The key to this year's game (long)

Posted by Joe Ross at 1/17/2001 3:27 AM EST

Engineer on team #330, Beach Bot 2001, from Hope Chapel Academy and NASA/JPL and J&F Machine.

After much deliberation, I have concluded that the best teams are not going to be the ones that can load the most balls, or balance the goals the best. The best teams are going to be the ones who can effectively communicate the strengths of their robot in 20 seconds or less.

This year you have the same time (or less) to decide on a strategy, since most matches won’t last for the full 2 minutes. You also have twice as many teams to strategize with. All this leads to a frenzied period before the match that, unless people are prepared, will turn into a mob scene without anything being done or decided.

From my experiences as a human player and coach, I can tell you that when there were only 2 teams, one team generally did most of the strategy after each team shared their strengths. This team was the one who was either seeded highest, or usually the team that was the best communicator.

My team ran a sort of small-scale simulation. We broke our team into sub-teams of 4 people each and gave each person a description of a robot. They were supposed to come up with a strategy based on those 4 robots. The fastest team was done in 7 minutes, even after being told that there was a hard five minute deadline. This team included the three most important members or our on-the-field strategy team. In other words, if they couldn’t come up with a decent srategy in FIRST’s time limit (probably between 2-5 minutes) then every team will have trouble, unless everyone practices comunication A LOT! The situation is complicated because there isn’t just one person per robot but multiple people per robot.

In short, if you can’t communicate what your robot does well in a very short time (probably 20 seconds or less) your robot probably won’t do much during that round, at least compared to teams with lesser robots but better communication.

The way that I see the on-the-field sessions working, is that each team has somewhere around 20 seconds to describe their robot (focusing on the strengths). After all the teams have shared, it will probably be obvious who knows what is going on and that team or person will be silently thrust into the leadership role. From there, it is imperative that a strategy is decided on quickly and each team knows exaclty what their role is. The matches where the most points are scored will not always be the matches with the best robots, but the ones in which the teams execute their strategy to perfection.

The other thing that should be decided is who handles the contingency plans. Is there a specific “garbage cleaner” robot that can clear the bridge of a fallen robot, or can remove a ball from under the goal? or is this task relegated to the closest robot?

Any comments or things that I missed?

Joe Ross
Beach Bot, Team 330

Posted by Raul at 1/17/2001 7:53 AM EST

Engineer on team #111, Wildstang, from Rolling Meadows & Wheeling HS and Motorola.

In Reply to: The key to this year’s game (long)
Posted by Joe Ross on 1/17/2001 3:27 AM EST:

Joe,

You are so right about this. We also ran some simulations and not only is it difficult for the people to decide what to do, but even when they agreed what each should do, they still often did the wrong thing once the clock started.

But let’s just concentrate on the communication part:

First of all, it will be very important to scout and talk to all the teams ahead of time to become somewhat familiar with their capabilities during the practice day.

I suggest each team create a simple 5x7 card or something similar to hand out that says what they can and cannot do. These cards would be quickly exchanged as soon as you are told who you will be playing with. Would it be possible for all of us to agree on a format for this card or whatever? If we can all use the same format that is familiar to all of us then we can quickly recognize the patterns of capabilities that are needed for each strategy.

A bunch of cards could be handed out at the beginning of a regional to each team.

Of course, the ideal situation would be for each team to have a 30 second animation of what their robot can do and display it on their dashport laptop.

Raul

: After much deliberation, I have concluded that the best teams are not going to be the ones that can load the most balls, or balance the goals the best. The best teams are going to be the ones who can effectively communicate the strengths of their robot in 20 seconds or less.

Posted by ChrisH at 1/17/2001 11:09 AM EST

Engineer on team #330, Beach 'Bots, from Hope Chapel Academy and NASA JPL, J & F Machine, Raetheon, et al.

In Reply to: Re: The key to this year’s game (long)
Posted by Raul on 1/17/2001 7:53 AM EST:

: But let’s just concentrate on the communication part:

: I suggest each team create a simple 5x7 card or something similar to hand out that says what they can and cannot do. These cards would be quickly exchanged as soon as you are told who you will be playing with. Would it be possible for all of us to agree on a format for this card or whatever? If we can all use the same format that is familiar to all of us then we can quickly recognize the patterns of capabilities that are needed for each strategy.

Excellent suggestion Raul. May I further suggest that we come up with common terminology for various roles in the game? For example we have been refering to robots that control the bridge position as “gatekeepers” and robots that move objects around the field as “tugs”. We could say that a robot that goes under the bar can “limbo” while one that goes over can “hurdle”. I don’t think we’ve come up with terms for robots that pick up balls or balance the bridge yet.

It doesn’t matter what we call them as long as we all agree and it’s easy to remember what the term means.

Chris Husmann, PE
Team 330 the Beach 'Bots

Posted by Raul at 1/17/2001 1:41 PM EST

Engineer on team #111, Wildstang, from Rolling Meadows & Wheeling HS and Motorola.

In Reply to: Re: The key to this year’s game (long)
Posted by ChrisH on 1/17/2001 11:09 AM EST:

: May I further suggest that we come up with common terminology for various roles in the game? For example we have been refering to robots that control the bridge position as “gatekeepers” and robots that move objects around the field as “tugs”. We could say that a robot that goes under the bar can “limbo” while one that goes over can “hurdle”. I don’t think we’ve come up with terms for robots that pick up balls or balance the bridge yet.

Great idea Chris!

May I suggest:
“bridge tender” for those that gatekeep and balance the bridge.
“topper” for those that score the big ball (some may call them “greedy” - just kidding :slight_smile: )
“squater” for those that just sit in the end zone.
“hercules” for those that push/pull/place 2 goals onto the bridge and balance it all by themselves.

How about being a little more specific with roles for “tugs”:

“bulldozer” for those that PUSH the stretcher with a robot on it over the bridge.
“hauler” for those the PULL the stretcher with a robot on it over the bridge.
“plow” those that PUSH the goal up the bridge.
“tow truck” those that PULL the goal up the bridge.

Can you think of others?

Raul

Posted by Michael Betts at 1/17/2001 3:02 PM EST

Engineer on team #177, Bobcat Robotics, from South Windsor High School and International Fuel Cells.

In Reply to: Robot Role Names
Posted by Raul on 1/17/2001 1:41 PM EST:

What is this D&D?

OK… How about “Tipper” for a robot who can tip over the goal.

Mike

Posted by Dan at 1/17/2001 4:29 PM EST

Other on team - from Carnegie Mellon sponsored by -.

In Reply to: Robot Role Names
Posted by Raul on 1/17/2001 1:41 PM EST:

I think robots that put the ball on the top should be called “cherry-pickers.”
And those robots that do everything, and do it well, should be called “chief delphi” like every other year. :wink:
Dan

Posted by Ryan at 1/18/2001 10:17 AM EST

Student on team #95, Upper Valley Robotics (LRT), from Hanover High.

In Reply to: Robot Role Names
Posted by Raul on 1/17/2001 1:41 PM EST:

: : May I further suggest that we come up with common terminology for various roles in the game? For example we have been refering to robots that control the bridge position as “gatekeepers” and robots that move objects around the field as “tugs”. We could say that a robot that goes under the bar can “limbo” while one that goes over can “hurdle”. I don’t think we’ve come up with terms for robots that pick up balls or balance the bridge yet …]

As far as I know, our team has been using the term “gatekeeper” as well. We’ve been calling stuff that picks up balls with rollers a “grace” mechanism (because of our bot last year, name Grace Hopper, or HopBot for short).