Summer Design Competition 2015

[DesignComp]

We are back, and this time with the summer design competition that everyone's been asking for. We've got a new game, a longer design period, and some new awards. A huge thank you to Koko Ed for inspiring this summer's game.

I'll try and keep this one short:

Taken from the last competition thread:

For those of you unfamiliar with the design competition, the basic idea is a group of friends and I have created our own FRC game in order to provide a challenge to the FIRST community to better prepare people for the strategic design and game analysis required at the beginning of the FRC season in hopes that participants will utilize what they have learned from the competition to make their 2016 FRC team perform at a higher level of play. Individuals (or groups of people) design their own complete robot to participate in this year's game, Quad Quidditch.

The manual for Quad Quidditch may be found here, and the game documents and CAD models may be found here (Solidworks) and here (STEP file).

Also taken from the last competition thread:

Each team of contestants must turn in a CAD design for their robot as well as written documentation detailing their robot, their strategies for the game, their strategic design and thought process. Basically anything in the normal season that cannot be portrayed simply via the CAD model would be helpful having in writing. It will help your score to have more documentation about your processes.

For the above, the written portions can be as short as you want (it's easier for us that way) - they don't need to be professional essays, we just need to be able to read them and understand your thought process / strategic design. Some aspects of the normal FRC game have been changed, so how you adapt to these changes in your strategy will have an affect on how you are scored.

This is a relaxed competition. Like hella relaxed. This means you don't need to be 100% complete with your CAD. Don't leave out subsystems, but nuts/bolts/shafts etc aren't required for judging. As long as your general design gets across and you can explain it in words, you will be able to be less attentive to minor details on design.

Our time frame for the competition has been increased. The competition starts today, June 1st, and ends on the 15th of August. Submissions will be accepted any time up until 11:59 on August 15th.

For submission, if you use Solidworks, Pack and Go your assembly and put the zipped folder in a folder with your documentation. Otherwise simply send a STEP file along with your documentation. Submissions should be emailed to DesignComp2015@gmail.com.

A final note about the rules: We have put a lot of work into developing the game manual, trying to be as thorough as possible while remaining concise. We have gotten as much outside opinion as we could, however there is still a chance that we may have missed something. We're not perfect, we're human, it happens. Ask any questions here, and we shall reply with official answers, and update the manual as needed. To prevent any confusion, we ask that you take the rules for how they are intended, and try to minimize any lawyering of them. There will always be ambiguity with interpretations differing person to person, but we hope that consistent and transparent communication between the community and this GDC will help make that less of an issue.

With that being said, thank you to everyone who has helped in developing this project, and to everyone who takes the time to compete in it. Good luck, and we won't see you at the competitions because this is all theoretical.

[BrennanB]

The snitch is one of the coolest dynamics here.

[Koko Ed]

whatever FIRST was planning for next year they should just drop it and do this. The bad taste from the last two games will be easily forgotten.

[Kevin Leonard]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

whatever FIRST was planning for next year they should just drop it and do this. The bad taste from the last two games will be easily forgotten.

"Hey guys, remember that terrible Recycling-themed stacking game with no defense? Neither do I!"
-Every FIRST-er after Quad Quidditch

[MasterMentor]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

whatever FIRST was planning for next year they should just drop it and do this. The bad taste from the last two games will be easily forgotten.

That would be pretty awesome. This would be a crazy game to referee, and one alliance will likely sequester all the Bludgers to take them out of the game, and building/maintaining the snitches would be troublesome. But overall it would be awesome.

How can we submit this to FIRST?!

-MM

[DesignComp]

Originally Posted by echin

Thanks for putting this together! Hopefully I will get the time to make something to submit.

One Question:


Does this mean that it would be allowed for a robot to extend anything with a 16 square inch cross sectional area above 10 feet or that anything extended above 10 feet must fit within a 4" by 4" column?

Extensions must fit within a 4" by 4" column. The intent of this rule is to prevent someone from making a thin blocking mechanism the width of the goal.

Originally Posted by Bryce2471

Thank you for addressing it so nicely.

I have a few more questions

Emphasis mine.
Is the bolded section necessary, or a consequence of your example? For instance, if one alliance mate passes the ball to another after it has been cleared, does the receiving bot need to clear it again? Does the quaffle even need to be in the possession of a robot when it is in the alliance zone in order to be considered cleared?

Can a quaffle be scored through the hoops backwards to receive points?

Is it indented that quaffles that are thrown through the hoops, will be kept on the field by some sort of net?

What is the alliance selection order?

