Team Update #18

[Spider-Man]

Originally Posted by Eldarion

I must ask, how is this different from a robot deciding to go up another's ramps before the match is over (if an arm broke or someone's ramps deployed early, etc.)?

At least one robot, a lifter or liftee, must move in the match. As Lil' Lavery was suggesting, this should be the goal, not a stack.

[Eldarion]

Originally Posted by Spider-Man

At least one robot, a lifter or liftee, must move in the match. As Lil' Lavery was suggesting, this should be the goal, not a stack.

I agree with you, but I was asking this question from a safety point of view.

[Spider-Man]

Originally Posted by Eldarion

I agree with you, but I was asking this question from a safety point of view.

Ah, I see. For safety, wouldn't hitting the e-stops prevent the teams from affecting anything for the rest of the match, leaving the robots in what should be an undesigned-for, precarious position? Teams deciding to lift can assess what is happening in the match and how to handle defense. If a robot defends a lift before the end-game, the other robots are not usually voluntarily disabled in advance.

[Dave Scheck]

This was back on page 3 and I felt compelled to respond.

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Instead of stacking two dead bots on each other for 30 points, why not help them getting running so they can grant a bigger reward for your alliance?

This is exactly what we tried to do. 10 minutes before the match we had people in both pits frantically trying to help get these robots back up and running. I don't know the exact details, but one of them had a drive motor that had fallen off, and the other had drive chain problems. Once we determined they weren't going to be able to be fixed before the match, we suggested the stacking plan, both teams agreed, and the rest is history. After the match, we helped both teams get operational again.

While we had this strategy in our heads earlier in the season, we had no intention of ever using it if at least two robots were functional. While it may have won a lot of matches, this strategy doesn't allow teams to go out there, play the game and show what they can do. Nobody wants to work for six weeks just to sit in a corner (unless that's what you designed it to do ).

[flightofone]

Great, spur of the moment thinking!. I'm sure First didn't have this in mind when they responded to the Q&A, they were probably thinking only a rampbot would be used. Now that they've seen the inspired out-of-the-box thinking, it makes sense to limit precariously perched bots for safety. Since it is an exception case that doesn't really impact the game, we should accept the change and move on.

[ALIBI]

Common sense would indicate that most rampbots or liftobots would ramp or lift just over 12 inches, a few that use teetertotter mechanisms may get one side up to 24 inches or so for a brief period of time until gravity takes over. My impression of the orginal Q & A was that if an alliance had a rampbot that had a platform 12 inches above the ground in it's starting position that a dead robot could be placed on it before the match started. I could even see the rampbot moving around the field playing offense or defense if able to. Or a robot with a functioning drivetrain moving around a robot with a functioning arm who's drivetrain was not working. Talk about teamwork! It did raise questions about exceeding the weight limits and how much energy a 290 moving plie of two robots (2 @ 120lbs, 2 batteries and 2 sets of bumpers) could use to impact a much lighter robot on the field. Having the rule open ended could result in a robot sitting six feet off the ground. I don't think anyone wants to see the results of a robot falling from that high up, in or outside the playing field. The alliance station wall is only 6 feet 6 inches high. Maybe the GDC should have simply stated that at no time during a match can a robot be elevated more than 24 inches (or whatever) above the playing field.

[Jeremiah Johnson]

Originally Posted by Dave Scheck

This was back on page 3 and I felt compelled to respond.This is exactly what we tried to do. 10 minutes before the match we had people in both pits frantically trying to help get these robots back up and running. I don't know the exact details, but one of them had a drive motor that had fallen off, and the other had drive chain problems. Once we determined they weren't going to be able to be fixed before the match, we suggested the stacking plan, both teams agreed, and the rest is history. After the match, we helped both teams get operational again.

While we had this strategy in our heads earlier in the season, we had no intention of ever using it if at least two robots were functional. While it may have won a lot of matches, this strategy doesn't allow teams to go out there, play the game and show what they can do. Nobody wants to work for six weeks just to sit in a corner (unless that's what you designed it to do ).

I can back up this post... Wildstang was in every pit that there was no running robot. I thank them for getting 1755 back up and running because we had them the rest of the day.

I commend those who thought up this strategy, but also disagree with those that are complaining because FIRST changed their minds. Without a doubt, many teams would have done this same thing from here on out. Many alliances would have gone onto the feild with this strategy in mind, even with working robots. It's only fair to the competition that now everyone has to earn the bonus points.

[Steve_Alaniz]

As a PURELY HYPOTHETICAL question....
IF two non working robots were stacked in the end zone AND the opposing alliance KNEW it could not score 30 points... WOULD it be legal under the rules for the opposing team robots to BUMP (totally legal under the rules) the bottom robot and if the top robot happened to fall off there would be jubilation in the opposition camp for having made a great and possibly legal play?
LEGALLY speaking bumping is allowed but do the opposing team have to consider the consequences of the action? Would they just be yellow carded if at all? (which they might take since the other side has made winning everything)
(Which has not been used enough in my opinion... several rounds at the NY regional looked like Robot Wars)
That action is not intended to damage the top robot but rather to de-score and FIRST does urge a "Robust" design.

