The GDC has made their stance clear, and for us to say that its a good rule or bad rule doesnt much matter to them. Unless they are genuinely convinced, by important people or decreased inspiration, they will hold firm. I think that stacking robots was a valid and valuable strategy, now it is not. I think that FIRST said that it wasn’t against the rules, and now it is. Whether or not it hurts teams, i really dont know. I posted earlier saying that it was a strike against Wildstang. I now realize that its not a strike, its just FIRST being FIRST (if you want my take on FIRST, PM. Its not bad.). I really think that we need to stop the B&M on CD and take our concerns straight to FIRST instead of riling people up here and not doing anything real.
Let’s do something that makes a difference. Update 18 is just another obstacle for us to deal with. Lets do just that, deal with it.
Do you think that stacking one robot (or more) on top of another and sitting there for an entire match is consistent with the spirit of the game or, for that matter, FIRST?
I don’t. Teams that wish to adopt this strategy are putting winning ahead of competing (yes, there is a difference - winning at all cost is not GP).
I’m not slamming Wildstang here; their alliance partners were basically non-functional and this strategy gave their alliance the possibility of winning that match. I doubt that any competitive teams would consider doing this with functioning partners. It’s just too much fun to drive your robot and earn a victory!
Maybe Update #18 falls in the category of “legislating morality”, but I don’t think we want to see a lot of matches with an alliance just parked in their home zone for 2+ minutes. The lack of autonomous action is dull enough for me…let’s PLAY the game!!!
I disagree. They do this for FIRST LEGO League - if you attend multiple competitions, you are only allowed to win an award at the very first competition you go to. Is it fair if someone is able to go to multiple regionals and take the banner at each one? At that point, why call it regionals - clearly the best bot in the region isn’t necessarily going to win, it’ll probably be someone from out of town - the regional players are then just fodder.
If you still disagree with me, let’s put it a different way. What if the 9 best teams in the nation were able to all attend multiple regionals, and they all decided upon the exact same regionals every year. Also assume that somehow the schedule was transitioned so that it equated to 25% of the total regionals played (so they could somehow attend 9 regionals or whatever it came to). Now, say you weren’t one of the 9 best teams in the nation - would you still want to attend the regionals they are at knowing that there is such a high likelihood that they will take home every stinking award?
I wasn’t around when FIRST decided to allow teams to compete in multiple regionals, but I bet the arguments were heated. If they were not, then maybe somebody needs to rethink the situation now. I could understand if there was a lack of teams in some regions, and so allowing teams to go to multiple regionals to fill in some of those gaps were a good idea. But I dunno about that any more…
Teams that are overcoming adversity is exactly what FIRST is about. Both robots were (from my understanding) broken and would not have been able to do anything. So what do they do, they stack and help their alliance to a win.
No where did the GDC say it was a safety issue. They simply closed a loophole that had been left open from the beginning of Build, without giving any reason. They have the right to change the rule. The question is, why wait until now, when they were questioned about it weeks ago?
I think that’s completely beside the point people here are trying to make. Many people arguing against this call see perfectly clearly the logic and reasoning behind it and don’t have all that big a problem with that logic. The issue we have is with the complete and utter arbitrariness that FIRST and the GDC have been exhibiting this year. This very issue was asked in the Q&A just one week into the build season. The answer then was that it was ok, so presumably the GDC had no problems with it then. Then, after 3 weeks of competition have gone by and they’ve seen it happen just once, they suddenly decide they don’t like it anymore and arbitrarily rescind their approval. They don’t even attempt to smooth over their change of mind with any of their own reasoning along the lines of all these arguments we’re having about safety and the spirit of the game. It’s frankly getting a rather lot like something out of “Through the Looking Glass” trying to guess which way the wind is blowing each week. The Q&A question is particularly weird. The original question and answer came just before Update #3. And the GDC’s followup suggests you consult Update #18 to discern their latest state of mind.
We don’t mind picky rules, weird rules, somewhat unfair seeming rules, so long as the rules actually stand still for most of the season. Aiming at a target that’s still moving long after build season is over asks far too much of teams.
