Our team this year included a forklift used to lift up other robots and at this point in the season we have pretty much pefected it. all the robots that brag about there great “traction” and brage if there drive sytem is of the ground and that was the idea behind it. please let me know what you think of it. Was this a good idea?
would you pick us as a aliance ?
I would not pick you as an alliance because your robot, rather than seeking an elegant solution to score points, instead attacks other robots, and uses them as other teasm would use goals.
Your strategy could damage another team’s robots beyond repair, and I believe it is not in the spirit of the FIRST events.
The idea is to make a great and elegant solution to mechanical problems, not to play battlebots.
You have wrong game.
Sorry, but that’s how i feel, and since you asked…
you speak such harsh words. although you are right that the idea is to find inovative solutions our ideas as a ROOKIE TEAM that could not spend more that 400$ on our robot made simple and effective use of our robot.
i think that goes against “Gratious Professionalism.” if you’re interrested in destroying other robots, go check out robot wars or battle bots. we don’t play that stuff in FIRST
i asure you our intention was in no way meant as harm. we were not look for battle bots. we like every other team have or weekness’s and used our forks for distruction would be wrong and is not used in that manner.
more robots have been tipped over and damage by other teams than the # of robots we even picked up. we dont inflict any more dammage that any other robot our there
i didn’t intend for my post to sound harmful. i was just saying that if you intending to go out there and purposely damage robots, that would be wrong.
sorry for any misunderstanding…
no problem. any one else want to express any streanght or weekness’s we have please reply
I don’t see it as going against “gracious professionalism”, as long as your objectives are only to temporarily disable, not PERMANENTLY disable, the robots of other teams. I think, however, that unless you’ve truly perfected the forklift operation and know your opposition well enough, you run a greater risk of heavily damaging an opponent robot, so much so that it may be deemed as malicious play.
And as for picking your team for an alliance partner, it would really depend on what other robots get picked—if the robots that get picked are all quick and most have tethers, then I probably wouldn’t pick your team. Teams like #16 (baxter bomb squad) are so quick you probably couldn’t lift 'em up even if you had all the practice in the world, and those with tethers would still score 10 points regardless of having a foot (or wheel) on the ground.
*Originally posted by David Kelly *
**i think that goes against “Gratious Professionalism.” if you’re interrested in destroying other robots, go check out robot wars or battle bots. we don’t play that stuff in FIRST **
BEFORE you all jump on the flaming bandwagon, you should read the rule book.
They purposely added the lifting clause because they wanted a team to do it. As long as you “Handle with care,” they’ll let you do it. If you drop the robot, you get disqualified.
So, if the team that gets lifted, gets damaged, then they get compensated. DQ gives that team 3 times their own points…
Our team (610) robot also has a mechanism for doing something similar. It is a wedge. Basically, we slide the wedge under another robot and it lifts two of the wheels up. There are little claws on the wedge that come up and hook onto the opposing robot’s structure so that they can’t drive off the wedge unless we retract the claws. It works and we haven’t had an incident where we damanged another robot with the wedge yet. But we were afraid to use it after we got a warning cuz our wedge got under a goal. So, in the finals of the Canadian Regional, we tied up the wedge so it wouldn’t come down. The added weight adds to our traction while reducing traction of the wedged robot.
Our intent wasn’t to destroy or damage a robot. In fact, our mechanism for grabbing the goals was the one to cause more damage. Sorry to that team, if you are reading this btw…
I’m sorta angry that FIRST left this so open. Cuz some teams don’t even think of this strategy because they think it is illegal… and they get angry when they see other robots using it. I completely understand. That’s why we don’t use our wedge much. And we probably won’t use it much at the Championship too…
we have not had a problem yet the judge say it is perfectly legal and liked the idea they only tell us to make sure if they are up to be carfull not to spear a robot and damage them otherwise its fine. we dont have a problem with the goal because they just stay down and when there done anything can run over them with no problem we just dont life them when under a goal
I’m new here. I just found this great community. I’m a Systems Engineering Junior participating in my first ever FIRST competition (My team’s third year). I came here planning to lurk, but this thread caught my attention. I just have to throw in my 2 cents…
IMHO, forklifting other robots (safely) IS a very elegant solution to score points. There are three point scoring resources on the field; goals, balls, and the robots themselves. The great majority of teams have completely ignored the 40 point differential and host of added strategical benefits that come along with forklifting opponent robots.
