How does 469 not violate <R19>?

[Tytus Gerrish]

I just watched a youtube Video of 469. oh my! im Just mad that I didnt think of it first. What an awesome Way to play the game guys, it is awesome! I think this thread however is a travistey , and I am appauled that people of first would actually stoop so low as to publicly nit-pick a design and go so fas as sugest that First should change the rules to dissallow this robot. Thats Discusting! If I were a student on 469 right now I would feel alienated by this comunity. we should be praising them for setting the bar higher and working on a way to top them, not be engaging in this Very Un-Gracious, Un-Professonal discustsion.

[Jaine Perotti]

Originally Posted by Tytus Gerrish

I just watched a youtube Video of 469. oh my! im Just mad that I didnt think of it first. What an awesome Way to play the game guys, it is awesome! I think this thread however is a travistey , and I am appauled that people of first would actually stoop so low as to publicly nit-pick a design and go so fas as sugest that First should change the rules to dissallow this robot. Thats Discusting! If I were a student on 469 right now I would feel alienated by this comunity. we should be praising them for setting the bar higher and working on a way to top them, not be engaging in this Very Un-Gracious, Un-Professonal discustsion.

I wouldn't go so far as to call this particular thread a "travesty" - the vast majority of the posts in this thread were not actually calling for changes to the rules. This thread: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...threadid=84293 and this thread: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=84280 were far more egregious in this sense.

Most of the discussion in this topic has been pretty civil. However, I would still like to urge people to be sensitive towards the members of 469 who read and post here. How would you feel if there were multiple threads on CD explicitly discussing how to shut down your team's scoring capability during match play? Or publicly brainstorming designs for mechanisms intended specifically to interfere with your robot? Calling for FIRST to change the rules to make your team's robot and strategy illegal?

A certain level of attention and discussion may be seen as flattering. Taken too far however, it can cross the line into making people feel unfairly targeted. Let's try to make sure we are mindful of that line.

[martin417]

Originally Posted by Jaine Perotti

How would you feel if there were multiple threads on CD explicitly discussing how to shut down your team's scoring capability during match play? Or publicly brainstorming designs for mechanisms intended specifically to interfere with your robot? Calling for FIRST to change the rules to make your team's robot and strategy illegal?

Flattered. I would feel very flattered.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by martin417

Flattered. I would feel very flattered.

Me, too. I would feel made of awesome-sauce.

[Jaine Perotti]

Originally Posted by martin417

Flattered. I would feel very flattered.

To a certain extent, I agree with you. However, when the level of public criticism and scheming against your team's (perfectly legal) robot/strategy reaches a certain intensity, it may begin to feel like you are being punished for your success -- instead of being admired. Let's just be careful.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Since it seems to be coming up a bit, here's some links to pictures of said mechanism, courtesy of Daniel Ernst:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/daniele...7623503276399/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/daniele...7623503276399/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/daniele...7623503276399/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/daniele...7623503276399/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/daniele...7623503276399/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/daniele...7623503276399/

First off, man that's pretty: bot and photos both. Hats off to 469 for a stellar idea well executed.

To summarize the chute selection mechanism, it's just a metal bar at the top of the chute that rotates from one side to the other to complete the track of that particular chute. Think of a railroad switch. If it could actuate instantly, they could change their minds up to the instant the ball hit the top of the chute. Instead, it's pneumatically actuated, so it looks to take a small amount of time to move. Figure they're committed after the ball comes off the ball return. Per a previous post, it sounds like they're going to be hiding this information from opponents with a simple shield behind the flipper. If I were them, I'd block as much view of the ball as I could from the back to make defense that much harder. Ideally, teams wouldn't know which way a ball was going until it left the chute and was on its way to the goal.

@Jaine,

I think (hope) most of the talk about ways to play 469 is just idle chatter and brainstorming. Mid-week there's not THAT much going on, especially with the lack of rule changes from the GDC. 469 is an attention getting robot that presents a unique challenge to any opponents. I think the problem-solving strategists on the board have just been presented with an irresistible challenge in an otherwise boring week. I don't think it's really aimed personally at 469, as there was a giant strategy thread aimed at this style robot earlier in the week. 469 is just a focus as a particularly stellar example of this style of robot.

Personally, the various discussions of specific robot designs to counter 469 seem incredibly silly if we're considering actually implementing them. Seems like something on the order of Lex Luthor designing a kryptonite armored car to thwart Superman and forgetting to put locks on the door to keep the cops out.

[mgurgol]

Kudos to 469.