Just curious

Steve Alaniz

[jarowe]

I've been following this thread, and I think it's taken an interesting turn.

I'm not sure that safety is the reason for this decision. No person would be injured by stacking these robots, no matter how precariously they are arranged. Robots falling over and breaking is part of the game. It's a risk to put the robot on the field in any match-- you don't know what could happen. Any team that attempts to use the stacking strategy is obviously well aware of the risks involved. I trust that the members of FIRST teams are smart enough to disable autonomous modes and hit the E-Stop buttons.

I've wanted to see some changes to this game since the first weekend of regionals. I'd like to see the ramp bonuses worth fewer points so rack scoring actually means something and there are less of the 30-2 matches. I also wish that autonomous mode was more meaningful, especially since most teams aren't doing very much with it which makes for a very boring 15 seconds. However, I'd also be pretty angry if those changes came through after the game has progressed as far as it has.

My personal opinion of this game is that it's either incredibly exciting to watch, or mind-numbingly boring. It truly depends on the alliance structure. However, the stacking method adds to the mind-numbingly boring category. With two robots sitting there for two minutes, it's not fun to watch. It also cheapens the efforts of the other alliance, which is trying to score some points, but the efforts become meaningless because of the 30 points that are due to the other team. Now, after seeing what happened with teams 1755 and 1850, I considered this as a viable strategy that our team might employ in the same situation-- two NON FUNCTIONAL robots, with no other way of scoring points. I applaud this alliance for their attempt to compete to the best of their capability. If it were still legal, we might use this strategy if it were our only option.

That said, I'm glad its no longer legal. The game should not reward us for having non functional robots. We should be rewarded for our efforts to design elegant machines and effective, complex strategy. FIRST is trying to do that.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

A few of the other members of Wildstang have spoken earlier but I want to make a few things clear. When faced with both alliance partners dead and with their permission, the team decided to fallback on a Q&A answered by the GDC in January. Wildstang reads all documents issued by FIRST, as all teams should. As others have posted in other forums, Wildstang was not the first to attempt this strategy this season, just the most discussed. The refs discussed this before the match (for several minutes) was allowed to start and as the Q&A pointed out, they came to the conclusion that there was no rule against it. Had they ruled against it we were perfectly ready to accept the decision of the refs, as we always do, and play 1 vs. 3 with no starting score. I would like to also point out that until TU #18 there was no rule that robots could not start touching each other or stacking. Something that no one has pointed out yet is that we prevailed in this match even without the stacking as the final score would have been 18-10.
BTW, pulling the robots out of the end zone (even just little) would have been a legal defensive strategy that would have negated the stacking bonus.

[GaryVoshol]

Hmm, add a FLL-like rule (for NEXT YEAR, please!):

No robot can score points until it moves completely outside the home zone.

Of course, that rule would be viable only for some types of games. It wouldn't have worked for Triple Play.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by JBotAlan

Think about this: FIRST leaves a loophole in the rules saying that teams may use a, for instance, radio jamming device. They are not aware of the hole. Now, a team exploits that. FIRST becomes aware that *on one occasion, a loophole was used to create a safety hazard*. Sound familiar?

Unfortunately, this doesn't really sound familiar at all. The GDC was aware of this potential gameplay strategy since at least January 14th, when they posted a Q&A that validated this as legitimate. It was certainly no surprise to the GDC when Wildstang successfully pulled this off. To describe these events using words like "loophole" and "exploits" is just plain wrong. The GDC explicitly allowed it very early in the build season. This wasn't a goofy answer like the questions about slip rings or tube inflation... it was perhaps the most straight-forward answer I've seen on the Q&A all year. They knew what was up, they allowed it, now they don't like the outcome, and they're changing their minds midstream. This is the source of frustration for many posters in this thread.

(On a side note, trying to paint this as a safety hazard is also specious at best. There is absolutely nothing inherently less safe about being on top of a robot at the start of a match as there is about being on top of a robot in the middle of a match.)

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Rob

Would it work to have a ringer between the two stacked robots? The rule says you can't touch other robots but the ringer would be between. It would be fun to see the head ref try to remove the ringer at the end of autonomous.

RAZ

But doesn't it say you can only be in contact with one tube at a time. So if you had a tube between robots niether one can put a tube on rack.

[Nuttyman54]

Originally Posted by BobC

But doesn't it say you can only be in contact with one tube at a time. So if you had a tube between robots niether one can put a tube on rack.

The point of this setup is that both robots are non-operational, and thus would otherwise be of no use to the alliance. In the scenario at Midwest, one incapacitated robot was placed on top of the other incapacitated robot, thus contributing 30 points to their alliance.

[Cory]

2002 all over again...

at least this time it's not as big a deal as it was before.