I don’t think this tactic comes anywhere near violating ‘gracious professionalism’ or the spirit of FIRST if done in a non-damaging manner. I think that perhaps some react to it with hostility because they fear and envy such a potentialy powerful tactic.
I can’t wait to see some good lifter bots in action at Nats. Cheers!
-Joel
picking up and moving other robots is a fair and excellent stategy. It is completely within the rules. The only problem with it is, what happens when you make a mistake, and severly damage another teams robot? I thought about this a little but dismissed the idea. I for one am not willing to take risks with other peoples robots. If your robot safely and effectively picks up and moves other robots, I congratulate you. I hope you are prepared to take responsibility for damage caused by your robot, and realize what it might mean to other teams.
Well…
We were all warned that full speed robot collisions would be allowed, would be common, and should be a serious design consideration for this year’s competition. I think there is a fine line between damage caused due to malicious acts and damage caused due to lack of sufficient robustness in design by the ‘victim’.
Note: I’m envisioning potential damage caused by running the forks under the robot to be lifted; not damage caused by dropping a robot.
-Joel
Disclaimer: this post in no way reflects the opinions of SPAM as a whole or any other of it’s members
that being said, if i personally had a robot that i spent 6 weeks creating and you make an offensive maneuver towards my robot (i.e. not trying to block me from a goal or from balls, rather trying to score using my bot) don’t be surprised if i make a few offensive maneuvers in response.
in short: you had better disable me on the first try, cause you won’t get a second try after your forks are laying on the ground…
just my angry 2 cents
George
I’m writing this, because our team’s traction buster does something similar to this forklift. We don’t use ours recklessly whenever we just want to move a robot. We generally only use it to manipulate a robot attached to a goal. It’s simply an effective way to manipulate a robot. And is it really so terrible? We haven’t hurt anyone using it so far. To me it seems like it would cause less dents and burnt motors than just bashing head on with another robot.
I’m interested in hearing the opinions of other teams on these mechanims. Especially the teams that don’t like them. I’m interested in hearing why.
Wow, I’m going to make some new enemies with this post, which is fine by me, I need some new ones anyway. Here it goes, brace thyselves:
#1: XRaVeNX
Claws that grab opposing robot’s structure: What if these claws, in the finals, hit a pneumatics line, basically crippling the other alliance? Non intentional, of course, but in effect taking away their chances, if a key robot was the one you disabled. Don’t give me the “there shouldn’t be a weakest link” story, either. You are taking a major risk, and an error could take out the opposing team, permanently.
#2 tinyfarnsworth (again!)
QUOTE BY tinyfarnsworth: “our ideas as a ROOKIE TEAM that could not spend more that 400$ on our robot made simple and effective use of our robot.” END QUOTE
Would’nt a hook to grab a claw be MUCH easier? You guys went OUT OF YOUR WAY to use other robots as game pieces, which I feel is completely against the spirit of FIRST. The chances of your team, ANY team that lifts other robots to damage other robots is far greater than normal play. Gambling with other people’s time, money, and resources like that is irresponsible, you could put a team out of a competition, and THEIR 6 weeks would be meaningless, in terms of recognition at the competition. FIRST was not meant to be like Battlebots, but with folks like you, we’ll have Carmen Electra at the Nat’s’ in not time, thanks a lot.
#3 Jnadke (becoming like the chapter names of Catch-22, here)
QUOTED FROM Jnadke: “They purposely added the lifting clause because they wanted a team to do it. As long as you “Handle with care,” they’ll let you do it. If you drop the robot, you get disqualified. “
So, if the team that gets lifted gets damaged, then they get compensated. DQ gives that team 3 times their own points…” UNQUOTE
Number 1, who are they, and WHY do they WANT you to do this? And why have’nt I met these mysterious people that think risking another teams robot, that you didnt build, to be encouraged and praised? ANSWER THAT?? or can you…?
Number 2, sure, you get DQ’ed, and if the opposing alliances robot is permanently out of the competition, these points are going to do them real good…as they sit in the bleachers. The risk is their, and by gambling, you jeopardize those you play with in an irresponsible manner.
QUOTED FROM Joel Glidden
”IMHO, forklifting other robots (safely) IS a very elegant solution to score points. There are three point scoring resources on the field; goals, balls, and the robots themselves. The great majority of teams have completely ignored the 40 point differential and host of added strategical benefits that come along with forklifting opponent robots.