The process of clearing a quaffle does not require a robot to possess it. As long as the quaffle has been within the volume of the ALLIANCE ZONE of the robot that intends on scoring it since it has last been grounded/scored, it will be clear for free use (sorry if that's a bit wordy. tl;dr quaffles don't need robots to be cleared).

Quaffles can be scored through any side of the hoop.

There is a net in the field design behind the alliance walls (more easily seen with a colored background to the field), however all game pieces will be returned to the field should they exit anytime during the match.

Alliance selection will be as follows:
1-8
8-1
1-8

This has been added to the manual under T3.

Originally Posted by MasterMentor

That would be pretty awesome. This would be a crazy game to referee, and one alliance will likely sequester all the Bludgers to take them out of the game, and building/maintaining the snitches would be troublesome. But overall it would be awesome.

How can we submit this to FIRST?!

-MM

This game would be a nightmare to ref or score. We decided that because this was a design challenge, we could sacrifice playability in exchange for higher quality design and strategy opportunities.

[echin]

Originally Posted by DesignComp

Extensions must fit within a 4" by 4" column. The intent of this rule is to prevent someone from making a thin blocking mechanism the width of the goal.

I guessed that, but wasn't sure. Thanks for clarifying!

[K-Dawg157]

The only problem I can find with the snitch(blue) is when the human players(blue) are driving it, and two robots(red) from the opposing alliance are chasing said snitch, if the human player(blue) drives towards a third robot(red) from the opposing alliance to try to escape, what will be the consequence? Will the robot's(red) alliance be fouled, or will the snitch's(blue)?

[DesignComp]

Originally Posted by K-Dawg157

The only problem I can find with the snitch(blue) is when the human players(blue) are driving it, and two robots(red) from the opposing alliance are chasing said snitch, if the human player(blue) drives towards a third robot(red) from the opposing alliance to try to escape, what will be the consequence? Will the robot's(red) alliance be fouled, or will the snitch's(blue)?

G6: Don’t make other robots commit fouls/break rules would be if it's intentional. However the definition of PROXIMITY regarding robots near the snitch states:

G20: No more than two robots per alliance may be in sustained PROXIMITY to the opponent’s uncaptured SNITCH, and no robots may be in sustained PROXIMITY to their uncaptured alliance SNITCH.

[Chak]

Glossary: 16) POSSESSION: Causing a QUAFFLE or BLUDGER to move in similar motion, direction...

So would a ball attached to a rope (attached to a robot) count as being possessed?
If the ball is being dragged behind the robot, of course it would be possessed. But what if the rope is loose and not exerting any force on the ball? Would the ball still count as being possessed by the robot?

[DesignComp]

Originally Posted by Chak

So would a ball attached to a rope (attached to a robot) count as being possessed?
If the ball is being dragged behind the robot, of course it would be possessed. But what if the rope is loose and not exerting any force on the ball? Would the ball still count as being possessed by the robot?

Yes. Said rope would also likely break the frame perimeter rules, and will in fact exert a force on the ball (that's just how physics works).

[LCJ]

Umm... maybe I missed it in the rules but since there seems to be four stations per side so is this game played with alliances of four robots per alliance?

Edit: Haha, thanks for the response!

[evanperryg]

Originally Posted by Kevin Leonard

"Hey guys, remember that terrible Recycling-themed stacking game with no defense? Neither do I!"
-Every FIRST-er after Quad Quidditch

The rules state that a bludger launched or ejected from an opposing robot can "ground" the shooter. How do you qualify "ejected or launched?" Is it still considered "ejected or launched" after it bounces on the ground? If not, they could only be thrown with extreme precision. If there's a time limit on when a bludger not in contact with the robot previously carrying it can take out an opposing shooter, do you honestly expect the refs to keep track of that while managing the rest of the match? Yet, since there is no qualification for "ejected or launched", then a bludger ejected from a robot 2 seconds into teleop couldn't be picked up by the oppposing alliance because it made contact with one of the robots. Hold on, a partial chokehold executed in the first seconds of auto that could decide the winner of the match? I think I remember one of those...

That said, bludgers present an extreme danger to robots. What penalties are given for teams that damage opposing robots with bludgers? How do you quantify "unintentional" bludger damage and "strategic" bludger damage? I get this is for fun, but the entire bludger dynamic combines the demolition derby and subjectivity of Aerial Assist, and the predictability of Recycle Rush.

Another thing, what happens when a snitch inevitably dies in the middle of the field? Would the alliance picking up the dead snitch still get points? How will a ref know the exact 6 foot radius around the snitch, cause there would be plenty of teams arguing with refs about it.