But since most robots aren’t designed to be that short while in starting configuration the liftees would be a lot higher. At least those fallen robots were still in 1 piece – i’d hate to see that happen to a robot perched four feet off the ground.
And the situation with the stacking of robots, i dont think it is safe and it is just a freebee for those who dont have a working robot. Why should you get the 30 points for just standing there and the other team has to work for it?
I think this is a good update, it takes away the temptation from teams with not so functional robots. I am sure many more teams would have done this so far if they had thought about it. I dont think it was how the game was meant to be played (not like that ever happens anyways though). The only thing to blame FIRST for is that they said it was ok on the question forums. They just made a mistake.
This was back on page 3 and I felt compelled to respond.
This is exactly what we tried to do. 10 minutes before the match we had people in both pits frantically trying to help get these robots back up and running. I don’t know the exact details, but one of them had a drive motor that had fallen off, and the other had drive chain problems. Once we determined they weren’t going to be able to be fixed before the match, we suggested the stacking plan, both teams agreed, and the rest is history. After the match, we helped both teams get operational again.
While we had this strategy in our heads earlier in the season, we had no intention of ever using it if at least two robots were functional. While it may have won a lot of matches, this strategy doesn’t allow teams to go out there, play the game and show what they can do. Nobody wants to work for six weeks just to sit in a corner (unless that’s what you designed it to do ).
Great, spur of the moment thinking!. I’m sure First didn’t have this in mind when they responded to the Q&A, they were probably thinking only a rampbot would be used. Now that they’ve seen the inspired out-of-the-box thinking, it makes sense to limit precariously perched bots for safety. Since it is an exception case that doesn’t really impact the game, we should accept the change and move on.
I can back up this post… Wildstang was in every pit that there was no running robot. I thank them for getting 1755 back up and running because we had them the rest of the day.
I commend those who thought up this strategy, but also disagree with those that are complaining because FIRST changed their minds. Without a doubt, many teams would have done this same thing from here on out. Many alliances would have gone onto the feild with this strategy in mind, even with working robots. It’s only fair to the competition that now everyone has to earn the bonus points.
As a PURELY HYPOTHETICAL question…
IF two non working robots were stacked in the end zone AND the opposing alliance KNEW it could not score 30 points… WOULD it be legal under the rules for the opposing team robots to BUMP (totally legal under the rules) the bottom robot and if the top robot happened to fall off there would be jubilation in the opposition camp for having made a great and possibly legal play?
LEGALLY speaking bumping is allowed but do the opposing team have to consider the consequences of the action? Would they just be yellow carded if at all? (which they might take since the other side has made winning everything)
(Which has not been used enough in my opinion… several rounds at the NY regional looked like Robot Wars)
That action is not intended to damage the top robot but rather to de-score and FIRST does urge a “Robust” design.
Common sense would indicate that most rampbots or liftobots would ramp or lift just over 12 inches, a few that use teetertotter mechanisms may get one side up to 24 inches or so for a brief period of time until gravity takes over. My impression of the orginal Q & A was that if an alliance had a rampbot that had a platform 12 inches above the ground in it’s starting position that a dead robot could be placed on it before the match started. I could even see the rampbot moving around the field playing offense or defense if able to. Or a robot with a functioning drivetrain moving around a robot with a functioning arm who’s drivetrain was not working. Talk about teamwork! It did raise questions about exceeding the weight limits and how much energy a 290 moving plie of two robots (2 @ 120lbs, 2 batteries and 2 sets of bumpers) could use to impact a much lighter robot on the field. Having the rule open ended could result in a robot sitting six feet off the ground. I don’t think anyone wants to see the results of a robot falling from that high up, in or outside the playing field. The alliance station wall is only 6 feet 6 inches high. Maybe the GDC should have simply stated that at no time during a match can a robot be elevated more than 24 inches (or whatever) above the playing field.
I’ve been following this thread, and I think it’s taken an interesting turn.
