Blocking the lane with an ubertube in autonomous

[PAR_WIG1350]

Originally Posted by WizenedEE

Last year we just threw some surgical tubing to bounce balls away. I guess that did take a lot of work though, because people kept wasting time "stress testing" it by playing pinball.

I don't particularly like the idea of changing the rules mid-competition, but this really is unacceptable. We're supposed to be graciously professional -- we have build workshops on kickoff so that everyone can go to competition with something, and we all try to help each other out as much as we can.

However, if an experienced team makes the (flawed) design decision to not floor-load (which happens, we thought that no tubes at all would be on the floor), they would just waste all that work they did to make an arm completely? Seriously, it's a real shame if a team spends a ton of work on something and then can't use it, and because of this "cheap trick," it might have all been for naught (of course, not all teams will do it...)

Also to the people that are saying that this strategy is legal: Yes, that is the point of the thread. The author is saying that it IS legal and it SHOULD BE illegal. No amount of saying that they made a less-than-perfect design decision can negate the fact that they deserve to get something.

Even teams with less than perfect designs get something, often they learn something and try not to repeat the same mistakes in the future, but the teams with better designs will usually get more, of course they deserve it for working hard on a robot and succeeding. All designs are technically less than perfect, that is just how things work.

[Garret]

From this thread it seems apparent that some people here think that any team can build a great robot that is as good as their own and anything less is a design failure.

I have been noticing a trend in FRC that I find quite disturbing, that trend is how competitive it has become, with teams focusing on how to hinder an opponent's robot (this is different than defense) rather than optimize their own. To me this whole idea seems contradictory to Gracious Professionalism, simply because the intent is to inhibit other teams from doing well, not by building a necessarily better robot but by using a "loophole" in the rules.

I am sad to see that people now see FIRST as a competition to WIN by any means necessary. I don't understand how people in FIRST, especially mentors, can be so focused on winning.

It doesn't matter for my team (our robot floor loads), but if if I were on a team with a robot that couldn't floorload I would be upset to have people here are calling something I worked hard on a flawed or inferior design or even a mistake. I am appalled by this "new" culture that has developed in FIRST.

Maybe I am wrong for thinking so highly of FIRST's values and the people involved with FIRST. In my opinion such a tactic shouldn't even be considered, again that's my opinion

[Grim Tuesday]

Originally Posted by Garret

From this thread it seems apparent that some people here think that any team can build a great robot that is as good as their own and anything less is a design failure.

I have been noticing a trend in FRC that I find quite disturbing, that trend is how competitive it has become, with teams focusing on how to hinder an opponent's robot (this is different than defense) rather than optimize their own. To me this whole idea seems contradictory to Gracious Professionalism, simply because the intent is to inhibit other teams from doing well, not by building a necessarily better robot but by using a "loophole" in the rules.

I am sad to see that people now see FIRST as a competition to WIN by any means necessary. I don't understand how people in FIRST, especially mentors, can be so focused on winning.

It doesn't matter for my team (our robot floor loads), but if if I were on a team with a robot that couldn't floorload I would be upset to have people here are calling something I worked hard on a flawed or inferior design or even a mistake. I am appalled by this "new" culture that has developed in FIRST.

Maybe I am wrong for thinking so highly of FIRST's values and the people involved with FIRST. In my opinion such a tactic shouldn't even be considered, again that's my opinion

I disagree. I consider blocking the lane with an ubertube to be a smart strategy.

It is similar to saying that it is unfair for teams who decided not to do a minibot, while they fully knew how much the point value was. It's a mistake, learn from it.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Garret

From this thread it seems apparent that some people here think that any team can build a great robot that is as good as their own and anything less is a design failure.

Great robots are rare. The discussion here is about a failure to account for a specific strategy.

