Why go over the bump

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

Of course it is. An almost arbitrary number of balls can be placed in the corner of your alley, which a diagonally-parked robot can protect just by sitting there.

Don't be so quick to dismiss strategy... Besides awesome versatile robots, it's what wins games every single year.

By my interpretation of the rules you can't have more than 3 balls there since trapping them in that manner is considered controlling them.

To answer the question of the post. Why go over the bump? It's faster and I believe safer too since there is less chance of tipping over. We plan to only go on the bridge to balance.

http://tahomarobotics.org/2012/02/02...bump-part-two/

[LeelandS]

I can definitely understand why someone thinking designing only for the bridge and not for the barrier would be totally okay. It's something else to design for, and realistically, will probably only add a few second (if that many) to your trips across field, which, unless you're making frequent trips, isn't really that bad. However, I see only crossing the bridge as a "Well, what if..." situation. There are things that, if you can only cross the bridge, could hurt you.

Well, what if...

• Both of your alliance partners can only cross the bridge: If your match strategy dictates all of your alliance partners (or even just two of you) to be crossing the bridge, it's going to get crowded at times. And unless two of you have a REALLY thin robot you feel comfortable running side by side on the bridge, it's going to cost you valueable seconds of gameplay.
• One of your partners takes a spill on the bridge: Say one of your partners it crossing the bridge and they tip and fall. Not off the bridge, but they fall and block the bridge on one side. Then, not only can you maybe not balance in the end game, but you can't traverse the field via alliance bridge. You can still use the coopertition bridge and the opponent's bridge, but you're not protected by your bridge and alley, and you risk penalty by using the opponent's bridge, especially if you happen to be crossing close to end game time.
• Something malfunctions: Most team's bridge manipulators (from what I've seen, and admittedly partially through assumption) will probably be some kind of arm that swings down and pushes the bridge into position to drive on. And nothing ever breaks If a part of your robot snaps, comes unplugged, or just gets stuck, you suddenly are without a bridge manipulator. While I've yet to see/come up with a passive bridge manipulator, there is at least one way to traverse the bump passively (i.e. with the right kind of wheels, you can just cross the barrier).
• You ARE making frequent trips: Teams like 1114, 254, 217, etc. will probably be looking to make frequent trips across the field if they don't have a good feeder bringing balls to their side. Say they are sinking all 3 shots (entirely possible), not leaving any rebounds to get. If they want to make 5-10 trips a match (just throwing out numbers), say crossing the bridge takes 3 seconds and the barrier only takes 2 seconds a match. Overall, the bridge takes 15 - 30 seconds, while the barrier only takes 10 - 20. As the match progresses, the bump with allow more time for scoring. These are, of course, hypothetical numbers. In practice, we'll actually see how things turn out. Conversely, if these elite powerhouse teams can only cross the bridge, maybe you don't want to use the bridge, for risk of getting in their way? Just a thought.

These are all very real possibilities and, though you may not see them happening every match, even just happening once can cost you. Being able to cross the barrier may not be a necessity, but having the added versatility will almost definitely come in handy several times at a competition.

One the other side, however, designing for the bridge ONLY does have it's advantages.

• Less to design: If you're a team with limited resources, you're almost definitely going to want to design a simple robot at possible. Adding design for the barrier can take valuable time and resources, as well as adding wait and, depending on the method, complexity.
• Focus on one thing: If you take the attention that could be divided between bridge and barrier, and focus only on one of them, then you should have a bridge or barrier manipulator that is doubly effective. With the major impact of the end game this year (either by being able to use the co-op bridge, or getting the points for your own bridge), having an effective bridge manipulator can make an alliance successful, as well as making you highly desirable in alliance selections.

So only being able to use the bridge may not kill you. Just having the added versatility can help you out a lot.


I hope this helps!
-Leeand

[Mike Norton]

If done right you should be able to make your robot drive right over the bar without much robot work. (Track drive works great) then have plenty of weight to add other things like:

Ball shooter

Bridge handler: I say this because you might want to be able to raise, lower or help balance the bridge

Something to play a little defense



I think there will be a lot of robots that will be able to do all this and more. So do not limit yourself too do just one or the other.

