Team 39 building 469 stopper solution (Available in Las Vegas)

[Frank Neuperger]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

They can, and have, left the tunnel after deploying their mechanism.


All this apocalyptic talk of 469 and their ilk running rampant and destroying the competition is a little premature, don't you think? We've only played two weeks and seen one of these bots dominate. Perhaps we should let the game evolve a bit, first?

Agreed that this will not destroy the competition and should not be seen as an apocalypse . Loop bots will hopefully be copied enough to make finals less of a one sided scenario. Effective countermeasures may be the deciding factor with multiple loop bots in a competition.

I am excited about 469's development and feel that it will make the learning experience better by providing a few additional weeks of late stage tasks and excitement to the builders and designers to develop countermeasures within the hold-back rules and countermeasure strategies. More than anything, as Dean and Woodie keep on saying, "it is not about the bot or the game.....". It gives a more realistic glimpse of real life in the technology industry. I hope this excitement and challenge inspire more undecided students to enter the field.

My thread was started when many people were watching 469's opponents drown on You-tube and in my opinion spending far more forum space describing the water than how the drowning alliance may save themselves.

This thread content was intended mostly to provide constructive light at the end of the tunnel for teams that are about to face this type of opposing alliance in Troy and Nationals. The glass is half full. Now fill it the rest of the way.

I hope some others contribute better ideas than mine and share them with the community. I would love to see a rookie team develop the most effective countermeasure.

Frank

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by topgun

The videos I saw were showing some pretty ineffective defending robots that could not clear the ball out of the zone.

That's a rather unfair characterization. The lone defender bot also had to defend against balls rolling off 469, try to stop 217 from racing about cleaning up missed balls, while 2960 hassled the defender. A daunting task.

[Frank Neuperger]

Originally Posted by PAR_WIG1350

A loopy robot that grabs the tower higher is asking to be made into a pendulum. the worst loop bots will have multiple attachment points. Then you would have to match the resonance of the tower. <and risk field damage?>

Any tests on how tolerant the tower is to [resonant] movement with a robot locked onto it?

Both the robot director mechanism and tower move. Not at the same frequency. For resonance info , see the videos of 469. There are a couple high res videos and some really low res ones. I wish that the low res could be recoded by the person that posted them or more high res can be posted. With frame by frame playback, and knowledge of frame rate you can exactly work out the rate at which you need to deliver stimulus impulses (hits) to the bot. Getting tower into high enough amplitude resonance may be real difficult and need much more energetic impulses and risk field damage or disturbance penalty.

Smart loop bot design will isolate (not necessarily separate) the upper mechanism from the bumper section and make all of this shaker stuffharder to do.

Aloop bot grabbing high (as well as low) may get a bit of pendulum effect, but you don't care if bottom of bot is swinging (undulating not hanging) a bit more than the top mechanism as long as the ball gets guided and loses contact higher up on the mechanism where it can be moved less by resonance inducing impulses.

Clever counter measures will install a hybrid mode for the shaking of the loop bot and have a pot at the DS to adjust the frequency of the impulses. This way it is not up to the driver skill to maintain periodicity and to get the initial frequency close. Get the starting period/frequency close by analyzing video and then in game play tweak the frequency while hitting the bot with the hybrid mode shaker. Similar to the tree shakers for dropping fruit and nuts where the operator can compensate the frequency for the stiffness of tree and mass of the branches.

Reconciled that they have 20 seconds to score at the end but you can keep them out of the game as long as possible with these schemes. If the shakers work, the loop bots will have meticulous coaching to hold back those last balls a bit if they have them available. They will risk penalties for that strategy.

[RRLedford]

Team 3135 came close to choosing a loop bot design at the brainstorming stage. We finally bailed on it because it seemed too risky with respect to the rules.
We had already completed a similar concept in FTC Chicago that caught 15 balls right out of the drop chute, and even caught the yellow ball later. Our shooter was just too weak and erratic though, so we only took second place.

With FRC, we could not clearly interpret whether a gravity powered ball re-director chute could be rotated for targeting to either goal (as 469's flipper does), without violating the rules. So, 496's stationary 2-way chute with a flipper to steer balls to either side works well - smart! Our team also felt that, beside risky, it was also in conflict with the "spirit" of the game, and so the idea got voted down.