Originally Posted by Garret

I have been noticing a trend in FRC that I find quite disturbing, that trend is how competitive it has become, with teams focusing on how to hinder an opponent's robot (this is different than defense) rather than optimize their own. To me this whole idea seems contradictory to Gracious Professionalism, simply because the intent is to inhibit other teams from doing well, not by building a necessarily better robot but by using a "loophole" in the rules.

Competition, in and of itself, is niether good nor bad. It can sharpen peoples skills and inspire some to greatness. To not be competitive is to become stagnant.

You say hindering an opponent is different from playing defense, but both inhibit an opponents scoring. I'd like to understand what you consider acceptable actions that inhibit scoring and what actions you deem 'ungracious'.

The strategy proposed here is not a 'loophole' but rather an inevitability. There will eventually be tubes in the feederlane, what is wrong with planning for that (both happening to you and causing it to happen to your opponents?).

Originally Posted by Garret

I am sad to see that people now see FIRST as a competition to WIN by any means necessary. I don't understand how people in FIRST, especially mentors, can be so focused on winning.

I have seen no 'win by any means' posts here.

This is a competition and the goal of a competition is to win. That said, it's how you go about attaining that goal that determines the measure of the person/team.

To not do my best shows dishonor to my opponent, thus I will do all I can (on the field) to best my opponent, and then help him overcome any difficulties off the field.

Originally Posted by Garret

It doesn't matter for my team (our robot floor loads), but if if I were on a team with a robot that couldn't floorload I would be upset to have people here are calling something I worked hard on a flawed or inferior design or even a mistake. I am appalled by this "new" culture that has developed in FIRST.

I would be more upset losing matches because someone DIDN'T TELL ME my robot had a flaw. Knowing that my robot has a flaw allows me to start looking into creating a 'fix' for that 'flaw'.

I'm appalled that you wouldn't tell a team if you saw a flaw in their robot.

Originally Posted by Garret

Maybe I am wrong for thinking so highly of FIRST's values and the people involved with FIRST. In my opinion such a tactic shouldn't even be considered, again that's my opinion

The tactic will happen. Discussing it puts it in the public spotlight so that teams can prepare for dealing with said tactic.

One last thing, Why should a tactic that is not barred by the rules not be considered? Had the GDC not wanted this tactic they would have disallowed it in the rules (or in the updates).

[Teched3]

This is a legal and viable strategy. However, if you have a manipulator that can "shoot" a Ubertube without breaking the lane plane, and program your robot in autonomous to do that, why wouldn't you just score on a high peg? there will be plenty of game pieces on the floor during teleop that could, and will, wind up in the lane. This game has been designed to emphasize offense. It's hard to be defensive when you're behind. Scoring during autonomous can give an alliance huge advantage at the start of a match. Then, there are two other partners to contend with as well that can help clear the lane.
PS The lead robot (175,1519, and 176) at GSR, didn't didn't pick up from the floor during quals or elims, seeded 3rd, and then went on to win the Regional.

[Gary Dillard]

I started this thread because I observed a strategy that I thought was illegal, but after reading the rules I saw that it was not. Perhaps the GDC intended it otherwise, but they were pretty specific in their rules and clearly did not address this.

We have a slot feeder. After watching this strategy I didn't consider that they should change the rules for me. I starting thinking about what we need to do to counter that strategy. Defense has always been part of the game, frequently limited to different degrees, but the one year that everyone was on the same team with no defense was IMHO the worst game that we've had. The game is not just to design a robot to perform a task; it is to design a robot to perform a task with other robots either helping you or hindering you. That is part of the requirement. It has nothing to do with gracious professionalism.

[Warren Boudreau]

I didn't have time to read the whole thread, but I have noted that if you have one round tube in a lane, it is a problem.

But if you have two tubes in a lane, they are easier to move. They kind of stand up when you hit them together.

If somebody puts one in your lane, put one of your own in the lane.

Then you can get closer to the feeder station.

At least it's worth a try.

Oh darn, there I go giving away the secret.

Enjoy.