[MichaelBick]

Originally Posted by Leeland1126

I can definitely understand why someone thinking designing only for the bridge and not for the barrier would be totally okay. It's something else to design for, and realistically, will probably only add a few second (if that many) to your trips across field, which, unless you're making frequent trips, isn't really that bad. However, I see only crossing the bridge as a "Well, what if..." situation. There are things that, if you can only cross the bridge, could hurt you.

Well, what if...

• Both of your alliance partners can only cross the bridge: If your match strategy dictates all of your alliance partners (or even just two of you) to be crossing the bridge, it's going to get crowded at times. And unless two of you have a REALLY thin robot you feel comfortable running side by side on the bridge, it's going to cost you valueable seconds of gameplay.
• One of your partners takes a spill on the bridge: Say one of your partners it crossing the bridge and they tip and fall. Not off the bridge, but they fall and block the bridge on one side. Then, not only can you maybe not balance in the end game, but you can't traverse the field via alliance bridge. You can still use the coopertition bridge and the opponent's bridge, but you're not protected by your bridge and alley, and you risk penalty by using the opponent's bridge, especially if you happen to be crossing close to end game time.
• Something malfunctions: Most team's bridge manipulators (from what I've seen, and admittedly partially through assumption) will probably be some kind of arm that swings down and pushes the bridge into position to drive on. And nothing ever breaks If a part of your robot snaps, comes unplugged, or just gets stuck, you suddenly are without a bridge manipulator. While I've yet to see/come up with a passive bridge manipulator, there is at least one way to traverse the bump passively (i.e. with the right kind of wheels, you can just cross the barrier).
• You ARE making frequent trips: Teams like 1114, 254, 217, etc. will probably be looking to make frequent trips across the field if they don't have a good feeder bringing balls to their side. Say they are sinking all 3 shots (entirely possible), not leaving any rebounds to get. If they want to make 5-10 trips a match (just throwing out numbers), say crossing the bridge takes 3 seconds and the barrier only takes 2 seconds a match. Overall, the bridge takes 15 - 30 seconds, while the barrier only takes 10 - 20. As the match progresses, the bump with allow more time for scoring. These are, of course, hypothetical numbers. In practice, we'll actually see how things turn out. Conversely, if these elite powerhouse teams can only cross the bridge, maybe you don't want to use the bridge, for risk of getting in their way? Just a thought.

These are all very real possibilities and, though you may not see them happening every match, even just happening once can cost you. Being able to cross the barrier may not be a necessity, but having the added versatility will almost definitely come in handy several times at a competition.

One the other side, however, designing for the bridge ONLY does have it's advantages.

• Less to design: If you're a team with limited resources, you're almost definitely going to want to design a simple robot at possible. Adding design for the barrier can take valuable time and resources, as well as adding wait and, depending on the method, complexity.
• Focus on one thing: If you take the attention that could be divided between bridge and barrier, and focus only on one of them, then you should have a bridge or barrier manipulator that is doubly effective. With the major impact of the end game this year (either by being able to use the co-op bridge, or getting the points for your own bridge), having an effective bridge manipulator can make an alliance successful, as well as making you highly desirable in alliance selections.

So only being able to use the bridge may not kill you. Just having the added versatility can help you out a lot.


I hope this helps!
-Leeand

While our bridge mechanism is not passive, once we "deploy" it, it is then passive

[LeelandS]

Originally Posted by MICHAELABICK

While our bridge mechanism is not passive, once we "deploy" it, it is then passive

I assume you're referring to the 3rd point under why to design for the bump.

This is true, but it does have to be deployed. And whether by motor or pneumatics (or some other system), there will be some chance for the system to fail. Like last year, with the minibots. If a team had a pneumatically powered deployment system, and a pneumatic tube got loose or for some other reason that team lost air pressure, the team would be unable to deploy their minibot. The minibot itself was still functional, but useless since it couldn't be conveyed to the pole. Same case here. The mechanism itself may be passive, but the system by which it is deployed may have a chance of failure.

