|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: you make the call...
Posted by Tom Wible.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]
Coach on team #131, chaos, from central high school manchester and osram-sylvania. Posted on 7/17/99 9:00 AM MST In Reply to: you make the call... posted by Joe Johnson on 7/16/99 5:43 PM MST: I as many of you know I have weighed in on this topic before and created quite a stir. I agree that strategies based on tipping are not in the spirit of F.I.R.S.T.. Look at the majority of the robots out there and you will see robots designed to carry out the tasks that the game required. All the while maintaining a low center of gravity, and maximizing traction for PUSHING. Some may have even decided to incorporate a device to BLOCK an opponent's basket from raising. Now it seems that some teams were able to use thier 'floppy picker' for another purpose, like grabbing onto baskets, and then pulling over other robots. This in my opinion is tipping. Also crossing the line IMHO are robots that threaten tipping by pushing on another robots high point to hold them at bay. The result of the referee's not calling these tactics are that most teams will design their robots to be more aggressive. I though we were supposed to win the matches by offensive tactics. Raising the most floppies, getting control of the puck, etc. Attacking other team's robots, and inflicting damage creates a lot of bad feelings. I think the Bengi-Bot explanation sums it all up. Basket BLOCKING is OK, robots battling for the puck may be toppled IN THE PROCESS, belligerent attacking is a no-no, intentionally damaging another robot(assuming the other robot was reasonably robust) is a no-no. You can believe me, as a result of the allowance of aggressive attacks on robots, next year's teams will be focusing on keeping their robot alive, and less on designing reasonable mechanisms to carry out the tasks that the game requires. Did you really think that teams would build a basket that could survive an attack, just to raise a couple of pounds of floppies? I am sorry to say that I think the integrity of the game has been compromised here. I am thinking now,(going into 2000) that our team will have to take the rules with a grain of salt. Build it to play, but incorporate devices which may cross the line, and see if we can get away with using them for 'getting on the puck'. It doesn't take much imagination to come up with a few tricky ideas. Our team this year did none of that, proud to say, but I feel that many will. I am still a firm beleiver in the spirit of F.I.R.S.T., play like your grandmother were watching. Tom Wible Team C.H.A.O.S. |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: you make the call...
Posted by Jacob Etter.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]
Student on team #177, Bobcats, from South Windsor High Schoool and IFC & Onsi. Posted on 7/17/99 11:19 AM MST In Reply to: Re: you make the call... posted by Tom Wible on 7/17/99 9:00 AM MST: the ultimate goal is to win the compition, so why would you not do whatever it took to win, let the refs decide what is agianst the rules. first wants to be a sport, so act like one. in football i wouldn't hit somebody softly so they wern't hurt. i want to try to injure them, take them out of the game, within the rules of course. that is what will help my team. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Robot Sport
Posted by Andy Baker.
Engineer on team #45, TechnoKats, from Kokomo High School and Delphi Automotive Systems. Posted on 7/18/99 8:59 AM MST In Reply to: Re: you make the call... posted by Jacob Etter on 7/17/99 11:19 AM MST: : : first wants to be a sport, so act like one. I'm in agreement with you here. Everyone's interpretation of the rules will always be a bit different. : in football i wouldn't hit somebody softly so they wern't hurt. I'm still with you... if you're gonna play the sport, you should be able to handle the contact. : i want to try to injure them, take them out of the game, within the rules of course. that is what will help my team. WHOA! Hold it right there. You should never try to injure someone, whether you're playing on the gridiron or battling with robots. You might want to re-think this one... after 16 years of playing football (grade school, middle school, high school, college, and semi-pro), not one coach ever directed me to injure an opposing teammate. I'll admit that there was temptations to do that, but the intent to injure should absolutely not be there. You should play the game within the rules... but not to maim. just my $0.02 Andy B. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
bouncing babies
Posted by Daniel.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]
Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames. Posted on 7/18/99 11:02 AM MST In Reply to: Robot Sport posted by Andy Baker on 7/18/99 8:59 AM MST: As much as I hate agreeing with Andy... =) We need to remember that football players and small babies bounce a lot better than high school students. We need to remember that if we drop these kids, they might not get back up again. I love a little bit of rough play (I'm sure you can tell from my team's bot), but rough play -- as Andy said -- should never be aimed at injury. Be careful not to take these teams out of the game forever. -Daniel |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Robot Sport
Posted by michael bastoni.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]