All this stragegy against 469 and the tower is all well and good, but did anyone notice the automode in the video? If a strategy was employed to try and block 469 at the tower, they have the ability to score from the middle position, so having that, they really don't have to attach themselves to the tower if they find that a robot could effective block that strategy. They could become an effective middle position scorer.

Altogether this is a very well designed robot.

[Radical Pi]

I have a little rules situation to put forward.

Suppose there have been 2 balls scored. 1 of them has passed through the chute switcher and is on its way down the main ramp. The 2nd ball is on the ball return chute. A 469 (or any similar bot) driver sees the defender speeding to block the active chute, and, while the 1st ball is still on the chute, switches to the 2nd chute. For the period of the chute switching directions, does that turn their return system into an active mechanism?

If that were true, what if a bot drove up on the bump and put themselves up against the 469 ball return. Since they are on the bump it is legal to touch out of the bumper zone. If a ball were to be caught on said chute, would an attempt to bypass the block be considered an active mechanism above the bumper zone manipulating the balls?

P.S. congrats to 469 for designing a robot that has yet to have an effective counter-strategy devised against it.

Also,

Originally Posted by mgurgol

All this stragegy against 469 and the tower is all well and good, but did anyone notice the automode in the video? If a strategy was employed to try and block 469 at the tower, they have the ability to score from the middle position, so having that, they really don't have to attach themselves to the tower if they find that a robot could effective block that strategy. They could become an effective middle position scorer.

looking at the speed at which the chute can be activated, it would mean taking one of your bots completely out of the game to block the entry to the tower just to prevent 1 robot that is still a very effective scorer from activating their amazing mechanism

[robself705]

If you guys haven't checked their standings from their first regional weren't so hot. I'm not too worried, get a good defender and he won't have too much problem keeping them from scoring. Also, just start your bot partially in front of the tunnel, as long as you are on one side of the center line and your bot is touching the bump you are good. Great strategy they have though, however their publicity will be their downfall

[EricLeifermann]

Originally Posted by robself705

If you guys haven't checked their standings from their first regional weren't so hot. I'm not too worried, get a good defender and he won't have too much problem keeping them from scoring. Also, just start your bot partially in front of the tunnel, as long as you are on one side of the center line and your bot is touching the bump you are good. Great strategy they have though, however their publicity will be their downfall

I believe they were 3rd or 4th after qualifications, id say that that is pretty good standings...

[Sandee]

Originally Posted by EricLeifermann

I believe they were 3rd or 4th after qualifications, id say that that is pretty good standings...

Yes, they seeded third after Regionals...

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Radical Pi

Suppose there have been 2 balls scored. 1 of them has passed through the chute switcher and is on its way down the main ramp. The 2nd ball is on the ball return chute. A 469 (or any similar bot) driver sees the defender speeding to block the active chute, and, while the 1st ball is still on the chute, switches to the 2nd chute. For the period of the chute switching directions, does that turn their return system into an active mechanism?

While the chute switcher is moving, it is an active mechanism, at least if I understand the Q&A's on the topic correctly. As soon as it stops, it is a passive mechanism.

Originally Posted by Radical Pi

If that were true, what if a bot drove up on the bump and put themselves up against the 469 ball return. Since they are on the bump it is legal to touch out of the bumper zone. If a ball were to be caught on said chute, would an attempt to bypass the block be considered an active mechanism above the bumper zone manipulating the balls?

That would depend on the method of bypassing the block. Again, if the switcher is moving, it would be. However, you do risk a <G38> (intentional outside the bumper zone), depending on how the ref calls it, or a <G13> (can't make your opponents get a penalty). It's a risky move, and only effective on one side.

[wendells]

well done team 469, you studied the game and built a winner, not just a robot to play the game , but a player to win the game.

[Radical Pi]

Originally Posted by EricH

That would depend on the method of bypassing the block. Again, if the switcher is moving, it would be. However, you do risk a <G38> (intentional outside the bumper zone), depending on how the ref calls it, or a <G13> (can't make your opponents get a penalty). It's a risky move, and only effective on one side.

I don't think G38 would apply because I believe the blocking team is on the bump, which is an explicit exception to the rule. G13 also may not apply since it was 469's choice to run the switcher. The only thing that was forced by the other team is the balls being jammed on the return, which may or may not count as multiple possession, although G13 would null that penalty. It does depend on the ref's call though

[EricH]

I'm looking at the intentional part. You're getting onto the bump, where you intentionally contact another robot above the bumper zone.

Yes, <G37> says that that contact is expected and generally permissible during that timeframe. However, it also calls out incidental contact. <G38-A> makes it clear that intentional contact outside the bumper zone is a penalty at best. After the first time or two, it will be painfully obvious that this is intentional, and you'll start getting penalized, would be my guess as to what would happen.