could claim that one robot would still balance two goals on one of the bridges, but it is worth more points if one goal is balanced on each of the two bridges. Additionally, the importance of balancing is decreased with respect to the importance of scoring balls. Without robots that can score big and small balls, it doesn't matter if you can balance or not. If an alliance is not confident in their ability to balance a goal, they can score many balls in the 2000 goal, earning them three points per ball. Now you might guess that alliances would opt not to balance, when the 2000 goal is already worth three points per ball. However, recall that the human players can easily load a 2001 goal from the human player station, while it is much more difficult for human players to score in the 2000 goal. Additionally, big balls that are placed on top of 2001 goals can potentially be worth 40 points each if both goals are balanced, one on each bridge. Towards the end of the match, all these robots can earn the alliance 25 additional points by hanging of the goal in the middle, similar to last year (only it's off the goal, not off a bar).

As I think about different options for games, I think more and more that it is possible to have exciting 4vs0 matches... they just need to set up the scoring correctly -- and I must say they failed this year since there were so many robots that did not have a purpose in the alliance. If you understood all my rules, does mine do any better of a job? Other interesting modifications ideas?

Patrick

: I don't know about other teams, but we deliberately decided not to handle small balls because of the low effort/points ratio. It was almost as much effort to pick up a small ball as a big one for far less payoff.

: This was in spite of having a robot design from the previous year that would have easily picked up three or four small balls and deposited them in the goal within 30 seconds with only slight modification.

: I think the worst part of this game was that there was one critical operation, balancing goals. Further, it could only be performed by one robot. As I understand it most discussion in stratgey sessions revolved around who would accomplish this task. Finally, if this task was not accomplished the whole alliance suffered, but there was no way to tell for real if a team could accomplish it but to let them try, and possibly suffer for the result

: While it would be theoretically possible to design robots to work together to accomplish the balancing task it is very difficult to do this without collaborating on the design. ( Congrats to Wildstang and the other rampbots for figuring a way around this)This is hindered by the random assignment of partners. Why design your robot to work with a particular other robot when there is no guarantee you'll ever get to work together?

: A large part of this could be eliminated by increasing the number of scoring possibilities. For example, how would it have changed things if there were TWO bridges? For even more fun add two more goals. Leave all the other rules the same and you have a totally different game. Of course, big ball limbobots might not be in such demand, but you would have vastly increased the number of potential goal balancing robots and reduced the failure risk in each match.

: It was very frustrating to get a poor ranking in spite of accomplishing your assigned tasks more than 90% of the time because your partners did not accomplish their tasks. Especially when they often were fighting hard to get the chance to fail. Very similar to being the star player on a bottom of the standings team.

: Just my thoughts

: Chris Husmann, PE
: Team 330 the Beach'Bots

[archiver]

Posted by ChrisH at 04/30/2001 4:37 PM EST


Engineer on team #330, Beach 'Bots, from Hope Chapel Academy and NASA JPL, J & F Machine, Raytheon, et al.


In Reply to: Re: One chance to score big
Posted by Patrick Dingle on 04/30/2001 3:16 PM EST:



Patrick,

The biggest problem I see with your suggestion is that then we might not have built a new robot. If we did it would have been a very close copy of our 2000 design. Because our 2000 robot would be very competitive with it's fast pickup and delivery of small balls, and great ability to hang for 25 points. Unless you were planning to leave the 4x4 under the goal.

You also might have gone too far the other way with too many opportunities to score. But personally I'd rather have too many than too few.

Chris Husmann, PE
Team 330 the Beach'Bots

[archiver]

Posted by ChrisH at 04/30/2001 1:58 PM EST


Engineer on team #330, Beach 'Bots, from Hope Chapel Academy and NASA JPL, J & F Machine, Raytheon, et al.


In Reply to: Small balls in 2001 competition
Posted by Patrick Dingle on 04/29/2001 4:33 PM EST:



How about having a five robot alliance, but the lead team does NOT put their robot on the field? Instead they are the assigned alliance leader and set strategy for the other teams. This forces them to develop a strategy that best uses the other robots strengths, but keeps their egos out of the way. Each team in the alliance would get the same score for the round.

Of course this might lead to a top ranked team with a non-functioning robot but a brilliant strategy team. Talk about leveling the playing field in terms of construction.

Just a "Modest Proposal"

Chris Husmann, PE
Team 330 the Beach'Bots

[archiver]

Posted by Matt Ryan at 04/30/2001 2:10 PM EST


Student on team #69, HYPER, from Quincy Public Schools and Gillette.


In Reply to: How about 5 vs 0, with a twist?
Posted by ChrisH on 04/30/2001 1:58 PM EST:



Pretty good idea.

No one really wants to see their robot sidelined because they are the highest seed in the alliance, and thats the only problem.

: How about having a five robot alliance, but the lead team does NOT put their robot on the field? Instead they are the assigned alliance leader and set strategy for the other teams. This forces them to develop a strategy that best uses the other robots strengths, but keeps their egos out of the way. Each team in the alliance would get the same score for the round.

: Of course this might lead to a top ranked team with a non-functioning robot but a brilliant strategy team. Talk about leveling the playing field in terms of construction.

: Just a "Modest Proposal"

: Chris Husmann, PE
: Team 330 the Beach'Bots

[archiver]

Posted by ChrisH at 04/30/2001 4:22 PM EST


Engineer on team #330, Beach 'Bots, from Hope Chapel Academy and NASA JPL, J & F Machine, Raytheon, et al.