I don’t think this tactic comes anywhere near violating ‘gracious professionalism’ or the spirit of FIRST if done in a non-damaging manner. I think that perhaps some react to it with hostility because they fear and envy such a potentialy powerful tactic.”
#4 That’s wonderful, disabling other robots is a very elegant solution, that’s what first is all about. The board of director would never be happier seeing 2 robots lifting up the other 2 and running into their endzone. As for strategic benefits, of course, by taking out ½ the opposing team, you’ll get major benefits. (and I didn’t even have to whip out my calculator for that one, har har har!)
I think George180’s got the idea: This sort of thing IS frowned upon, and I wouldn’t be surprised if relations between fork lifting teams, and other teams suffer.
This all reminds me about 2 years ago, when 303 (decent machine) bashed Chief Delphi (awesome machine) at the J&J Mid Atlantic. I wasn’t on the team at the time, but Delphi’s never been back. Too bad, their robot’s are always awesome. Perhaps someone who was there can tell you more. I only watched a video of it, and I cringed, I BECAME ASHAMED OF MY 303 SHIRT, after watching that video.
If your going to play FIRST the way it was meant to be played, good, we want you here. If you’re going to turn it into Battlebots, play that instead. Using other team’s robots I find to be immoral to the spirit of FIRST, and distasteful as a 2nd year FIRSTer. Play the game nicely, get some balls (pun intended) grab some goals, and give the audience a show. I would take no pride in a robot that wins by disabling others. It is in no way, shape, or form, and elegant solution.
For this post, I will say I am intentionally discouraging this sort of behavior. I think Joe Johnson said that this was perhaps the “End of Elegance” in FIRST. With such support for this loophole of gracious professionalism, I now 100% agree with him. Hopefully the acidic nature of this post won’t send anyone over the edge. (ouch, it burns!)
(Someone out there back me up on this one. After this post, I’m going to need it)
–Ben Mitchell
<<Faint hearts don’t win fair lasses>>
*Originally posted by Ben Mitchell *
**–Ben Mitchell<<Faint hearts don’t win fair lasses>> **
I apolligize for being ambiguous…
I meant to say that FIRST added the new rule. I’m sure they wanted to see someone do it. From what I heard, the referees have been pretty nitpicky with the lifting robots. They’ve kept a close eye on how stable they are with the other bot…
To say this issue isn’t relevant, however, would be wrong. Yes, this must be addressed for next year…
For the most part, you don’t have to lift the robot far off the ground to break traction. If you’re a tall ball bot then there would be some worry, but I’m sure the referees would be more than happy to make the call to deny the lifting, if they see that problems may arise.
*Originally posted by George180 *
**Disclaimer: this post in no way reflects the opinions of SPAM as a whole or any other of it’s membersthat being said, if i personally had a robot that i spent 6 weeks creating and you make an offensive maneuver towards my robot (i.e. not trying to block me from a goal or from balls, rather trying to score using my bot) don’t be surprised if i make a few offensive maneuvers in response.
in short: you had better disable me on the first try, cause you won’t get a second try after your forks are laying on the ground…
just my angry 2 cents
George **
Gee…some people seem to think that having FORKS on your robot automatically violates the idea of “playing fair”…but as I can see now, all it takes is a bad attitude and bad intentions to do that.
I’d rather oppose a robot with forks that intends to play by the rules than with someone who threatens to flatten me should I make a mistake. (whats the difference between the person who intentially mangles a robot by using forks, or by ANY other means…sounds like the pot calling the kettle black to me)
Don’t give me a “self-defence” claim…your message clearly telegraphs that your thinking is premeditated.
Please…
Re-read this thread and then compare it with the one linked below.
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2840
It appears to me that there is a bit of a double standard going on here. The consensus seems to feel that violent collisions on the horizontal are perfectly kosher. But for some reason, the carefully designed and implemented lifting of a robot is taboo. Bogus!
Like I said earlier, all this hostility seems to be the product of fear and envy. Simply putting your robot on the field presents a risk to the other teams’ bots. Virtually every aspect of the game puts robots at risk. We are expected to treat each other with respect and professionalism, but that doesn’t mean we have to say,
“Pardon me. Were you trying to put those balls in this goal? Oh here, let me help you. Good show! I’ll go back to my corner and lose now. Ta-ta.”
A robot lifting strategy is not ungracious. It’s powerful. Next I suppose we’ll hear that 3-goal grabber / lifter / dragger bots are ungracious.
-Joel