Hats off to #469 for taking the risk and confirming the legality of this scheme - we were too timid to gamble. Meanwhile, the neutralizing concepts must be worked out. We did consider these thoroughly while we still entertained doing the looper scheme.
We had assumed that the bot's re-directing chute would have to remain stationary while "shedding" a ball toward one goal or other. We assumed balls would be "INSIDE OUR PERIMETER" by more than 3" at this stage, so any moving mechanism touching the ball would give a penalty. After "shedding" a ball from our static chute toward one goal, I had assumed the rules allowed us to then re-point our chute, just before next ball arrived, toward whichever goal seemed least defendable. Since 469 never turns their ball chute once it's positioned on the platform, they avoid the penalty of manipulating balls that are inside their perimeter. However, they do operate a flipper to route balls through either side of chute, as balls come down the 2-way chute. A moving mechanism while ball is above bot's base should be a penalty, since ball IS WITHIN THE BOT's (virtual) PERIMETER, which projects vertically up from base. Do they move the left-right flipper before ball drops onto bot, or after it starts sliding down the chute? Not clear from video?
Now as to defending this:
1) Can a fast defender bot sit centered in their zone and intercept balls based on anticipating which way 469 points their ball flipper? I think so, but I can't tell how long into their cycle they wait to commit as to which goal they are targeting? It seems to be VERY last second commit for diverting balls left or right on the chute. Plus, the defender must not only intercept balls, but also clear balls from their zone while two opponents are harassing them - not so easy!

2) can a hump navigator bot go up on (or adjacent to) the climber platform , latch on to a pipe, and obstruct the flow of the balls coming through 469's ball chute, or even poke it out of the air before it arrives on their their chute? Risky, as contacting 469 in any way could be a penalty. Perhaps a "wall bot" that's wide enough to block their trajectory toward either side? Not so easy though, as they (wisely) chose to drop balls onto the hump to gain better horizontal shot velocity, which also gives them a harder-to-block, wider angle of chute discharge. ***WOOPS, NO EXPANSION AT OPPONENTS TOWER NIXES THIS!! FORGOT.
3) My favorite idea at this stage it to "poke a stick" through their chute at the appropriate spot to stop ball flow through it. Perhaps even poke a stick right at spot where balls leave the return ramp. Can this be done so as to choke up all the returning balls in a queue on top of their ramp? Is it legal, as long as no contact with ramp is made? The max expanded height seems to allow this.***WOOPS, NO EXPANSION AT OPPONENTS TOWER NIXES THIS!! FORGOT. If so, it would be poetic justice for them!
-Dick Ledford - #3135 mentor

[Vikesrock]

Originally Posted by RRLedford

However, they do operate a flipper to route balls through either side of chute, as balls come down the 2-way chute. A moving mechanism while ball is above bot's base should be a penalty, since ball IS WITHIN THE BOT's (virtual) PERIMETER, which projects vertically up from base. Do they move the left-right flipper before ball drops onto bot, or after it starts sliding down the chute? Not clear from video?

The mechanism is not moving when in contact with a ball. In one of the videos floating around they receive a penalty for actuating the mechanism too late and having it still moving when the ball hits it. A ThunderChicken (I believe it was Paul Copioli) mentioned that this resulted in push-ups for the drive coach.

[RRLedford]

Originally Posted by Vikesrock

The mechanism is not moving when in contact with a ball. In one of the videos floating around they receive a penalty for actuating the mechanism too late and having it still moving when the ball hits it. A ThunderChicken (I believe it was Paul Copioli) mentioned that this resulted in push-ups for the drive coach.

Well, my reading the rules made me think that any ball shedding/directing related component in motion while ball was anywhere within perimeter could result in a penalty - EVEN IF IT WAS NOT CONTACTING BALL WHEN IT MOVED. This appears to have been a more draconian interpretation, than was actually the intent of the GDC, since 469 is not getting penalties (except as you noted).
-Dick Ledford

[Vikesrock]

Originally Posted by RRLedford

Well, my reading the rules made me think that any ball shedding/directing related component in motion while ball was anywhere within perimeter could result in a penalty - EVEN IF IT WAS NOT CONTACTING BALL WHEN IT MOVED. This appears to have been a more draconian interpretation, than was actually the intent of the GDC, since 469 is not getting penalties (except as you noted).
-Dick Ledford

I am not sure if they ever do actuate their mechanism with a ball in their perimeter or not. Someone who has studied the video closer or seen the mechanism in person would have to attest to that.

[Frank Neuperger]

Originally Posted by RRLedford

Perhaps even poke a stick right at spot where balls leave the return ramp. Can this be done so as to choke up all the returning balls in a queue on top of their ramp? Is it legal, as long as no contact with ramp is made? The max expanded height seems to allow this. If so, it would be poetic justice for them!
-Dick Ledford - #3135 mentor

Dick,

469's mechanism appears to be entirely inside of their bumper zone. How do we penetrate their bumper zone without exceeding ours by the thickness of 2 bumpers. As such, it seems like non contact shakers and fans seem to be the only physical way so far that a single countermeasures robot can disrupt balls from going either way. Sitting on one side of hump covers only one side.