Coach on team #23, PNTA, from Plymouth North High School and Boston Edison Co. Posted on 7/18/99 12:51 PM MST In Reply to: Robot Sport posted by Andy Baker on 7/18/99 8:59 AM MST: Deliberate intention to destroy is where it crosses the line... Remember Karate Kid...the bad guy was told to 'Sweep the leg'..... and that's where it goes into the 'Dark Side'... The only point I'd like to place on the table is this....Robots are not people...they can and SHOULD be built for rugged interaction. If you fear your robot breaking in a competition that clearly encourages rough aggressive interaction...then take your robot to the malls and Jr. High schools and other exhibition venues....do not take it to the nationals cause neither you or your robot belong there... (Tough guy ol'mr.b,ain't he?) Robots WILL get knocked down within the rules...don't blame the other guy if yours breaks...fix it, or build it better....after all isn't the point to build the best robot competitor? A flimsy robot has no place crying foul...Look at the robots that won this year...THEY ALL ARE RUGGED or they have great pit crews who took the time to build spare parts...I actually believe that a robot could not expect to break the Clinton Robot even if it tried to do so deliberately..That's one small reason why Clinton was top seed at Rumble, won the Ct. Regional and did very well at the nationals...same for the other winners...look at 3D Services..good grief...that machine was a warrior. We should emulate these teams. I urge all of you kids...and adults....don't think of yourselves as 'Victims' If your machine breaks... fix it...or build it better. I know this will sound harsh to some..and if I offend anyone I'm sorry as that is not the intent....But gosh, this is about good engineering.. and robustness is a quality I feel is inherent in well designed machines. As is preparation (such as spare parts for susceptible sub assemblies). Like Formula I racing...Do you know why cars don't 'hit' one another in F1....it's obviously because there is the MADD principle at work.. Mutual Assured Destruction. Remember that if you are built well, then the attacking robot must weigh the risk of engaging your machine... If you are a flimsy basket raiser...heck..your fair game in a fair battle. And let's face it...mounting the puck is really 'King of the Hill' and it's going to get rough...real rough... So let's not stick our heads in the sand on this one...let's simply agree that other than 'Deliberate destruction'...hey it's a rough game we've chosen to play.... I can take the hit's I might be engendering on this comment... so bring it on intelligent and informed students, engineers, teachers and parents....=) Mr.b |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
i'm on your side
Posted by colleen.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]
Other on team #126, No, from what team I haven't decided yet and I don't know how I will!. Posted on 7/18/99 10:33 PM MST In Reply to: Re: Robot Sport posted by michael bastoni on 7/18/99 12:51 PM MST: my longwinded message is posted at the top of the page for your reading pleasure- but i must say i agree and the point i made up top- i agree, FIRST is a rough sport but the game isn't all about scoring. Everyone should (has to) score to win. Everyone has the right to score. But every other robot has the right to take that away. Build a robot that can defend your right to score and win- that's what i say. (and thank you Mr.B. for the compliments on the 'bot- having a strong bot was the only thing that allowed us to score and do so well- we would have been out of the game quick had we not.. thanks :-) |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
i'm on your side
Posted by colleen.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]
Other on team #126, No, from what team I haven't decided yet and I don't know how I will!. Posted on 7/18/99 10:33 PM MST In Reply to: Re: Robot Sport posted by michael bastoni on 7/18/99 12:51 PM MST: my longwinded message is posted at the top of the page for your reading pleasure- but i must say i agree and the point i made up top- i agree, FIRST is a rough sport but the game isn't all about scoring. Everyone should (has to) score to win. Everyone has the right to score. But every other robot has the right to take that away. Build a robot that can defend your right to score and win- that's what i say. (and thank you Mr.B. for the compliments on the 'bot- having a strong bot was the only thing that allowed us to score and do so well- we would have been out of the game quick had we not.. thanks :-) |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
MrB Vs. JJ
Posted by Joe Johnson.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]
Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems. Posted on 7/19/99 7:45 PM MST In Reply to: i'm on your side posted by colleen on 7/18/99 10:33 PM MST: To all the anything goes as long as you are not intentially trying to break anyone crowd: I am afraid I disagree. There is legal and there is lousy. I guess that I have a dislike of a strategy that is more than likely to cause an opponent robot to break. Torriod Terror (the year of the tipper) was a good case in point. While it was legal to tip, I would venture to guess that more than half of the machines that were legally tipped didn't answer the bell for their next round (or if they did were hobbled beyond hope, a la TJ2 in the finals at the Rumble at the Rock II). In 6 weeks, it is just to d--- easy to build a brute with a muscular spatula rather than an elegant machine that can pushes the engineering envelope AND take the Nestee Plunge onto a hardwood floor while doing it. In my humble opinion, flipping/tipping/etc. was/is legal but lousy. Be that as it may, we are willing to play the game, we just want to know the rules before we get to our first regional. If FIRST is to become Robot Wars, so be it. We will just make sure that we fall softly... ...and carry a big stick ;-) Bring on the 2000 games... Joe J. L |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Psychic
Posted by Tom Wible.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]