In Reply to: Re: How about 5 vs 0, with a twist?
Posted by Matt Ryan on 04/30/2001 2:10 PM EST:



Sorry, I was unclear in my first post. Each team would be assigned the lead position pretty much like you are assigned colors now. There would be no choice about it. All teams are "lead" team for 2 out of 8 matches or whatever it works out to be so all teams get equal time. So no robot is sidelined just because they're the highest seed, rather they get an additional opportunity to score points by directing other teams. Of course if they are sloppy about it or try to direct teams into oblivion they will pay for it later, maybe in the finals or just before...

Chris Husmann, PE
Team 330 the Beach'Bots

: Pretty good idea.

: No one really wants to see their robot sidelined because they are the highest seed in the alliance, and thats the only problem.

: : How about having a five robot alliance, but the lead team does NOT put their robot on the field? Instead they are the assigned alliance leader and set strategy for the other teams. This forces them to develop a strategy that best uses the other robots strengths, but keeps their egos out of the way. Each team in the alliance would get the same score for the round.

: : Of course this might lead to a top ranked team with a non-functioning robot but a brilliant strategy team. Talk about leveling the playing field in terms of construction.

: : Just a "Modest Proposal"

: : Chris Husmann, PE
: : Team 330 the Beach'Bots

[archiver]

Posted by Anthony S. at 04/30/2001 8:23 PM EST


Student on team #442, Knight Riders, from Lee High School and NASA/BOEING/MEVATEC.


In Reply to: Small balls in 2001 competition
Posted by Patrick Dingle on 04/29/2001 4:33 PM EST:



I've heard a lot of talk about this recent game, the main thing people talk about is balaning, limbo bots, and big balls as our main fuctions of the robot. But what about the stretcher, my team was the only team I saw use a stretcher(I may be wrong, please correct me), the stretcher was a huge part of the game, if a stretcher were used in the final rounds, the score of 700 would have been broken way before. Not only could we JUST do the stretcher, we grabbed both goals, we used one of our goal grabbers for the stretcher. was that smart or what? So I think the stretcher should have been emphasized a little bit more, it would have helped the score drastically.

[archiver]

Posted by ChrisH at 05/01/2001 11:29 AM EST


Engineer on team #330, Beach 'Bots, from Hope Chapel Academy and NASA JPL, J & F Machine, Raytheon, et al.


In Reply to: What about the stretcher?!?!?
Posted by Anthony S. on 04/30/2001 8:23 PM EST:



The biggest problem with the stretcher was not getting robots to pull it. The biggest problem was getting robots to ride it.

The PERCEPTION was that if you got on the stretcher you were either non-functional or couldn't get over the ramp without help. The fact that a capable wedgebot could actually score MORE base points by being on the stretcher and carried to the endzone was lost on alot of people.

The extensive Scouting was actually part of the problem here. Everybobdy would know you rode the stretcher, how would this be percieved by other teams who might be scouting you as a potential partner? Would it be that you were non-functional and therefore unreliable or that you were a team player willing to sacrifice your ego for the good of the alliance?

Besides how much fun is it as a human player to stand and watch when you have limited drive time anyway?

Technically a robot on the stretcher could pick up balls and score them. I THINK we might have been able to do that by bending up a new set of "arms" to pick up the ball with. But to do so the towing robot would have to move us into position to pick up the ball and then deposit the ball. That's a whole lot of trust on our part in the other robot's abilities. Not to mention the problems of communicating with the other team about where to move us for a good drop in the competition environment. With practice it could be done, but there was no opportunity for that.

I think the stretcher was kind of like socialism, a great idea defeated by the realities of human nature.

Chris Husmann, PE
Team 330 the Beach'Bots

[archiver]

Posted by Kevin at 05/06/2001 12:31 AM EST


Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monsters, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.


In Reply to: The problem with the stretcher
Posted by ChrisH on 05/01/2001 11:29 AM EST:



Actually, Beatty (Team 71) had much success with the stretcher at the IRI, and nearly scored over 800 points on several occasions! It was extremely exciting.

: The biggest problem with the stretcher was not getting robots to pull it. The biggest problem was getting robots to ride it.

: The PERCEPTION was that if you got on the stretcher you were either non-functional or couldn't get over the ramp without help. The fact that a capable wedgebot could actually score MORE base points by being on the stretcher and carried to the endzone was lost on alot of people.

: The extensive Scouting was actually part of the problem here. Everybobdy would know you rode the stretcher, how would this be percieved by other teams who might be scouting you as a potential partner? Would it be that you were non-functional and therefore unreliable or that you were a team player willing to sacrifice your ego for the good of the alliance?

: Besides how much fun is it as a human player to stand and watch when you have limited drive time anyway?

: Technically a robot on the stretcher could pick up balls and score them. I THINK we might have been able to do that by bending up a new set of "arms" to pick up the ball with. But to do so the towing robot would have to move us into position to pick up the ball and then deposit the ball. That's a whole lot of trust on our part in the other robot's abilities. Not to mention the problems of communicating with the other team about where to move us for a good drop in the competition environment. With practice it could be done, but there was no opportunity for that.

: I think the stretcher was kind of like socialism, a great idea defeated by the realities of human nature.

: Chris Husmann, PE
: Team 330 the Beach'Bots