[Cory]

At first I thought this thread was a joke, but it seems like it's serious.

I don't see any value in redirecting the balls via a fan. 469 does not do their damage by scoring the balls themselves. While they do score a good portion of the balls they roll into the home zone, it doesn't do you an ounce of good to keep the ball from rolling in the goal, but still have it end up in their scoring zone.

If it's in their scoring zone, their partners are there to bat cleanup and push them in. That's how they scored the majority of their points.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Cory

At first I thought this thread was a joke, but it seems like it's serious.

I don't see any value in redirecting the balls via a fan. 469 does not do their damage by scoring the balls themselves. While they do score a good portion of the balls they roll into the home zone, it doesn't do you an ounce of good to keep the ball from rolling in the goal, but still have it end up in their scoring zone.

If it's in their scoring zone, their partners are there to bat cleanup and push them in. That's how they scored the majority of their points.

I agree that preventing them from scoring does little, but I'm wondering if a ducted fan could be used to deflect the ball coming off of the return just enough to prevent them from aquiring the ball.

[sportzkrazzy]

What if your kicker has a short cycle time.. say something a little under 2 sec. Do you think you could grab a ball and blast it into them point blank to start this resonance? How stable is it?

[Bob Steele]

The way you stop this strategy is by getting more balls in your own home zone at the beginning of the match... 469 depends on its alliance partners to get the balls in the home zone.. If you noticed ... alll 3 robots are participating in this strategy... where are the other two blue robots... ?? they should be scoring on the other end...with no opposition...with no opposition... the other team should be able to score even faster...as long as they have a middle blocker to kick balls into the home zone...or to just block them back in...

While this is a super strategy... if another alliance can get more balls at the beginning of the match it can be defeated...especially if you have a defensive robot that can knock balls out of the defended zone quickly and efficiently..

In these matches... (notably the finals from Cass Tech) you can see loose balls in the midfield and no blue robot (or opposing robot) is sweeping them up and depositing them in their other home zone...)

If 469 or another robot like them parks like this... they are completely taken out of the mix to do anything other than direct scored balls back.....if the defender in the home zone can sweep balls out... or slow down the scoring enough to let his team mates score...

The way this game is won is by controlling the balls...
Team 469 has a great mechanism... but it can't help a team that hasn't scored.. or doesn't have balls to score with...

You beat this strategy by controlling the balls at the beginning of the match... and maintaining control...throughout...

A tall order I know... but you will see it in Atlanta...

[Rizner]

I have seen a robot at the Florida Regional build with a 'ramp' top made of surgical tubing which redirected balls after they had fallen, although I can't remember it's team number / name. If you had two of those, each on a side of a bump, able to stay in place when the balls dropped onto 469's mechanism the balls would drop from them onto the 'ramps' and back the other direction. Very unlikely alliance to be put up against 469, but an idea..

[sportzkrazzy]

Can't have more than one bot in the far zone rizner. I think it was 1649 though.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Bob Steele

The way you stop this strategy is by getting more balls in your own home zone at the beginning of the match... 469 depends on its alliance partners to get the balls in the home zone.. If you noticed ... alll 3 robots are participating in this strategy... where are the other two blue robots... ?? they should be scoring on the other end...with no opposition...with no opposition... the other team should be able to score even faster...as long as they have a middle blocker to kick balls into the home zone...or to just block them back in...

While this is a super strategy... if another alliance can get more balls at the beginning of the match it can be defeated...especially if you have a defensive robot that can knock balls out of the defended zone quickly and efficiently..

In these matches... (notably the finals from Cass Tech) you can see loose balls in the midfield and no blue robot (or opposing robot) is sweeping them up and depositing them in their other home zone...)

If 469 or another robot like them parks like this... they are completely taken out of the mix to do anything other than direct scored balls back.....if the defender in the home zone can sweep balls out... or slow down the scoring enough to let his team mates score...

The way this game is won is by controlling the balls...
Team 469 has a great mechanism... but it can't help a team that hasn't scored.. or doesn't have balls to score with...

You beat this strategy by controlling the balls at the beginning of the match... and maintaining control...throughout...

A tall order I know... but you will see it in Atlanta...

Most alliances cannot score 16 points, 469 only needs 3 balls in it's cycle to do so.

I see many teams trying your strategy in Atlanta ... and failing.

I truely believe that denying the 'priming of the pump' strategy will only work when 469s alliance partners are not adept at scoring.