Coach on team #131, chaos, from central high school manchester and osram-sylvania. Posted on 7/19/99 8:32 PM MST In Reply to: MrB Vs. JJ posted by Joe Johnson on 7/19/99 7:45 PM MST: Way to go Joe! I think you just said what I've been thinking all along, but in a more eloquent way. Most of the people I talk to about this issue, agree: if we are here to tip, let us know. Don't tell us after we've built the 'bot, that tipping would be a major part of the game. A lot of money and time go into these things to change the philosophy midstream. The real question is: will next year's rules be open to interpretation? Will tipping be 'not in the spirit' but very present. While I'm on a roll, let me mention another sticky issue that many overlooked. If a robot pins another robot to the rail using the puck, climbs the puck, now the weight of the robot on the puck prevents escape, is that pinning? Just another weird situation that was never really mentioned in the rules. We experienced both sides of that issue this year. Clarification would have been good. It seems that with a new game every year, it is very difficult to write the rules to cover all of the possible situations. F.I.R.S.T. does do an excellent job though. As well as the judges at Rumble, a very good job. 'Nuff said Tom Wible (psyched for 2000) |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mr.B does not vs JJ....he actually agrees with him on one point
Posted by michael bastoni.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]
Coach on team #23, PNTA, from Plymouth North High School and Boston Edison Co. Posted on 7/19/99 8:48 PM MST In Reply to: MrB Vs. JJ posted by Joe Johnson on 7/19/99 7:45 PM MST: JJ You are right....six weeks is not enough time...that is and has always been the problem.... Elegance is not ruled out by vigorous interaction...and many of us had self righting bots this year and in years past in anticipation of vigorous interaction...Self righting or robust design is part of the elegance of design...don't you agree? Yes TJ was badly broken in 96'...but let's agree right now that this years rumble with machines going down and then getting right back up was really quite breathtaking....so we've matured..nobody in the upper brackets are building bots that break easy...and the game gets more exciting. Wether it's six weeks...or six years....flimsy design is flimsy design. And wether it's intentional or not...chances are your robot will fall many times during it's useful life...so don't build tall reaching arms out of light flimsy materials... In an effort to clarify this point I ask that you consider sailboat racing...there are men and women who sneer at it...six knots ain't racing they say...but when ALL the boats are prepared to compete at six knots then the margins are close and the game exciting...and lightly built boats break up in knarly seas... So it is with vigorous interaction of robots...hey even car makers have admitted that cars get into collisions even though the rules of the road don't permit or encourage vigorous interaction of cars.....heck all I'm hearing is how safe cars are getting...vehicles required by law to sustain collisions not allowed by law... Robot competitions are the same thing...I AM NOT NOR HAVE I EVER SUGGESTED THAT FIRST ADOPT ROBOT WARS MENTALITY...NEVER NO HOW....but I have always maintained the game is rough...and should be played that way. Being knocked down requires that an attacking robot not use it's resources to score...the attacker has chosen an option...an option that caused Truck Town Terror #68 to loose their opportunity to get into the finals in Philly...They chose to ravage our machine in lieu of scoring..and while they handily dragged us all across the carpet...our partner Big Mo #314 went in for the score.....We were ruggedly built...survived the drubbing and went onto the finals....and never looked back or cried foul..we laughed alot about the match...AND THE CROWD LOVED IT. So I do not agree that a pimordial shovel will necessarily win, rather it is a fools errand to design such a machine...but should a team in only six weeks design a robust rugged warrior that can score well and engage other robots...and not break, then I concede that is a well designed and engineered and fabricated machine and it deserves a chance at the title. More than some elegant wisp of a thing that has trouble surviving the shipping to Florida. Lets allow natural selection full reign...like mother nature does..let's not deliberately handcuff our imaginations and potential...It ain't 'Pleasantville' out there on the carpet...it's real life and in living color....and we don't know what's going to happen...that's the exciting part if we are not afraid to let it happen...otherwise let's agree to not have an interactive competition...let's parade our lightly built elegant machines before the crowd, one at a time...display there pedigree and training for the crowd like show dogs...and await the applause meters to determine the winner...and nobody gets hurt...no bad feelings...no need to make spare parts. I am not positioning myself as your advisary on these points JJ...I respect your POV...I am only throwing this out, like others, in the hope of building concensus....something this page was designed to do... And something FIRST could benefit from. I love you Joe... Mr.B |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
JJ weds MrB at FIRST love fest ;-)
Posted by Joe Johnson.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]
Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems. Posted on 7/20/99 7:27 PM MST In Reply to: Mr.B does not vs JJ....he actually agrees with him on one point posted by michael bastoni on 7/19/99 8:48 PM MST: Mr.B, I love you too, man!!! ;-) Just stirring the pot as are you. Joe J. P.S. For all the times you and I have gone round and round on these forums, we ought to number our various points for future reference: I'd say '13!' You would smartly retort, '27!!' I would calmy fire back, '7, 15, and 47.' and so on. It could save a lot of typing ;-) |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: you make the call...
