Robot Diversity

[WJF2011]

If they had taken out the 3" rule this year everyone could have probably used last years robot with some modifications.

[PingPongPerson]

I think that one of the major problems with this years game is the fact that the robots are encouraged to go under the tunnel. This has caused almost all teams to build a short, box type robot. It made the game very uninteresting, and there were no radical designs that I saw .

[kenavt]

I have to agree with Nigel... the fact that there are a few different types of robots (not a lot) that mesh together to encourage teamwork. For example, a great teammate for our team to co-ordinate with (with our focus on middle-zone play and ball deflector) would be an excellent far zone scorer like 2771 or 910 at MSC.

In alliance selection, you have to go out to find who compliments your team the best, rather than who is the best at the game, period. It allows for in-depth strategy and teamwork, which I think is FTW.

[rulesall2]

Originally Posted by WJF2011

I actually disagree with you, the veteran teams and previous year's winners are dominating this year, absolutely. 2007 saw less veteran and usual winners doing well which is why i loved it. Think 1114, 217, 67, 148 and so on.

I disagree, the annual winners continue to dominate, and will continue to dominate in the near future. However, this year has been an off year for more teams than normal, and it has thrown traditional winners for a loop. This the the first time since 2002 that 175 and 111 haven't won a regional, (only the second time in both of their histories.) If anything, this game has seen the most amount of rookies and under the radar teams show the FIRST community what they're made of.

The GDC did a great job of making the design this year up to the teams imaginations, but at the same time they gave constraints that kept the competition realistic to the actual engineering process. And as always, once we got to competition there was the standard, "Why on earth were we not smart enough to think of that?"

IMHO, this year had a great diversity of bots built around multiple strategies and interpretations of the rules and the end result was one of the most memorable games and exciting games. I felt this year, more than ever, to win, strategy, scouting, and robot design were equally important in order to be successful (minus the extreme cases like 1114, 217, and 469.)

[AmoryG]

Originally Posted by WJF2011

In my opinion, the quality of the game created by the GDC is directly reflected by the diversity of the robots that tackle it. In 2007, diversity ran very high due to the un-forseen nature of the game. Overdrive had slightly less diversity. Then Lunacy came along and had a roughly 4-type system: dumpers, shooters, shumpers, collectors. This year's game, Breakaway, has about the same amount of diversity or even less with 4 types: kickers, shovers, loopers, and mainly-hangers. Loopers and mainly hangers are rare types, which makes this even less diverse.

My question: Do you think that first has done enough to force creativity, "thinking outside the box", and diversity among robots, or should they do more?

In an attempt to popularize has the GDC given up some of the awesome design differences that really can inspire kids and force progress.

What are your thoughts, comments, anything on the subject?

Coming up with a design for the competition and actually engineering that design are very different things, but both require creativity to accomplish. The GDC I think has given us plenty to consider, with the bump, the 3 inch rule, the tower, etc. Many teams have come up with designs that look similar, but a lot of them are really quite different. You may have a ball roller or a vacuum, and an arm that winches itself up the tower, lifts itself off the floor by making the robot expand downwards, grabs the tower and rotates the robot's frame so that it is above the underpass, etc.

FIRST has come up with a very exciting competition this year, and while many robots are more similar than they are different, the design challenges of this year have pushed a lot of teams to their very limits. Even if robots are not so original, there are many new things teams had to consider this year, like how to use the camera, and strategies centering around this year's scoring system. Deep down, I think as much, or even a lot more thought went into many robots this year than in the previous two.

[smurfgirl]

Originally Posted by WJF2011

This year's game, Breakaway, has about the same amount of diversity or even less with 4 types: kickers, shovers, loopers, and mainly-hangers.

These categories describe types of robots, but if you look at the robots in any category the actual implementations are very different.

For example, look at robots which try to hang or otherwise score bonus points. I've seen many methods of this- at the Boston Regional, for example, team 1100 latched on to the platform of the tower and flipped themselves onto it, team 383 rolled themselves up the poles on the side, team 3280 used a tape measure hook, team 230 got on the bump, drove towards the tower, and then used a hook over the top bar to lift themselves, some teams used pneumatics and some just slowly climbed a steel rope, some teams latched on to a pole and flipped themselves up, etc. Then I've also heard of teams with ramps so an alliance partner can drive onto the platform, and other cool ideas beyond this. I've probably seen more than 10 distinct implementations of this "hanging" concept.

You can take this example with any other part of the robot- there are many distinct drive systems and ball scoring mechanisms on the robots. There are not many robots that are "the same", even though they may serve similar functions in the game (scoring game pieces, playing defense, hanging, etc.) If you'll be at the Championship this year, you should make some time to visit the pits and ask teams about everything hiding behind their bumpers. You'll be in for a pleasant surprise... plus you might make some new friends!

[DivisionDragons]

I feel that if the GDC made hanging worth more points, say 4 or 5, there would have been much more diversity. Maybe I'm biased because my team's robot was a hanger(And quite "out of the box" as well), but I felt that even a mediocre robot could score more than 2 points a round.

[thefro526]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

I still see a lot of diversity in implementations. This is hidden by the bumpers. It makes every single robot look similar in my opinion.

I agree with this completely. From 50 feet away, most "box" robots look the same, when they're not moving, of course.

Once the robots are moving, the diversity is obvious.