The ultimate game breaker bot.

[Racer26]

seems to me that you could probably get the deflector configured in such a way that the energy of the ball coming down the return is enough to push it forward and hit the angled part of the hump, which, if positioned right, could give it the required energy to go directly into the goal. now sure, a defensive bot could try to get in the way, but if you're able to change the direction the ball goes, then what can they do? the ball is smaller and faster than a 120lb robot.

[MCahoon]

<G45> Active BALL control - ROBOTS may not control BALL direction with active MECHANISMS above the BUMPER ZONE. Violation: PENALTY.

What defines an "active mechanism"? If the device you control the ball direction with is moved to extend to get into the finale configuration allowed when in contact with the tower, is it "passive" or "active"? It isn't obvious to me whether "active" is restricted to only the motion used in controlling the ball direction.

[Brad Voracek]

I thought of this day one, and I still think it is a key element of this game.

I didn't read the entire thread, but I think one robot like this will be on the winning alliance on Einstein.

However, you have to have good supporting mechanisms to begin with. You need to be able to kick balls over at least 1 hump still, and you need to be agile. And I'd want to be able to drive over a hump incase you don't start in the middle in your alliance. The good thing is, once you have a majority of balls in your near zone (8+), it is now 2 vs 1 in your near zone, since your opponent can only have 1 robot there, and you can have 2, it becomes a race to see if you can use 2 robots to score 8 balls faster than they can use 2 (or 3 if they pull your defender, but then you could pull 1 from your near zone to midfield.. so the game is still dynamic) robots to score 4 balls.


This is a good strategy, although it is not god mode, you still need to get more balls on your rotation, and have good support robots to help you score, because lets face it, having the balls roll to the goal is near impossible (wait til week one and we find a robot that's perfected this hehe).. But I think this type of robot (a return bot maybe?) will be key to ball control in midfield, because once the balls are in your rotation it becomes increasingly harder to defend against.

Let's not forget, this robot will also be good enough to go herd balls back into the rotation midfield, when balls aren't rolling down the chute.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by bobmonkey836

1: due to rule <g28>, you get penalized for COMPLETELY crossing the center line in autonomous. this means you *could* use sensors (line reader?) to line up with the tower, latch onto it, and possibly start climbing in autonomous mode. the only real defense at that point is dead reckoning to sit in front of the tower right away and block it.

Other than the general ball starvation strategy. There's more to defense than just stopping a robot from getting to a spot.

[Jones571]

GDC:

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=13696

[pandamonium]

I took this idea one step further controlling your ball return is great... but controlling both is better. This would be a great design challenge but I think if the rules allow the old design this one would also be legal.

[Kevin Sevcik]

I think the key question with this design is whether you can ever get a sufficient number of balls on your side of the field. I think a good, fast defense bot is going to be capable of clearing balls away from the near side much faster than you can score them, for a very simple reason: Scoring requires aiming, clearing does not. All a defensive robot has to do is make sure it's pointed up or down field and swing away.

[Brad Voracek]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

I think the key question with this design is whether you can ever get a sufficient number of balls on your side of the field. I think a good, fast defense bot is going to be capable of clearing balls away from the near side much faster than you can score them, for a very simple reason: Scoring requires aiming, clearing does not. All a defensive robot has to do is make sure it's pointed up or down field and swing away.

You have to remember though that it will be 2 robots against 1 in the near zone, or at least it can be, which creates some interesting gameplay...

[Brad Voracek]

Originally Posted by pandamonium

I took this idea one step further controlling your ball return is great... but controlling both is better. This would be a great design challenge but I think if the rules allow the old design this one would also be legal.

Haha, now you're just giving everything away!

[pandamonium]

Originally Posted by Brad Voracek

Haha, now you're just giving everything away!

no there actually is an even better robot concept that is completely legal but I don't want to post that so I am not giving everything away.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Brad Voracek

You have to remember though that it will be 2 robots against 1 in the near zone, or at least it can be, which creates some interesting gameplay...

If that happens, every ball that isn't in the strategy exectuer's area is free and undefended in the defender's area. Say it's 6 and 6 even to start, the defender's one robot kicks 2 balls over, 4 go in. Assuming the same success rate with each cycle, the strategy executer can score about 6 or 7 points while the defender's other 2 robots hog balls all match long.

This is of course, assuming you build the side hanger required for this manuver.

[bobmonkey836]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

Other than the general ball starvation strategy. There's more to defense than just stopping a robot from getting to a spot.

to me, it seems like it'd be better to block them from getting it to latch, as it requires less attention after that.

[Racer26]

These strategies all rely on the answer to this question. Is it allowed to have a robot designed in such a way that it CAN influence the direction of a ball that happens to land on it, WITHOUT the ball contacting any "active" mechanisms. If this is the case, one could build some sort of a trough, which would catch falling balls from above, and guide them in a particular direction.

[Cyberphil]

Originally Posted by pandamonium

I took this idea one step further controlling your ball return is great... but controlling both is better. This would be a great design challenge but I think if the rules allow the old design this one would also be legal.

The problem with this is that the distance between the two towers is much longer than that. The field is split into three 18' sections. The robot can only be 90" tall in the finale config. How can you possibly reach that distance?

[Matt C]

I had a similar idea, but I have a strong feeling that it would be deemed in violation of G45.

It also requires a relatively loose interpretation of POSSESSION.

If your robot would move, and that ball would move with it at any time during your little manipulation move, even if you succeeded in flipping your robot and having everything extend out the bottom, you'd be in POSSESSION, and since the ball would not be in contact with the field, you'd be CARRYING.

Also, based on the GDC response to G45:

Incidental contact with MECHANISMS or COMPONENTS that do not control the direction of the BALL is permitted.

Could we conclude that intentional contact with MECHANISMS or COMPONENTS that contol the direction of the BALL is not permitted?