I’m not sure that safety is the reason for this decision. No person would be injured by stacking these robots, no matter how precariously they are arranged. Robots falling over and breaking is part of the game. It’s a risk to put the robot on the field in any match-- you don’t know what could happen. Any team that attempts to use the stacking strategy is obviously well aware of the risks involved. I trust that the members of FIRST teams are smart enough to disable autonomous modes and hit the E-Stop buttons.
I’ve wanted to see some changes to this game since the first weekend of regionals. I’d like to see the ramp bonuses worth fewer points so rack scoring actually means something and there are less of the 30-2 matches. I also wish that autonomous mode was more meaningful, especially since most teams aren’t doing very much with it which makes for a very boring 15 seconds. However, I’d also be pretty angry if those changes came through after the game has progressed as far as it has.
My personal opinion of this game is that it’s either incredibly exciting to watch, or mind-numbingly boring. It truly depends on the alliance structure. However, the stacking method adds to the mind-numbingly boring category. With two robots sitting there for two minutes, it’s not fun to watch. It also cheapens the efforts of the other alliance, which is trying to score some points, but the efforts become meaningless because of the 30 points that are due to the other team. Now, after seeing what happened with teams 1755 and 1850, I considered this as a viable strategy that our team might employ in the same situation-- two NON FUNCTIONAL robots, with no other way of scoring points. I applaud this alliance for their attempt to compete to the best of their capability. If it were still legal, we might use this strategy if it were our only option.
That said, I’m glad its no longer legal. The game should not reward us for having non functional robots. We should be rewarded for our efforts to design elegant machines and effective, complex strategy. FIRST is trying to do that.
A few of the other members of Wildstang have spoken earlier but I want to make a few things clear. When faced with both alliance partners dead and with their permission, the team decided to fallback on a Q&A answered by the GDC in January. Wildstang reads all documents issued by FIRST, as all teams should. As others have posted in other forums, Wildstang was not the first to attempt this strategy this season, just the most discussed. The refs discussed this before the match (for several minutes) was allowed to start and as the Q&A pointed out, they came to the conclusion that there was no rule against it. Had they ruled against it we were perfectly ready to accept the decision of the refs, as we always do, and play 1 vs. 3 with no starting score. I would like to also point out that until TU #18 there was no rule that robots could not start touching each other or stacking. Something that no one has pointed out yet is that we prevailed in this match even without the stacking as the final score would have been 18-10.
BTW, pulling the robots out of the end zone (even just little) would have been a legal defensive strategy that would have negated the stacking bonus.
Do you think that stacking one robot (or more) on top of another and sitting there for an entire match is consistent with the spirit of the game or, for that matter, FIRST?*
So, your issue is with FIRST GDC flip-flopping on rules interpretation, and perhaps that’s a valid concern. However, I think that as the season plays out, events will occur that the GDC didn’t anticipate. I don’t think the FIRST community has the expectation that the GDC has all identified ALL of the potential game scenarios by kickoff or even before the first week of competition. I suspect that the “stacked robots at start” scenario, when witnessed in competition, was deemed by the GDC to not be a good thing for the competitions. I would not like to see this as a widespread practice in matches. If I saw robots stacked at the start of a match, the temptation to “destack” them would be great - if a 10-pt penalty were incurred, it’s a 20-pt net win to knock down the stack. To avoid alliances from trying to score an “easy” 30 points and to avoid the risk to robots from executing the obvious defensive action against this ploy, I suspect the GDC felt it necessary to close this “loophole”.
I’m not attacking you here (I’m directing this question to the broader CD community), but would you put your functional robot on top of a partner’s robot and sit there the entire match in order to win? Would you intentionally make your robot appear non-functional (remove breakers, break your chain, etc.) in order to stack your robot if the rule was written such that only non-operational robots would be permitted to stack? I think these sorts of questions are pondered by the GDC in making/changing rules for the game. Please keep in mind that we see a new FIRST game every year and even in sports that have been around for a long time, the rules change season-to-season (and maybe even mid-season).
BTW, If you answer “yes” to either of the above, I guess that the GDC has really impacted your strategy. I, for one, feel that the rules should NOT allow this strategy. Even if the rules are written later rather than sooner.
).