Announcing the 2013 December Design Competition

Originally Posted by echin

Does "40 crates randomly positioned on each side of the white line." mean that there are 40 crates on the field total, or that there are 40 on each side?

40 on each side, 80 starting on the field in total. This added to the 25 crates in each loading station makes 130 useable crates in the game.

[ehfeinberg]

Originally Posted by Andrew Lawrence

The distances to any particular object is the same for both alliances. I'm unsure of what you're referring to.

Please excuse my terrible paint skills, but this should explain.

http://i.imgur.com/3hOVhkz.png

Notice the red 2pt path is shorter than the blue 2pt path?

And how the red 1pt path is shorter than the blue 1pt path?

And both by a good 5ish feet.

Originally Posted by ehfeinberg

Please excuse my terrible paint skills, but this should explain.

http://i.imgur.com/3hOVhkz.png

Notice the red 2pt path is shorter than the blue 2pt path?

And how the red 1pt path is shorter than the blue 1pt path?

And both by a good 5ish feet.

You can use the path through the overpass to score into the 2 point goal. Why go all the way around to do it?

[ehfeinberg]

Originally Posted by Andrew Lawrence

You can use the path through the overpass to score into the 2 point goal. Why go all the way around to do it?

Because to go under the overpass, the robot needs to be under 30 inches (29 to be safe) and the 2pt goal is 60 inches high which is not a lot of space to create something to lift the block up (and the 14 inch extension rule doesn't help). That doesn't mean that it can't be done, but I would say only the extremely competitive teams could do that successfully. The rest will just make a taller 2pt scorer robot forcing them to drive around the tank. So if the majority of teams have to go around the tank, then the blue alliance will have an advantage.

[ehfeinberg]

Originally Posted by glennword

The six point per crate in the high tank goal value you cited is only applicable during autonomous. After that, stacking three crates would earn you nine points, while placing three crates in the high tank goal would only earn you six points

I assume you use 6 crates for each method.

For stacking its 3 * (6-2) = 12 because there are 4 more crates stacked over two.

For the 2pt goal 2 * 6 = 12

So you have to stack higher than 6 for it to be more worth it than just dropping them in the 2pt goal.

[echin]

Where does the -2 come from? It says "3 * (number of crates stacked above 2). Any stack under 3 crates tall will count as 0 points." Therefore, 3 crates would count as 9 points because 3 is above 2.

[ehfeinberg]

Originally Posted by echin

Where does the -2 come from? It says "3 * (number of crates stacked above 2). Any stack under 3 crates tall will count as 0 points." Therefore, 3 crates would count as 9 points because 3 is above 2.

I think this is stems from confusing language in the actual manual. "3 * (number of crates stacked above 2)." I read it to be 3 * the additional crates stacked above 2. So if it is a 3 crate stack, it would be 3 * 1 (because 3 is one more than 2) = 3. However, I now see how you can read it the other way.

If this is the case, I would take back saying that stacking is a non-factor and amend the statement to say stacking is not the most effective way to score.

Originally Posted by ehfeinberg

Because to go under the overpass, the robot needs to be under 30 inches (29 to be safe) and the 2pt goal is 60 inches high which is not a lot of space to create something to lift the block up (and the 14 inch extension rule doesn't help). That doesn't mean that it can't be done, but I would say only the extremely competitive teams could do that successfully. The rest will just make a taller 2pt scorer robot forcing them to drive around the tank. So if the majority of teams have to go around the tank, then the blue alliance will have an advantage.

You forget teams can pick up off the ground. There are over 61% of the useable game pieces on the ground to start with.

And I've already seen designs of teams who can successfully dump into the high tank and fit under 29 inches tall. Just gotta think outside the box (or in this case, the crate).

[ehfeinberg]

Originally Posted by Andrew Lawrence

You forget teams can pick up off the ground. There are over 61% of the useable game pieces on the ground to start with.

And I've already seen designs of teams who can successfully dump into the high tank and fit under 29 inches tall. Just gotta think outside the box (or in this case, the crate).

There is a difference between designs and pratical robots. For all intensive purposes, I could build a giant sling shot to shot the crates into the tank. But just because I could build it doesn't mean that it is effective or that I could build it well.

And besides, having a playing field which is non symmetrical is going to cause one alliance to have advantages over the other.

Originally Posted by echin

Where does the -2 come from? It says "3 * (number of crates stacked above 2). Any stack under 3 crates tall will count as 0 points." Therefore, 3 crates would count as 9 points because 3 is above 2.

Originally Posted by ehfeinberg

I think this is stems from confusing language in the actual manual. "3 * (number of crates stacked above 2)." I read it to be 3 * the additional crates stacked above 2. So if it is a 3 crate stack, it would be 3 * 1 (because 3 is one more than 2) = 3. However, I now see how you can read it the other way.

If this is the case, I would take back saying that stacking is a non-factor and amend the statement to say stacking is not the most effective way to score.

I agree the wording can indeed be interpreted both ways, and unfortunately it was difficult to word this section of the rules. The way it will be "scored" is only the crates above the two crate mark will be counted. So in a stack of 6 crates, only 4 of the crates are above the 2 required minimum crates, which results in 12 points (4 crates * 3 points each = 12 points).

[MichaelBick]

The non symetrical playing field isn't great, but it isn't that bad. I agree the game could be better if it was symetrical.

I also agree that the shelf is a bit high. Dense game pieces + small robot sizes makes me question whether it would actually be possible to build a good shelf robot.

That said, if you can't think of a method(not including shooting) to build a 36" tall robot that can dump in the high goal, you aren't thinking hard enough. We have a design to dump in the shelf while still staying under 36".

Originally Posted by ehfeinberg

There is a difference between designs and pratical robots. For all intensive purposes, I could build a giant sling shot to shot the crates into the tank. But just because I could build it doesn't mean that it is effective or that I could build it well.

And besides, having a playing field which is non symmetrical is going to cause one alliance to have advantages over the other.

I'm quite sure these designs will work. And this is a design competition. Nothing will be tested in real life, so the only way teams will be able to prove their idea works is with documentation and reasonable explanation. If you can back up your design well enough, you could build Plowie with a slingshot and magnetic pickup system on a unicycle stand and still win. That being said, you've got to back it up extremely well.

As for the symmetrical part, that's just how the game goes. I think the difference is negligible enough not to make a difference. Besides, as the manual always says "The best teams will always design around these small differences".

[JosephC]

To everyone saying that the non-symmetrical field is unfair or biased. Please remember this is a design competition, not an actual game that you would be building a robot to play. Whether one alliance has an unfair advantage or not doesn't matter because your designed robot will never have to be placed into one of those alliances.

[ehfeinberg]

Originally Posted by JosephC

To everyone saying that the non-symmetrical field is unfair or biased. Please remember this is a design competition, not an actual game that you would be building a robot to play. Whether one alliance has an unfair advantage or not doesn't matter because your designed robot will never have to be placed into one of those alliances.

A design is only as good as the strategy it executes.

And I would go even farther to say that all designs (for the same strategy) are equal in FRC. The only difference is how well a team executes a design. A team who does a simple task very well will do much better than a team who does a complicated task not too well.

So I would say that aimlessly designing robots is a useless task if you do not account for how your design accomplishes your strategy.

[MichaelBick]

Originally Posted by ehfeinberg

So I would say that aimlessly designing robots is a useless task if you do not account for how your design accomplishes your strategy.

I don't find this competition to be all about developing strategy. I think it will also help our CAD team work better together and faster.