My team just finished our second large brainstorming session, and one of the big debates was whether or not it was worth, and if many teams would attempt, to try to get all three robots on the bridge during eliminations at regionals/districts. It might take a lot of time for an alliance to situate themselves correctly so it is ‘balanced,’ which might be better used scoring points through baskets.
What do you guys think? Are teams going to design with the idea of being compact for the ramp in mind? What is your team doing? How is you team planning on pulling down the ramp so you can climb up onto it?
Also, is it worth risking the 20 points from 2 robots for either 0 points due to the ramp being unbalanced, or the 40 points due to all 3 robots being on with the ramp balanced?
It depends on the robots people make. I could say yes, it’s necessary, and then watch as everyone makes long robots that don’t fit three, or I say it won’t happen and there are teams who make small defending robots whose sole purpose is to allow a triple balance in the end. It all depends on what the other people do.
The difference between two and three robots on the bridge in eliminations is 20 points. In order to exceed that you would have to hit a minimum of 7 top level baskets in the time you were planning on devoting to balancing the ramp. Given the maximum three ball capacity, that involves “reloading” at least twice.
Given an appropriate ball supply (far from a guarantee) and a large enough window to get on the bridges (~30 seconds), it’s certainly within the realm of feasibility that some teams could achieve that. But I seriously question whether a vast majority of scoring teams will be able to even come close.
I see it being a big risk-big reward part of the game. Sure, we haven’t seen any robot balancing yet, but two robots will likely be easier to fit on the ramp, as well as balance on the ramp. Either a team can take the easier feat of balancing with two robots for twenty points, or risk zero or forty points while trying to balance three.
Picking a small robot for the third alliance choice will likely make it easier to fit all the robots on the ramp, but even still, how much room will it be to alter weight? I see some teams that are better at balancing using some mechanism to shift their weight.
Since there is no specific time to begin balancing the ramp, I bet some teams will start maybe at 45 seconds remaining so they may ensure those forty points.
I remember talk in 2010 that said basically this, that people could score enough goals to make hanging useless.
Then we almost didn’t build a hanging robot, and if we hadn’t, we’d never have won New York. Except for all the 469 matches and some exceptions at the Championship level, hanging was just as important as scoring.
Lesson learned: No matter the end game, it’s important, and you shouldn’t rule it out.
If I was a high seeded alliance and was on my second pick (already having a second great robot). I would defiantly look at my options and probably take a small compact robot that can play defense and allow me to gain 20 bridge points over a bad shooting robot with no chance of gain the bridge points. At the end of the match you make a few decisions. Do you have the small robot and the worse of the 2 shooters go for the guaranteed 20 points and have 1 person shoot the last baskets? or do you take the risk and go for 40? For me I would look at your score, their score, and if they can put 3 robots on the bridge.
Extremely high complexity resulting in limited value.
To get points? Yes. And balanced.
[G40] When the final score is assessed per [G37], a Balanced Alliance Bridge, per Section 2.2.5, earn points as follows:
Note that there is no mention (and therefore no score value) for an unbalanced alliance bridge.
The coopertition bridge is a different rule.
Maybe he didn’t understand what I meant or you didn’t but i mean to put a robot on another robot and then get on the bridge and have it balance. As for him I think he wants to know if my idea is against the rules but I don’t see where it says that you can’t.