Summer Design Competition 2015

[DesignComp]

Originally Posted by evanperryg

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.

Oh yeah, this would be a terrible game to play.

[evanperryg]

Going along with this whole "first-second" thing, I'd like to present:
Robot in 4 Days Since I Saw This Thread
http://imgur.com/bQrxgob
http://imgur.com/rjDBJIM
http://imgur.com/g0jGvPN
Features:
-Ability to hold 5 quaffles in the hopper, up to 7 balls total
-Ground collection compatible with quaffles and bludgers
-Potential for human loading, just need to change the hopper a little
-collector articulates up to allow balls up into the shooter elevator
-6x 4" custom traction wheels driven by 2 2 CIM custom gearboxes geared for 5.5fps and 16fps
-Anodized black for superior performance

Just like RI3D, very unrefined but demonstrates the concept.

[Kevin Leonard]

Given the rules here, and my lack of desire to actually make a CAD model, I'm just going to theorize a couple of different robot archetypes:
The "Fender Shooter"
Given that the maximum robot height outside of starting configuration is 10 ft, I expect quite a few robots to attempt to shoot and/or dump in the hoops. The high goal is just out of reach for a dump, but also only worth 2 points more than the middle goal.
The biggest problem these robots would have is with extended defense, as the area near the hoops is not a safe area, and there is likely to be a defender there, possibly blocking hoops as well.
The "Key Shooter"
These robots are optimized to shoot from the semicircle, as it is a safe zone, however, since the opposing alliance's semicircle is adjacent, you're not entirely safe from defensive action, and smart teams might touch the circle with just the corner of their robot, or an extension to contact the semicircle while shooting.
The Keeper
Generally defensively-oriented robots with "goalie sticks". Unlike in 2014, the goals are small enough that one goal can be blocked by a goalie stick relatively easily. These robots will be very useful during autonomous if teams aren't planning to have multiple options or trick autos. Some of the better robots of this nature will be able to spend their time clearing quaffles and feeding their partners on the other side of the field. Some of the best might even be able to score quaffles during autonomous or even teleop from the keeper zone.
Keepers will also have to deal with anti-defense teams ready to push them out of the keeper zone during both autonomous and teleoperated periods.
Bludger Specialists
Bludgers are the "X Factor" that makes this game so different from any other game in FRC history. Many top-tier robots will focus on scoring goals in the hoops and capturing snitches, ignoring the bludger mechanic other than maybe grabbing some of them so the other alliance can't have them. Bludger Specialists will be able to shut down top-tier machines who are taking a long time to set up to shoot in their semi-circle, and can destroy alliances who aren't smart about how they play the game.
I think one of the most interesting rules regarding this mechanic is this one: "Bludgers will have no effect if POSSESSED by a robot upon contacting another robot." This makes it sound like if the robot in question catches the bludger, their balls do not become grounded. I wonder if the best robots in this game might have some sort of net-style catching mechanism to ensure they do not take grounding effects.

Lastly, the golden snitch. Not every robot will have the ability to capture a golden snitch, as only two robots on any alliance can be chasing down the snitch, and the snitch is worth nothing if the alliance scores no hoop points during the endgame period. Most of the top seeded teams in their divisions will, as that endgame score is the tiebreaker for seeding, and it would be interesting to see what kinds of mechanisms would emerge for this task.
As such, does the keeper stay where he is to lower the opponent's endgame score? Does he go for the snitch? Does the Bludger Specialist save a bludger or two for the endgame to ensure the opponents get no points during this period? How does the endgame strategy differ between qualifications and eliminations?

A couple questions now:

• What defines "attach" in G11: "Robots may not climb the the goalpost that supports the HOOP, nor attach to the goalpost or the HOOP."
• Would a robot with an appendage on either side of the goalpost count as being attached?
• Would having a slot in the robot to surround the goalpost count as attached?
• How about having the robot long enough to brace itself against two goalposts if hit from one side?

This is a really cool game to think about, and it supports a wide variety of robots to play this game. 2012-style shooters, 2014-style goalies, 2009-style power dumpers, and a bunch of crazy styles of play yet to be seen in an FRC game. The wide open field necessitates robot durability, and the bludger mechanic even more so. Good strategy and good robots would be required to win this game, and I appreciate that.
Thank you for posting this game and giving us an exercise in strategic design during this part of the off-season.

[DesignComp]

Originally Posted by Kevin Leonard

I think one of the most interesting rules regarding this mechanic is this one: "Bludgers will have no effect if POSSESSED by a robot upon contacting another robot." This makes it sound like if the robot in question catches the bludger, their balls do not become grounded. I wonder if the best robots in this game might have some sort of net-style catching mechanism to ensure they do not take grounding effects.

A couple questions now:

• What defines "attach" in G11: "Robots may not climb the the goalpost that supports the HOOP, nor attach to the goalpost or the HOOP."
• Would a robot with an appendage on either side of the goalpost count as being attached?
• Would having a slot in the robot to surround the goalpost count as attached?
• How about having the robot long enough to brace itself against two goalposts if hit from one side?

Thank you very much for the time you put into designating the robot archetypes. This type of analysis is what we love to see over these kinds of games, and we're sure that it will help others with less experience understand how the game would play out, and how to better refine their robot(s).

