Allow me to begin with some background about what causes me to post this.
On Team 127, The Lemon Bots, we have had defensive robots since Sack Attack, a tradition that has ended due to the weakness of full-time defense in this year’s game (and last year’s as well, to a slightly lesser extent). I was on a defensive team last year, in my first year, and while it was more basic than most robots that year, it turned some heads here in Arizona due to its custom linear expansion. However, I would not claim that it was especially effective. Moreover, it taught me about VEX design in general and a few more detailed points, and how to maintain a robot. Overall, I wouldn’t have done anything differently. We had two teams using our aluminum already, and building a steel robot to reach Skyrise levels of height would be challenging, since the team was mostly made up of people new to VEX.
There are a wide variety of reactions to defense. There are people who think it violates the spirit of the game, there are people who think, through a faulty interpretation of the rules, that defense is wholly illegal. There are definite rules regarding defense, and we were always sure to know follow them. On the other end of the spectrum, there are people who can greatly appreciate out-of-the-box thinking required to come up with defensive robot designs (three bases connected with scissors was a promising design from Toss Up). Our team was infamous for said three-base design and we are a well-known veteran team in our area.
Overall, while some people view defense as just bashing other robots, it certainly adds excitement and rarely causes damage (and when it does, it is due to very faulty design or construction or clear intent from said “defensive” team). Moreover, it can be a valid strategic decision. A prime example was our tournament yesterday (November 21st) in Tucson.
Our alliance in eliminations consisted of our team, 127A (a full-court shooter) and two pusher/feeder bots. On the opposing alliance in Finals was a field scorer who could easily outscore our alliance if given the chance, who also had the ability to high elevate, with two pusher/feeder robots capable of climbing their ramp. However, the field scorer had a major flaw. It had to go right against the post in front of the net to shoot. While it could fill the net faster than us, it had in that specific spot. Additionally, allowing a high elevation would be disastrous as well. Since we couldn’t be them in a shootout (it would turn out about 110-70 in their favor), I noticed their weaknesses and formulated a plan. Our robot needed to stay in for all matches, as our top scorer by far. The other robot on our alliance needed to block the field scorer from getting to the post, then, push around either robot in the last 30 seconds to prevent them from elevating (bear in mind, none of this pushing occurred in protected tiles).
How did it work in practice?
In the first round, I choked majorly on shooting and we lost 42-34. However, our alliance partner kept their scoring in check very well.
In the second round, it was a 57-57 tie. We were disappointed in the refereeing, because one of their robots pushed us while we were in our protected home tile with five more balls to shoot. With such a close match, the realignment this necessitated was easily match-affected. However, we let it go and fought on in the next two rounds.
In the third round, we won 48-21. Our robot didn’t exactly score like crazy, but our defensive strategy limited our opponents by about 90 points.
Here comes the fun part. I will try my best to be tactful and factual. I have tried to find forum rules to make sure I don’t break any but I can’t find them, with a link in a Karthik post just returning an Error 404. Anyway. A man, who I believe was acting in the capacity to run this tournament on behalf of the REC, made a long speech about. To paraphrase, he spoke about how he instructed the refs to crack down on robots slamming each other or something and how this would not be tolerated at State. He was staring at our alliance for the majority of this speech, although he did say “both sides” had been doing this. At this point, I should mention that no damage had been inflicted on the opposing alliance, only a severed battery cable on ours. The only result of our defense was an actually exciting Final, while VEX games seem to be leaning more toward a skills challenge with no interaction. He went on to say that if we wanted to compete in Battlebots, they hold that in Phoenix. He also stated that VEX was used to prepare us for jobs in industry, and we should think outside of the box (by just scoring and ignoring other robots???). He went on to say that he would have the referees count to three. If anyone pushed someone else for more than three seconds (anywhere, not just against walls!) that we would be disqualified. Additionally, he said that if he “heard a peep” out of any of us, that we would be disqualified.
I understand that respect for officials or anyone at tournaments is important. However, I did want to stand up for my belief in the rule of law, rather than what any official said. So, I posed my concerns in what I would consider a respectful manner. I asked him to please show me what in the rules he was basing this “three seconds of pushing” decision on. To clarify, under his rules, pushing another robot in the middle of the field would be illegal, not just pinning or trapping. His only defense was that this was how HE wanted to see the game played. I understand that interpretation is up to the referees, but he was not a referee and he was trying to make up a new rule that had no basis in the rules of the game.
As we moved on to the other field to conclude the finals in a tie-breaker match, he reiterated what he had said earlier. He asked if everyone understood. I didn’t quite, since there was no basis in the rules for what he was saying. I asked again where in the rules he was basing his thinking. I then said, “With all due respect, I believe we ARE thinking outside the box with defense.” It was true, we would lose easily in a shootout, whereas the round was now tied up. And I actually said, “With all due respect.” I am not in the interest of making enemies, I would just like to see rules enforced how they are written.
And then we went on to win the tiebreaker 74-44 and became the tournament champions.
I can only explain this response to a rule-abiding and effective strategy to either animosity toward defense, or animosity toward well-known veteran outsiders coming in to win a tournament (we are a team from the Phoenix area who made a 2 hour drive to this tournament in Tucson). Either way, it was disappointing to see a complete disregard for the rules from officials, and it is something we have seen before from the referees at this event last year, who ignored the rules regarding defense and disqualified us for “intentional damage” despite no damage taking place. If we were intending to damage anyone, we must have failed very miserably. This is the last straw and we will not be going to that event again.
Attitudes toward defense in general need to change, in my opinion. In our case, we STRATEGICALLY exploited the flaws in our opponents. Our robot is virtually undefendable, since it is a full-court shooter. The opposing alliance, while a high scorer, should have perhaps taken defense in consideration. Defense is a good thing. It encourages strategy, and considerations for other robots, and fights design convergence. Additionally, it adds excitement to matches. Toss Up was a well-liked game, because it encouraged pushing fights for control of tubes. The result was innovation in the form of transmissions and other considerations. Even in matches with four offensive robots, it was an exciting fight. In the last tournament we went to, our parents complained that this game is boring; it is merely a shootout. There is an engineering challenge in that, and I appreciate it, but they found this Finals round much more exciting than any other Nothing But Net matches they had seen. Why? Defense. No robots were damaged, it was certainly not Battlebots, but there was some exciting competition. It’s why I’d like to see attitudes about defense change and I’d like to see this gradual shift away from defensive games after the most exciting and defensive game ever, Toss Up, to stop.
Please tell me what you think. I don’t mean to throw anyone under the bus here, which is why of course I haven’t included any names. I don’t want to discredit the teams we faced, we played a great Finals match and I’d love to play them again. My main point was about the benefits defense brings to a game, and how, yes, it can be a great strategic move and great “out-of-the-box” thinking.
Link to event results for those interested:
http://www.robotevents.com/robot-competitions/vex-robotics-competition/re-vrc-15-3083.html
It is important to note while viewing the results that we only got our flywheel to work well after lunch (after three matches). At that point, we won every qualification match.
). I don’t think we own any balls that hard. Our feeder to our shooter could barely push the balls through. And our accuracy was horrendous because we probably only tested with (we only own balls that are) around ±10%, not +15%. Fun stuff. We’ll hopefully get it fixed next time 