Team Update #18

FIRST General Forum
#41

I believe that a large part of this is a safety issue and another part is a fairness issue.

Safety-wise:
Unless a team purposefully has a robot that is the minimal parts to be inspected covered in bubble wrap with a flag holder and access to change battery and so on to be placed on or in another robot, we are talking about robots designed for participation in this year’s game. This strategy can be tempting to certain alliances to guarantee points at the end of the match; however matches are a dynamic experience with many things changing. A robot could leave autonomous on and do something before an e-stop is pressed, or an attempt to throw a ringer onto the rack could disturb something in the stack. More likely an issue is defense of such a strategy, which expands the number of robots at risk.

Fairness-wise:
I remember our team discussing the possibility of placing one robot on another at the beginning of the game, but the more I think about it, it does not seem very fair. An interesting strategy would be to deploy a ramp and have a partner drive up it in autonomous, which would be kinda neat and similar to what we are talking about, yet the difference here I think is vast: the scoring is done based on the merits of the robot in its entirety of hardware and software. Stacking a robot is also unfair to the competing alliance, which depending on the makeup of the other alliance, may encourage them to do the same. I don’t think we want to see a three robot stack versus a three robot stack in a match for a 60-60 tie, nor do we want to see one-on-one matches with 30 guaranteed like this.

Furthermore, as the season has progressed, we have seen teams defending the bonus point lifts before the endgame, which I believe should continue to be legal if done within the spirit of the rules. How would one defend a pre-match stack? I would want to just push them outside of the home zone, but how safe is that? Is it fair to have an indefensible 30-60 points sitting on the opposite side of the field?

Rule-Changing:
As far as FIRST changing these rules after build and even during the competition season, I sincerely hope no one was betting on interfacing with another robot to this extent. Competition has shown that it was hard enough to interface robots for getting bonus points let alone for piggybacking. The GDC probably weighed the fairness and safety of the issue with a pretty good example to show that this would probably not fall within the guidelines of Safety, the Spirit of the Rules and GP when it comes to the opposing alliance.

#42

This strategy was used ONCE in more than 1500 matches played so far this year. Once. It obviously is not a integral part of the game, and in 99% of the matches is really an illogical thing to do (why play 1 vs. 3?). Instead of stacking two dead bots on each other for 30 points, why not help them getting running so they can grant a bigger reward for your alliance?
And the e-stop button only makes it partially more safe, by preventing those 2 teams from causing the “Stack” to tip. There are still 4 other robots and 6 human players introducing energy to the field that could potentially cause a robot to fall from the other one or the whole “stack” to fall over, even if not intended.

#43

After seeing the brilliance of Wildstang, et al, in this strategy, we considered this if we had a non functional robot on our alliance during eliminations, as to give them more time to fix it between matches before just automatically pulling up a replacement bot. We thought that since something was seen in that robot, mid as well make it score points and buy time for them to solve the problem.

I do understand the safety concern, but if the rule was that they had to be e-stopped, it would be better then this outcome.

I really believe this has been a blunderous year for FIRST (then again who doesn’t), yes they went a few steps forward as far as scoring system and other parts, but went twice as many back with random seeding, banebots, Update 16, batteries (it seems people have forgotten about this due to everything else, and rightly so), and now this. I hope this streak can turn around now for FIRST (or at least end).

David

#44

I agree with Cory that there are enough things going on that changing rules in the middle of the season doesn’t help your position.

Legitimately, it can be considered a safety issue, but I’m pretty sure Wildstang and their partners figured out “oh, maybe we should turn off the autonomous and disable the robots as soon as possible.”

The fact is that a team update was pretty much entirely about outlawing something that happened once and likely won’t happen again, despite the fact that there are quite a few rules that need clarifying. Wouldn’t it have been time better spent doing something about the issue of ringers around flags?

#45

Why is it inherently unsafe? Shouldn’t it be a decision between the three teams of the alliance if they think they can pull it off safely not someone in NH that isn’t even there? If the refs feel that a robot is precariously placed or otherwise unsafe before a match begins then they should call the team(s) out to fix it whether they are stacked or not. I fail to see why this is a safety issue at all. Again, this year FIRST is forcing a veteran team on each alliance so they should be able lead the younger teams as to whether a stack is a good idea or not. The reason this is such a brilliant play is that there is HUGE risk involved and weighing whether it is a safe play or not is part of the game. If the scheduling algorithm was like in the past and you had 3 rookie teams on an alliance unsafely trying to pull of a stack without any one telling them that it is a bad idea then I might understand but that is and impossibility this year and the refs are always there as a backup plan anyway to keep us all safe with the big red buttons.

#46

I must ask, how is this different from a robot deciding to go up another’s ramps before the match is over (if an arm broke or someone’s ramps deployed early, etc.)?

#47

Can someone provide a video or a lengthy description of what happened during the Wildstang match?

My personal feeling is that this is quite an unbelievable rule change. On one hand I think it is insane that the legality of the strategy could be deemed legal on January 14th and then made illegal 2.5 months later. On the other hand I can understand why the rule changed. A veteran team could pressure a rookie team to just sit on a ramp for the entire match because, “you can’t score points anyway.”