A note before answering your questions - The rule stating that "Bludgers will have no effect if POSSESSED by a robot upon contacting another robot." was made with an intention of preventing teams from just holding a bludger in front of them and playing tag with the opponent's robots, however we really like your interpretation that would facilitate catching as a means to cancel the bludger's effects. Unfortunately that would change the game mechanics to ones that some others who have already started did not interpret, and it would not be professional for us to change the intention of a rule after releasing the game, so we must leave the catching aspect out for now.

Now for your questions:

Attach is meant in the terms of grapple, or to securely hold on to. In short, the intent was to prevent teams from grabbing / climbing the poles. A good test to see if your design matches the intent of the rule is to ask yourself, "Can another robot push me away?" if not, then you are in violation of the rule. If so, you're perfectly fine (this would make the slot you are referring to, as well as the long robot, perfectly legal). During design we often likened the poles to the bases of the minibot poles from 2011, in regards to attachment rules.

[page2067]

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.

Koko Ed speaks the truth -
never mind the past -
maybe crowd-source game design?

This game would be fun! Isn't that inspirational!
and clever use of bludgers as a gracious form of defense! and use of snitch.

(not making comment on this year game - just moving forward)

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by page2067

Koko Ed speaks the truth -
never mind the past -
maybe crowd-source game design?

This game would be fun! Isn't that inspirational!
and clever use of bludgers as a gracious form of defense! and use of snitch.

(not making comment on this year game - just moving forward)

Could you imagine how different this years game would be with Bludgers?
Not only could you knock over stacks but you could void six stacks being carried in a robot before they make it on the scoring platform!

[ToddF]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

Could you imagine how different this years game would be with Bludgers?
Not only could you knock over stacks but you could void six stacks being carried in a robot before they make it on the scoring platform!

Our off season event is Rumble in the Roads, which is loosely themed on the battle of the Monitor and the Merrimack in Hampton Roads. When we were throwing around ideas for custom rules, I suggested an end game. Each team would be supplied with three "cannon balls", balls around the size of the foam basketballs with less mass (actual game piece selected to be light enough that only a hard thrown direct hit would affect the stack). During the end game, the human players could throw these at the opposing team's stacks to try to knock them over. But every throw must be accompanied by the human player yelling "Boom!" at the top of their lungs.

My suggestion was not adopted.

[wilsonmw04]

Originally Posted by ToddF

Our off season event is Rumble in the Roads, which is loosely themed on the battle of the Monitor and the Merrimack in Hampton Roads. When we were throwing around ideas for custom rules, I suggested an end game. Each team would be supplied with three "cannon balls", balls around the size of the foam basketballs with less mass (actual game piece selected to be light enough that only a hard thrown direct hit would affect the stack). During the end game, the human players could throw these at the opposing team's stacks to try to knock them over. But every throw must be accompanied by the human player yelling "Boom!" at the top of their lungs.

My suggestion was not adopted.

+1 BOOM!

[aztecprincess98]

I really do love the element of the snitch and I am so excited that our team is taking on the challenge this summer. Looking forward to seeing all of the designs!

[Koko Ed]

It would be so cool if you could make flying robots for the game. Who cares about a silly water game when you can see your robot catch air!

[K-Dawg157]

I have literally been wanting something... anything! like this since I first joined 3 years ago. This is amazing.

Thank you so much for putting the time into making this.

[Arpan]

Wow, this is fantastic. I'll be using this as part of my team's summer design training.

Thank you so much for this amazing resource.

[T-Dawg]

Under rule G10, it states that robots may not blockade the field or partake in an action that halts the flow of the match.

What classifies as "an action that halts the flow of the match"?
For an example, does persistent defense count as an action that halts the flow of the match?

[DesignComp]

Originally Posted by T-Dawg

Under rule G10, it states that robots may not blockade the field or partake in an action that halts the flow of the match.

What classifies as "an action that halts the flow of the match"?
For an example, does persistent defense count as an action that halts the flow of the match?

If you used your alliance robots to create a continuous blockade that prevented opponents from traveling to the other side of the field. Another example would be if you used your robots to block the opposing alliance's human loading station, as this would prevent the natural flow of a part of the match. These kinds of actions are illegal. Normal defensive play, however, is expected and encouraged.

[Bryce2471]

The match begins with a fifteen second AUTONOMOUS period... Teams get additional points for every robot that is in their ALLIANCE ZONE located between their alliance HOOPS and the opposing ALLIANCE WALL at the end of the autonomous period.

This description of the alliance zone does not appear to match what is depicted in the linked image of the field.

G7: During Auto, teams may not cross the white CENTERLINE. Also, teams who start in contact with their KEEPER ZONE must remain in contact with it until the AUTONOMOUS period is over.

If images of the field are correct in their placement of the alliance zones, it seems like this rule would make it impossible to get the autonomous points for being in your zone.

If the field drawings are not correct, it seems like the flow of the game would not work properly... so it looks as though something is up...

Is there something that I'm missing?

P.S. Super cool game! I love the concept! It reminds me a lot of 2013, but a lot more craziness.