[moonlight]

Originally Posted by Leeland1126

I can definitely understand why someone thinking designing only for the bridge and not for the barrier would be totally okay. It's something else to design for, and realistically, will probably only add a few second (if that many) to your trips across field, which, unless you're making frequent trips, isn't really that bad. However, I see only crossing the bridge as a "Well, what if..." situation. There are things that, if you can only cross the bridge, could hurt you.

Well, what if...

• Both of your alliance partners can only cross the bridge: If your match strategy dictates all of your alliance partners (or even just two of you) to be crossing the bridge, it's going to get crowded at times. And unless two of you have a REALLY thin robot you feel comfortable running side by side on the bridge, it's going to cost you valueable seconds of gameplay.
• One of your partners takes a spill on the bridge: Say one of your partners it crossing the bridge and they tip and fall. Not off the bridge, but they fall and block the bridge on one side. Then, not only can you maybe not balance in the end game, but you can't traverse the field via alliance bridge. You can still use the coopertition bridge and the opponent's bridge, but you're not protected by your bridge and alley, and you risk penalty by using the opponent's bridge, especially if you happen to be crossing close to end game time.
• Something malfunctions: Most team's bridge manipulators (from what I've seen, and admittedly partially through assumption) will probably be some kind of arm that swings down and pushes the bridge into position to drive on. And nothing ever breaks If a part of your robot snaps, comes unplugged, or just gets stuck, you suddenly are without a bridge manipulator. While I've yet to see/come up with a passive bridge manipulator, there is at least one way to traverse the bump passively (i.e. with the right kind of wheels, you can just cross the barrier).
• You ARE making frequent trips: Teams like 1114, 254, 217, etc. will probably be looking to make frequent trips across the field if they don't have a good feeder bringing balls to their side. Say they are sinking all 3 shots (entirely possible), not leaving any rebounds to get. If they want to make 5-10 trips a match (just throwing out numbers), say crossing the bridge takes 3 seconds and the barrier only takes 2 seconds a match. Overall, the bridge takes 15 - 30 seconds, while the barrier only takes 10 - 20. As the match progresses, the bump with allow more time for scoring. These are, of course, hypothetical numbers. In practice, we'll actually see how things turn out. Conversely, if these elite powerhouse teams can only cross the bridge, maybe you don't want to use the bridge, for risk of getting in their way? Just a thought.

These are all very real possibilities and, though you may not see them happening every match, even just happening once can cost you. Being able to cross the barrier may not be a necessity, but having the added versatility will almost definitely come in handy several times at a competition.

One the other side, however, designing for the bridge ONLY does have it's advantages.

• Less to design: If you're a team with limited resources, you're almost definitely going to want to design a simple robot at possible. Adding design for the barrier can take valuable time and resources, as well as adding wait and, depending on the method, complexity.
• Focus on one thing: If you take the attention that could be divided between bridge and barrier, and focus only on one of them, then you should have a bridge or barrier manipulator that is doubly effective. With the major impact of the end game this year (either by being able to use the co-op bridge, or getting the points for your own bridge), having an effective bridge manipulator can make an alliance successful, as well as making you highly desirable in alliance selections.

So only being able to use the bridge may not kill you. Just having the added versatility can help you out a lot.


I hope this helps!
-Leeand

Thank you! I totally agree with you. My team spend almost 2 weeks brainstorming and strategizing. We decided we wanted to be a 100% self reliable, meaning picking balls from the ground, going over the bump and the bridge, being able to balance and shoot from different places and angles, that way we had a better chance of playing defense and moving everywhere whenever we wanted to.

It's important to remember that there's only 1 bridge and 3 robots... wouldn't it be nice that someone in your alliance could go over the bump? One must always be a step ahead of the game. Things break, batteries die, robots will not always have balance. STRATEGY is the key... within the rules there's always a different way to play the game, you just gotta keep your eyes and your mind wide open

"Scientis study the world as it is; Engineers create the world that has never been" Nerdy&Proud<3

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Mr V

By my interpretation of the rules you can't have more than 3 balls there since trapping them in that manner is considered controlling them.

R22 reads "Moving or positioning a Basketball to gain advantage is considered actively controlling. Examples are “carrying” (holding Basketballs in the Robot), “herding” (intentionally pushing or impelling Basketballs to a desired location or direction) and “trapping” (pressing one or more Basketballs against a Court element in an attempt to shield them)."

