Physical matches

[archiver]

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

[archiver]

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

[archiver]

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

[archiver]

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)

[archiver]

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

[archiver]

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

[archiver]

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.

[archiver]

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

[archiver]

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.

[archiver]

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

[archiver]

Posted by Jeff Burch.

Engineer on team #45, TechnoKats, from Kokomo High School and Delphi Delco Electronics Systems.

Posted on 7/13/99 6:33 PM MST

In Reply to: Physical matches posted by Adam Hathaway on 7/12/99 2:25 PM MST:

I like the physical play too, but I think we’d be going down the wrong path if we made all forms of tipping legal. I realize this may sound strange coming from a team that had a punching arm and no basket, but taken to it’s logical extremes unlimited tipping would actually become boring.

First of all the threat of tipping would force teams to make low-riding, slow moving robots and would penalize agile, quick moving ones. The rules of the game would also have to be constrained to not force teams into overly vulnerable positions.

Imagine if there had been unlimited tipping with this year’s rules. It would have been the obvious defensive measure that everyone would have built into their robot. No robot could have survived lifting floppies without big clumsy stabilizers. I can picture match after match where the floppy gathering robots hide in their corner at the start while the tipping robots try to topple each other or get to the opponent’s floppy gatherer. The best toppler tips over the two opponents and then their alliance partner comes out to rack up points with no opposition.

The limit on tipping allows teams to implement a wider range of strategies and varied robot designs. You get the quick movers and crab style drive system. You get robots like ours with no basket - we could never have done that if the rules allowed the two opponents to gang up on and tip over our alliance partner. It could be that by the time we got to Rumble we’d seen the game enough to start getting bored and tipping seemed necessary for excitement, but try to remember the first regionals. This is how the virgin spectators at Rumble saw the game and the ones I spoke to were absolutely on the edge of their seats the entire time.

You can say that it’s all the checking (hitting) in Hockey that makes it exciting, but even in Hockey there are lots of limits. You can’t crack your stick across someone’s back (cross-checking), you can’t check someone if they don’t have the puck (interference), you can’t drive them into the boards unless they’re next to the boards (boarding), you can’t … you get the picture. Obviously the game’s no fun to watch if all the players are laying on the ice.

So my vote - keep the limited tipping. If a team runs away you shouldn’t be able to chase them down and tip them over. If a team is engaging you or fighting for position you have the right to fight back and if toppling results that’s OK. There’ll be plenty of excitement with all the wild strategies and robot designs that the teams think up.

Jeff Burch
Team 45 - TechnoKats

[archiver]

Posted by Dave Leenhouts.

Engineer on team #176, Aces High, from Windsor Locks High School & Suffield High School and Hamilton Standard.

Posted on 7/21/99 6:03 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: Physical matches posted by Jeff Burch on 7/13/99 6:33 PM MST:

I like aggresive physical robot interaction as well. It does make for a more interesting spectator experience, especially for people who just come in off the street. The only thing is . . . once the tipping rules are set in the rules book they should be adhered too at every event. To change the rules or adjust the refereeing biases the outcome of the competition. For example, if tipping were not allowed, the robots would not be designed to tip other robots, some might have arms, others might not. Then if tipping was subsequently allowed, robots with arms would be favored since they could more easily tip other robots.

Dave