If you’re discussing how to beat the robot, you should probably use another thread. Because this way, you’re just allowing to know how you’re going to destroy them
That’s ok, it’s all just discussion. The chances of running into them are also pretty low
They may be your opponent at worlds.
I mean, there’s more to vex than just winning. It’s also about learning and improving, as well as having fun.
Yes
at least 20 char
To be clear, discussion on how to beat this robot is certainly welcome in this thread or in any other. We released the wallbot as an alumni RI3D to get the conversation going, and I think I speak for the whole team when I say that we’re excited by the potential and the VRC global community’s response.
If you come up with a new vulnerability that you think we haven’t addressed in the FAQ document or elsewhere, please do post about it! I’d love to understand your thought process, and perhaps propose some counter-counters that this wallbot or a V2 might be capable of.
I have pne: if a bot used tank treads, they may be able to easily drive over the smaller walls, and maybe the big one too (however unlikely).
How will you address the issue?
Edit: how will you address the tank tread bot?
It’s a tank tread bot. It’s not an issue.
a “potato”, if youd like to call it that
One musn’t downplay the factors of the 2 defense bots(good luck circumventing that with a tank tread drive) as well as the sheer time constraints of the driver period.
I’ve said it before in another thread, and I’ll say it again.
W A L L B O T S L A Y E R
Haha beat that >:)
Would it be more legal against possible entanglement if they were to use the passively tightening rope like in 81K’s v2 robot?
Here’s the link:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=vzBYMrXFVjE
We had briefly considered adding surgical tubing or the like into the rope drums to maintain a level of tautness in the rope, but I think our conclusion was that this would actually be a higher risk of entanglement.
We didn’t really do a lot of robust testing on that front, but our thinking was that a taut tether would be:
- hard to actually achieve; you’d need a ton of tension to keep the rope pulled in against the friction of tiles etc.
- dangerously susceptible to winding up around towers and other robots while driving around
Maybe there’s some other slight advantage that I’m missing, but I think just adding some tension to the drum won’t be enough to really conclusively solve this entanglement concern. As we’ve said earlier, I maintain that the best improvement would be a lexan/metal based tether in the OYES Master & Puppet fashion.
I don’t think it would change anything.
Great reveal @NorCal-Robotics !
Did you consider not having a piece protecting the small goal?
Then both oppsing robots will try to score into there, instead of playing defence on your partner.
We mainly wanted to accomplish a 1v0 situation for our partner(hence the 2 tether defense bots to deadlock the now stranded alliance). Had one been left open with availability for scoring, the other alliance can still divide and strategize means of furthering points while defending. Great and viable sentiment nonetheless.
That psychological element feels delightfully twisted - give the opponents a glimmer of hope that ends up distracting them from an actually viable strategy!
@tubLord 's argument sums it up pretty well - we preferred certainty in cutting off all available outcomes instead of that psychological game.
Of course, the robot design is flexible enough that you could just as easily NOT deploy the small wall if you so chose. I can imagine some interesting scenarios where this flexibility could be useful.
Imagine you are against 2 competent drivers who are aware that the wallbot is capable of blocking everything, and so are walking into the match with their minds set on playing aggressive defense. But then, your wallbot “accidentally” doesn’t deploy the small wall. This suddenly changes the entire plan of attack for your opponents, and they’re scrambling to figure out who’s going to rotate off defense and score in that zone. Maybe that confusion ends up being more potent than straight tetherbot defense against competent drivers?
Lots of fun possibilities to think about here!
say hello to burnt out v5 ports with wires that long
Their wall is put up against the field wall where if you push on it the field wall will act as support for the walls. Whereas in the VCAT bot’s wall it wasn’t in a position where the field wall would support the wall.
The wires in the robot that was revealed were only about 8 feet long, which seemed very comfortably in the functional range.
When we were conducting some limited testing with the full 26 foot tethers, we did indeed run into some weird port and brain behaviors. Given our tight timeframe with an RI3D, we made the call to quickly retreat to safety and just use an 8 foot tether.
However, later discussion with a number of competent people in the Unofficial VEX Discord suggested that there shouldn’t actually be any issues with a full-length tether. We were never able to pinpoint the tether’s failure to the length; it could have been an accumulated static charge or something else.
If anybody has the time and resources to more thoroughly test a full-length V5 cable stock tether, I would love to hear your results!