Parking a robot in the corner of the court with basketballs between the court boundaries and your robot is neither carrying, herding, nor trapping. No touchy, no trappy.

[wireties]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

R22 reads "Moving or positioning a Basketball to gain advantage is considered actively controlling. Examples are “carrying” (holding Basketballs in the Robot), “herding” (intentionally pushing or impelling Basketballs to a desired location or direction) and “trapping” (pressing one or more Basketballs against a Court element in an attempt to shield them)."

Parking a robot in the corner of the court with basketballs between the court boundaries and your robot is neither carrying, herding, nor trapping. No touchy, no trappy.

Better double check, I think I saw a GDC response that make your proposed strategy illegal. In my view, it is less-than-stellar sportsmanship at a minimum. This a game for engineers, not lawyers! ;o)

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by wireties

Better double check, I think I saw a GDC response that make your proposed strategy illegal. In my view, it is less-than-stellar sportsmanship at a minimum. This a game for engineers, not lawyers! ;o)

A. The Q&A is very easy to search by rule. Of the nine questions asked and answered related to G22, one indicates that I'm right (without explicitly saying so, but given that FRC is a restrictive rules set and not a permissive one, they don't have to say so outright) and the rest don't address it.

B. Your opinion on the sportsmanship involved is irrelevant to a discussion of strategy. It would be a mistake to dismiss what could be a valid strategy as "rules lawyering". Even if you have no intention of doing it, you should be prepared in the event that your opponents do.

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

R22 reads "Moving or positioning a Basketball to gain advantage is considered actively controlling. Examples are “carrying” (holding Basketballs in the Robot), “herding” (intentionally pushing or impelling Basketballs to a desired location or direction) and “trapping” (pressing one or more Basketballs against a Court element in an attempt to shield them)."

Parking a robot in the corner of the court with basketballs between the court boundaries and your robot is neither carrying, herding, nor trapping. No touchy, no trappy.

I agree with your interprentation and in no way view it as unsportsmanlike. There has been nothing wrong with slowing the game down and hoarding game pieces in past games (other than 2008 when you couldn't control your opponents trackball).

According to the Q&A, one issue with that strategy is that if you touch the opponents robot in your ally, you get a red card due to G45. Its a ruling I completely disagree with, but it is what it is...

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

According to the Q&A, one issue with that strategy is that if you touch the opponents robot in your ally, you get a red card due to G45. Its a ruling I completely disagree with, but it is what it is...

Right, but if you're positioned so that they can't touch the balls without touching you, and your robot does not move, you're in the clear because you're not causing the penalty by hitting them.

I honestly don't think it's a winning strategy, but it's possible that it could be in some circumstances, and thus teams should be prepared to face it just in case.

[moonlight]

because bridge ball deflectors may not actually deflect balls like it has been happening at competitions for the past 2 days

[Ben_Farmer]

I personally think, contrary to majority belief, that being able to lower and use the bridge is a much higher priority because just being able to lower the bridge, can enable a team to gain a vast amount of points at the end of the round. Additionally, the bump may prove harmful to any unprotected electronics/mechanics underneath the robot. Plus, there is always the possibility that the robot my become stranded balanced on top of the bump (unless it is designed to not do so).
Hope this helps.

We looked at the game and our strategies and thought "Honestly, how many times will we cross that middle section throughout the match". Our answer: 2, maybe 3 times maximum. We can use the extra time/weight elsewhere, most likely improving our bridge manipulator. Not only will we be better on the bridge, but we will be able to play our strategies much better than if we stuck to the bump.

[Bill_B]

Your autonomous mode should do two things - make two 6-point baskets and go tip one or both of the allowed bridges to get the balls from it(them) onto your side. In fact, a good argument can be made for tipping the middle bridge your way should be your first priority, then return to the key edge (detecting that little bump) to make your free-throws. I see no advantage at all to kinect control. It is merely cape-waving FIRST-style. Perhaps I'll be surprised at Suffield Shakedown. I still can't guess how.

So dealing with the bridge is more important than crossing that barrier.