The ultimate game breaker bot.

[sircedric4]

And another ruling which makes the "god-bot" perfectly useable just got posted on Q&A.

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=13831

We cannot review specific ROBOT designs. However, it is noted that a BALL that is in the process of transiting freely up or down a ramp (i.e. not actively controlled) does not satisfy the definition of POSSESSION and is therefore not being CARRIED. But in addition, if thereafter the BALL comes to rest of top of the ROBOT, no matter how it got there, it would satisfy the conditions required for POSSESSION and CARRYING, and would then be PENALIZED accordingly.

This means that any robot with a ramp being used to divert the ball to either the other zone off of the ball return, or down in front of their own kicker should be perfectly legal. The carrying issue was the only thing keeping it from being viable, as I see it, and that has now been clarified. So we will probably see a couple teams try this strategy.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by sircedric4

This means that any robot with a ramp being used to divert the ball to either the other zone off of the ball return, or down in front of their own kicker should be perfectly legal. The carrying issue was the only thing keeping it from being viable, as I see it, and that has now been clarified. So we will probably see a couple teams try this strategy.

The only thing keeping it from being legal. I bet the debate of whether or not it is viable to give up a robot in exchange for a return ramp for your own scored balls will rage on.

[AHughes94]

Originally Posted by pbhead

I may have found something that may be too good to be true... but i have not found anything in the rules that would make it illegal.

Immagine a robot... it cant go over the bump... it cant go under. It starts in the middle zone. in autonomous it uses a very basic pnumatic kicker to get those 2 balls just over to its home field... no aiming into the goals... just getting the balls to the right side of the field. very basic.

As soon as tellop starts, it goes in front of its tower, it touches the tower, and then deploys 2 gravity powered guides that physically attach the robot to the sides of the tower, and keep it level. then, using a very basic winch-and hook, it begins climbing. It reaches the top. the top of this robot is shaped in such a manor that the balls that fall off the ball return hit the top of this robot, and the balls are redirected straight back into the goal... a simple servo connected to a bar directs the balls either to the left goal or the right goal.

basicly, a bot that all it does, is that as soon as a goal is scored, it returns the balls straight back into the goal... every one of the 12 balls the other 2 robots place into the goal means that as soon as that ball is placed back on the ball return, 5 seconds later its right back in the goal. if a robot trys to block the goal... this "god bot" simply directs its payload towards the opposite goal. and as an added bonus, you got a minimum of 2 points for hanging.

any thoughts about this?

the only thing that perhaps could be questionable would be the server that redirects the balls to the right goal or left goal... but there are many ways... to use a properly designed lifting mechanism to till the frame one way, and the balls go left, till the frame the other way the ball goes right.

Just want to say that a game breaking robot would be a robot that can do everything and very well, causing the other teams to have to play differently when against that bot.

[AHughes94]

Originally Posted by AHughes94

Just want to say that a game breaking robot would be a robot that can do everything and very well, causing the other teams to have to play differently when against that bot.

The robot would have to be able to aim very well, go over or under, and score from several areas on the field.

[Jstack14]

Originally Posted by EricH

You've obviously read the current manual, but in this case, I think you may want to look at it again. See <R19-B>, which I've highlighted in your post.

There is still debate about what "3 inches inside a mechanism...above the bumper zone" actually means, but I think the common consensus on CD is that that means that the ball can't go more than 3 inches into whatever mechanism/feature is used for the deflection, not that the mechanism must be no more than 3 inches from the frame perimeter. The GDC may wish to look at tweaking the wording of <G46> to match the current version of <R19>.

Thank you for pointing this out, it makes some of my other ideas seem possible for deflecting balls the opposing team kicked. Still the first rule i stated would prevent controling the balls placement activley although you could make a fixed design that would deflect the ball into the desireed direction.

As everyone else has said though it doesn't seem like it is in the spirit of the game, and although i am new to FIRST i understand that loopholes aren't the way to go.

Thanks for pointing out the (potential) error in my understanding of the rule and thanks to the person who posted this to get some good creative ideas going.

Joe Stack
1710

[Matthew2c4u]

Im gonna summarize what we have so far.
If you build a robot which can effectively climb up to the top of the tower and use a non active mecanism that can deflect balls from the ball return back into our goal is completely legal as long as the ball does not go more than 3 inches into that mecanism.
You could build a robot which could easily change the course of the game.
Now im going to point out the major flaw with this tactic, and the reason that it wont be a winning strategy.
Flaw: When not in the finale period, it is 100% legal to reach up and knock that robot off the tower.
Also, if you do your job too well, it will be difficult to get all the balls back into play on time, if you had more than 5 balls cycling @ once it could be difficult to get them back into game @ sure.
I for one, am planning for both parts of it and i will love to see some of what you guys pull off.
-Matt B

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Matthew2c4u

Flaw: When not in the finale period, it is 100% legal to reach up and knock that robot off the tower.