[DesignComp]

Originally Posted by evanperryg

The rules state that a bludger launched or ejected from an opposing robot can "ground" the shooter. How do you qualify "ejected or launched?" Is it still considered "ejected or launched" after it bounces on the ground? If not, they could only be thrown with extreme precision. If there's a time limit on when a bludger not in contact with the robot previously carrying it can take out an opposing shooter, do you honestly expect the refs to keep track of that while managing the rest of the match? Yet, since there is no qualification for "ejected or launched", then a bludger ejected from a robot 2 seconds into teleop couldn't be picked up by the oppposing alliance because it made contact with one of the robots. Hold on, a partial chokehold executed in the first seconds of auto that could decide the winner of the match? I think I remember one of those...

That said, bludgers present an extreme danger to robots. What penalties are given for teams that damage opposing robots with bludgers? How do you quantify "unintentional" bludger damage and "strategic" bludger damage? I get this is for fun, but the entire bludger dynamic combines the demolition derby and subjectivity of Aerial Assist, and the predictability of Recycle Rush.

Another thing, what happens when a snitch inevitably dies in the middle of the field? Would the alliance picking up the dead snitch still get points? How will a ref know the exact 6 foot radius around the snitch, cause there would be plenty of teams arguing with refs about it.

-Only quaffles can be grounded, and the process of clearing quaffles is detailed in the manual

-Launched bludgers must make contact with a robot before contacting the ground for their effect to take place. This has been clarified in the rules under G16. The game design committee believes that a good design will be able to utilize bludgers successfully without a high level of skill or precision. If you feel your design is incapable of this task, we suggest that you spend more time iterating.

-There are no rules supporting your idea that a bludger "ejected from a robot 2 seconds into teleop couldn't be picked up by the oppposing alliance". Unless this is a product of not reading the rules carefully, we ask that you cite the rules that would cause this statement to be true so that we can fix it.

-The game design committee does not believe that bludgers are any more dangerous to robots than prior years game pieces. Design your robots robustly and you should be fine. Intentional damage will be judged as it always has been. The idea of intentional damage is not a new innovation.

-Each alliance provides their own Golden Snitch (which goes through inspection and is regulated so that all are the same), so each alliance is responsible for their snitch not dying on the field. This is similar to the minibots of 2011.

-The 6 foot radius was chosen as an arbitrary value that the game design committee decided was a large enough space to deter robots not in pursuit of a snitch to stay away from, as well as one large enough that pursuit of the snitch could be clear and relatively easy to follow.

-All of our refs are trained in martial arts, and nobody can fight a ref's decision and win unless their robots are powder coated blue (because that's just how we roll).

I hope these answer your questions. Thank you very much for your interest in our project. In the event you still haveconcerns about the viability of the use of bludgers, we suggest that you train your drivers to dodge wrenches.

[evanperryg]

Originally Posted by DesignComp

-Only quaffles can be grounded, and the process of clearing quaffles is detailed in the manual

-Launched bludgers must make contact with a robot before contacting the ground for their effect to take place. This has been clarified in the rules under G16. The game design committee believes that a good design will be able to utilize bludgers successfully without a high level of skill or precision. If you feel your design is incapable of this task, we suggest that you spend more time iterating.

-There are no rules supporting your idea that a bludger "ejected from a robot 2 seconds into teleop couldn't be picked up by the oppposing alliance". Unless this is a product of not reading the rules carefully, we ask that you cite the rules that would cause this statement to be true so that we can fix it.

-The game design committee does not believe that bludgers are any more dangerous to robots than prior years game pieces. Design your robots robustly and you should be fine. Intentional damage will be judged as it always has been. The idea of intentional damage is not a new innovation.

-Each alliance provides their own Golden Snitch (which goes through inspection and is regulated so that all are the same), so each alliance is responsible for their snitch not dying on the field. This is similar to the minibots of 2011.

-The 6 foot radius was chosen as an arbitrary value that the game design committee decided was a large enough space to deter robots not in pursuit of a snitch to stay away from, as well as one large enough that pursuit of the snitch could be clear and relatively easy to follow.

-All of our refs are trained in martial arts, and nobody can fight a ref's decision and win unless their robots are powder coated blue (because that's just how we roll).

I hope these answer your questions. Thank you very much for your interest in our project. In the event you still haveconcerns about the viability of the use of bludgers, we suggest that you train your drivers to dodge wrenches.

I apologize if referring to robots whose quaffles have been grounded as "grounded shooters" was ambiguous. Thank you for providing clarification in G16. I would suggest adding field markings corresponding to the proximity around the snitch release point, as defined in G12. If this game were to be played in reality, it would make G12 penalties more objective.