Posted by P.J. Baker.
Engineer on team #177, Bobcat Robotics, from South Windsor High School and International Fuel Cells. Posted on 7/19/99 6:15 AM MST In Reply to: you make the call... posted by Joe Johnson on 7/16/99 5:43 PM MST: I was coaching the Bobcat (team 177) during the elimination round matches against 157 and 23 that caused us to get booed. Our strategy was within the rules of the game and in the spirit of FIRST. Rule V5 states: Strategies aime solely at the destruction, damage, tipping over, or entanglement of opponent's robots are not in the spirit of the FIRST robotics competition and wil not be allowed. Accidental tipping is not considered damaging and will be allowed at the discretion of the referees. Our strategy was to prevent scoring by holding down the basket of the Aztech. With our arm inside, but not entangled with, their basket, they could not raise their floppies. This left them with little choice but to try to get away from the Bobcat. When they tried to do this in the first match, they were tipped over. If they had stayed put, they would have stayed upright, but stil would have lost the match. I think that the booing occured in the second match, when it became obvious that we were going to use the same strategy. It didn't work this time though, and we lost. We won the third, and moved onto the quarterfinal against 126 and 45. We used the same strategy in that round, but lost 2-0. In the quarter final round, I think that we were knocked over by 126 at least three times while trying to hold down their basket, much to the delight of the crowd. Holding down a basket put us in just as precarious a position as it did the robot we were holding down. The difference between the our first round win and our second round loss was most likely Colleen, she was just too good for us, again. I thought that all five elimination matches we played were very exciting and a lot of fun to watch. I think that means that they were in the spirit of FIRST. As far as being close to the line goes, we were but we did not cross it. After the first match against 157/23 they protestes to the refs and the refs came to speak with us. They said it was fine to hold down the basket, but that if they managed to raise their basket we would have to leave them alone unless they were trying to mount the puck. We considered this to be the laying down of the law, and were not going to break it. |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: you make the call...
Posted by Jesse Wilkinson.