If you do damage, and especially if it happens more than once, I'd guess that you get a few yellow cards under <G36>. It's possible, if you're blatant enough (read: stupid enough in how you do it), that you get a penalty and/or red card under <G38-A>, <G37-C-V> notwithstanding.

Worse, if you really didn't plan for it, you're going to get a robot slamming into the top of yours. They can't be penalized, either--YOU knocked them down onto you! If you aren't strong enough to deflect them off of your robot, or agile enough to dodge them as they come down, you could be in a world of hurt.

Yes, it is legal to try to do this. Yes, you'd probably get away with it if you didn't do damage. Yes, you'd draw a penalty if you didn't do it right, and even a red card if you really messed up your try at knocking them off. Yes, you could damage your own robot if you really, really messed up. Do the risks outweigh the benefits? You decide.

And, knowing that teams are going to try this, teams that try this will design to be, shall we say, tough to get off the bar unless they want to come down.

[Chris is me]

I've got to say there are much better counters to this strategy, if it ever appears in a game, than to focus on the robot that isn't doing anything. It's a 3 on 2 match, I'm sure you'll figure something out.

[Jstack14]

Originally Posted by Matthew2c4u

Flaw: When not in the finale period, it is 100% legal to reach up and knock that robot off the tower.
Also, if you do your job too well, it will be difficult to get all the balls back into play on time, if you had more than 5 balls cycling @ once it could be difficult to get them back into game @ sure.
I for one, am planning for both parts of it and i will love to see some of what you guys pull off.
-Matt B

The biggest flaw is it requires your team to score...
and as stated below it will be 2 on 3.

I think the biggest challenge will be getting balls in your goal first, then after this will dominate,

[Matthew2c4u]

Originally Posted by EricH

If you do damage, and especially if it happens more than once, I'd guess that you get a few yellow cards under <G36>. It's possible, if you're blatant enough (read: stupid enough in how you do it), that you get a penalty and/or red card under <G38-A>, <G37-C-V> notwithstanding.

Worse, if you really didn't plan for it, you're going to get a robot slamming into the top of yours. They can't be penalized, either--YOU knocked them down onto you! If you aren't strong enough to deflect them off of your robot, or agile enough to dodge them as they come down, you could be in a world of hurt.

Yes, it is legal to try to do this. Yes, you'd probably get away with it if you didn't do damage. Yes, you'd draw a penalty if you didn't do it right, and even a red card if you really messed up your try at knocking them off. Yes, you could damage your own robot if you really, really messed up. Do the risks outweigh the benefits? You decide.

And, knowing that teams are going to try this, teams that try this will design to be, shall we say, tough to get off the bar unless they want to come down.

I think Team Update 4 shows us the tolerance for that strategy.
I think that attacking the climbing robot is going to be given alot of leeway, but i dont know how it will be called honestly.
Most likely overpowering that team will be possible, but someone who does this well will be worth the loss of an active robot.
<G-37 C V> offers alot of blatent protection, but you definitly need to be aware of what your doing.

[cooldude8181]

This is an amazing idea, and i hope someone will try it so I can see it in action.

[IdaNeStr3088]

Great Idea!!
I was thinking about the same idea my self during thr kick-off. I wanted to do a "roof" to the robot that will return balls to the direction you want to and also will help other robots to climb on you so they will be able to get to the tower. Now we are tring to develop this system so we will be able to use t if we want to but we are not counting only on this, we are also conting on the other systems we want to develpo - this will be a system for backup.

-Idan KOB #3088

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Matthew2c4u

I think Team Update 4 shows us the tolerance for that strategy.
I think that attacking the climbing robot is going to be given alot of leeway, but i dont know how it will be called honestly.
Most likely overpowering that team will be possible, but someone who does this well will be worth the loss of an active robot.
<G-37 C V> offers alot of blatent protection, but you definitly need to be aware of what your doing.

Exactly. It's legal, unless and until you deliver damage. Once you start damaging them, you're pretty much gone.

It's worth it to defend them, as long as you aren't totally stupid about doing it.

[ThirteenOfTwo]

Keep in mind that this isn't going to be able to score on its own, at least not with a passive mechanism. Unless, of course, you can build a ramp that can turn a ball around and imbue it with enough momentum to go 22 feet diagonally and then up 8 inches on the ramp in front of the goal. So, if you're just passing to your front field bot, you give away any shot at scoring balls that they score, while they will likely return at least a few of the ones that you try to (by kicking balls back to midfield). Over time, this becomes less effective. Also, you have a problem with the poles being out of the way.

[kborer22]

people keep referring this a "loophole" strategy and saying that this is not how the game is "intended" to be played; i personally think this is where innovation and thinking outside the box can take really take flight. Not only are you thinking about different types robots but also different ways to approach this difficult engineering problem. IF FIRST wanted everyone to build kicking (or robots of similar type) then they would have said so, that's the beauty of this program, leaving the door open for anything that is within the rules, which in this particular case have been given the go-ahead by FIRST/GDC.