As Lil’Lavery said, if 1 out of 1500 matches happened this way was it really necessary to make the change? From what I understand it would have basically been 3 on 1 without this strategy resulting in a predicted defeat for Wildstang.

#48

Everyone is saying that this is like 2002, but it reminds me more of 2005 when they banned capping incorrectly and preventing the other tetras from counting. This was an unused strategy to my knowledge and the stacking of robots is a only used once strategy. This gameplan is not even remotely viable. Who wants to play a match only having one robot driving on the field. I get that it could be a safety hazard but it feels like the GDC is saying that if you come up with an inventive and indefensible strategy, you can’t use it.

#49

At least one robot, a lifter or liftee, must move in the match. As Lil’ Lavery was suggesting, this should be the goal, not a stack.

#50

I agree with you, but I was asking this question from a safety point of view. :slight_smile:

#51

Unfortunately, this doesn’t really sound familiar at all. The GDC was aware of this potential gameplay strategy since at least January 14th, when they posted a Q&A that validated this as legitimate. It was certainly no surprise to the GDC when Wildstang successfully pulled this off. To describe these events using words like “loophole” and “exploits” is just plain wrong. The GDC explicitly allowed it very early in the build season. This wasn’t a goofy answer like the questions about slip rings or tube inflation… it was perhaps the most straight-forward answer I’ve seen on the Q&A all year. They knew what was up, they allowed it, now they don’t like the outcome, and they’re changing their minds midstream. This is the source of frustration for many posters in this thread.

(On a side note, trying to paint this as a safety hazard is also specious at best. There is absolutely nothing inherently less safe about being on top of a robot at the start of a match as there is about being on top of a robot in the middle of a match.)

#52

Ah, I see. For safety, wouldn’t hitting the e-stops prevent the teams from affecting anything for the rest of the match, leaving the robots in what should be an undesigned-for, precarious position? Teams deciding to lift can assess what is happening in the match and how to handle defense. If a robot defends a lift before the end-game, the other robots are not usually voluntarily disabled in advance. :slight_smile:

#53

THIS is not an indefensible strategy …

The opposing alliance might easily determine that it is worthwhile to get that stack out of the home zone to eliminate the 30 bonus points. If you allow the stack to be created you certainly cannot prohibit the opponents from trying to “defend” against this strategy. Is that a safe situation?

Also, please don’t forget … the Q&A answerONLY stated that there was nothing in the rules that prohibited this strategy. I guess now that oversight has been “fixed”. :stuck_out_tongue:

#54

Does anyone remember the stretchers from 2001??? This strategy to me is like having a stretcher handy.

For those who are unfamiliar…if your robot was down for a match, you could place it (or any part of it) on this wooden cart with casters on teh bottom. Your teammates could then drag you around to score points.

If you have a dead robot on your alliance, than why not go for that 30 pts by just placing it on top of a willing partner.

Major kudos to wildstang for this one…

and P.S…bring back the stretchers!

#55

Good point, thanks.

#56

For everyone who keeps debating whether or not this should be done. Cory simply answers it all with this.

The issue here is not if it is right or wrong, the issue is that the GDC needs to give us rules that are solid throughout the 5 weeks of competition.

#57

To expand upon the difference in a safety perspective:
this
vs.
this

You make the call on which is safer.

#58

I don’t look at the rule as anti-veteran or anti-rookie. We never had a game in the past where one robot had to climb on top of another, hence as always the rule stated that the robot must start behind the line in the homezone (not pointing out how exactly it should start). The GDC most likely assumed that we already know that we are going to start behind the line in the beginning of the match (and not on top of each other). One thing they have missed was the fact that we have a Raul in FIRST who comes up with a crazy strategy to win a match with two robots that isn’t capable of moving. No one has used this strategy (to my knowledge) in the past. Maybe, the GDC didn’t think that it will ever happen, but it did. Next thing you know, we get a rule update.

Rules are rules. Let’s play by them. It’s given that not all of us will be happy with the same thing since we all think very differently. Please scroll up and read all the posts in this thread and you will realize how different everyone thinks. Some are okay with the rule, some aren’t, some don’t care. I can go on and on about what happened at the Florida regional but that is not going to get me anywhere. What counts the most is the kids worked together for 6 straight weeks, came up with a beautiful machine, went out there on the field and had fun.

… thats my opinion.

#59

To everybody who keeps insisting this, please stop spreading misinformation. The GDC very clearly considered this as a possibility on January 14th, and saw no fault in it.

For those who missed it, here’s the link again (thanks Richard):
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=1280

Agreed. Let’s pick one set of rules at kickoff, fix them in the first week of build, and then play by them. Let’s not play by different rules every single week.

#60

As I have said many times, " make the rules before kickoff and DON’T change them for that season". First is the only place I know (except if I make the rules) that the rules change as you go along. This has got to stop.

I would also like to know from the “unsafe” crowd, how placing a robot on top of another is 1: unsafe and 2: who is going to get hurt? If you are worried about the robots look at the number of robots that have over shot the top of the robot or fallen from the sides of the ramp.

BTW there was an instance in Detroit were 1 team wanted to stack on another and the Ref said no.