Student on team #177, Bobcat Robotics, from South Windsor High School and Intetrnational Fuel Cells. Posted on 7/25/99 4:59 PM MST In Reply to: you make the call... posted by Joe Johnson on 7/16/99 5:43 PM MST: I am one of the drivers for team 177. I have been a member of the team for the past four years. Over the past four years we have lost matches because we have been bullied around. We have also won matches while beeing bullied around. At Rumble at the Rock, we were not trying to harm any other machines. Our strategy for the most part was to prevent teams from eather getting onto the puck, or from raising above 8 feet. If we were such bullies with the strategies we used, then what about Truck Town Terror, or team 1, 3 dimentional services. Why aren't their strategies so horrible? I do remember hearing 'After today, these machines are nothing but spair parts.' That was what Mr. Bastoni said. This wasn't the cause of our choice of strategy. We weren't the only destructive team in this competition. Why haven't the other teams been menchined. Windsor Locks and Hamilton Standard Aces High was also booed. I honestly don't think we were so horrible. Jesse, Team 177 |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
Discussion is good
Posted by Joe Johnson.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]
Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems. Posted on 7/25/99 9:00 PM MST In Reply to: Re: you make the call... posted by Jesse Wilkinson on 7/25/99 4:59 PM MST: To 177 and to all who participated in the 'You Make the Call' message: My intent was not to pick on team 177 (a team that I have TONS of respect for). I was mostly using it as an opportunity to discuss an important issue. I was not in Philly, but I heard from folks that Truck Town Terror was brutal there. Also, I did not see the match that G-Force got DQ'ed. I was using an example of rough defense that I did see to start a discussion. From what I am hearing now, the ref's made the rules very clear and they enforced them pretty fairly as best I can judge now. No offense intended. Joe J. |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
MR.B does not Vs JJ...he actually agrees with him on one point
Posted by michael bastoni.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]
Coach on team #23, PNTA, from Plymouth North High School and Boston Edison Co. Posted on 7/29/99 3:33 PM MST In Reply to: Discussion is good posted by Joe Johnson on 7/25/99 9:00 PM MST: JJ You are right....six weeks is not enough time...that is and has always been the problem.... Elegance is not ruled out by vigorous interaction...and many of us had self righting bots this year and in years past in anticipation of vigorous interaction...Self righting or robust design is part of the elegance of design...don't you agree? Yes TJ was badly broken in 96'...but let's agree right now that this years rumble with machines going down and then getting right back up was really quite breathtaking....so we've matured..nobody in the upper brackets are building bots that break easy...and the game gets more exciting. Wether it's six weeks...or six years....flimsy design is flimsy design. And wether it's intentional or not...chances are your robot will fall many times during it's useful life...so don't build tall reaching arms out of light flimsy materials... In an effort to clarify this point I ask that you consider sailboat racing...there are men and women who sneer at it...six knots ain't racing they say...but when ALL the boats are prepared to compete at six knots then the margins are close and the game exciting...and lightly built boats break up in knarly seas... So it is with vigorous interaction of robots...hey even car makers have admitted that cars get into collisions even though the rules of the road don't permit or encourage vigorous interaction of cars.....heck all I'm hearing is how safe cars are getting...vehicles required by law to sustain collisions not allowed by law... Robot competitions are the same thing...I AM NOT NOR HAVE I EVER SUGGESTED THAT FIRST ADOPT ROBOT WARS MENTALITY...NEVER NO HOW....but I have always maintained the game is rough...and should be played that way. Being knocked down requires that an attacking robot not use it's resources to score...the attacker has chosen an option...an option that caused Truck Town Terror #68 to loose their opportunity to get into the finals in Philly...They chose to ravage our machine in lieu of scoring..and while they handily dragged us all across the carpet...our partner Big Mo #314 went in for the score.....We were ruggedly built...survived the drubbing and went onto the finals....and never looked back or cried foul..we laughed alot about the match...AND THE CROWD LOVED IT. So I do not agree that a pimordial shovel will necessarily win, rather it is a fools errand to design such a machine...but should a team in only six weeks design a robust rugged warrior that can score well and engage other robots...and not break, then I concede that is a well designed and engineered and fabricated machine and it deserves a chance at the title. More than some elegant wisp of a thing that has trouble surviving the shipping to Florida. Lets allow natural selection full reign...like mother nature does..let's not deliberately handcuff our imaginations and potential...It ain't 'Pleasantville' out there on the carpet...it's real life and in living color....and we don't know what's going to happen...that's the exciting part if we are not afraid to let it happen...otherwise let's agree to not have an interactive competition...let's parade our lightly built elegant machines before the crowd, one at a time...display there pedigree and training for the crowd like show dogs...and await the applause meters to determine the winner...and nobody gets hurt...no bad feelings...no need to make spare parts. I am not positioning myself as your advisary on these points JJ...I respect your POV...I am only throwing this out, like others, in the hope of building concensus....something this page was designed to do... And something FIRST could benefit from. I love you Joe... Mr.B |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| 2003 matches played | shyra1353 | General Forum | 5 | 12-11-2003 20:20 |
| 11 matches played... ...some thoughts... | Joe Johnson | Regional Competitions | 16 | 08-03-2003 10:29 |
| Re: Trying not to seed.... (same wish) | archiver | 2001 | 8 | 24-06-2002 02:36 |
| Throwing matches | archiver | 1999 | 4 | 23-06-2002 22:17 |
| What is the length of time between Qualification matches? | Randy_Ai | Rules/Strategy | 2 | 21-01-2002 16:47 |