View Full Version : <G29> Robots in opposing zones.
gorrilla
09-01-2010, 16:40
<G29> Defending ROBOT Restriction - Only one opposing ALLIANCE ROBOT is allowed in the opponent’s ZONE. A ROBOT is considered in this ZONE if any part of the ROBOT is in contact with the ZONE's green carpet. Violation: PENALTY; plus a RED CARD if effort to remedy is not immediate.
Obviously two or more robots of the same alliance can be in their zone at the same time.
This makes it very hard to keep the opposing alliance from scoring with your single robot when two of the opposing team come in the same zone.
What are your thoughts? what kind of strategy could combat this?
On the flip-side,
If an alliance brings two robots in their zone it would leave the other team the opportunity to make the situation the same on the opposing teams side, therefore balancing it out...
Also whichever team does that first, assuming they move the second robot from the middle zone to their scoring zone, leaves the opposing team in control of the ball returns...
My thought on this is, the backbot rule returns! Only, it's now more tricky to play with.
ScottOliveira
09-01-2010, 17:10
Also keep in mind that the balls are returned into the middle section of the field, so it will be necessary for an alliance to have a robot in the middle to move balls towards their own zone.
gorrilla
09-01-2010, 17:18
My thought on this is, the backbot rule returns! Only, it's now more tricky to play with.
"backbot rule"?
ScottOliveira
09-01-2010, 17:21
I believe he is referring to Aim High, the 2006 competition, when during parts of the game only 2 bots from an alliance could be on a given half of the field, and one had to remain on the other half.
"backbot rule"?
2006. One robot had to stay on a certain side of the field during a certain period of the game. This created a 3 offense vs. 2 defense on the other side of the field during that time; the robot that stayed back was known as the Backbot. Now they're saying that it's got to be only 1 defender against up to 3 offense in 2 openings. The backbot rule returns with a vengeance.
gorrilla
09-01-2010, 17:29
2006. One robot had to stay on a certain side of the field during a certain period of the game. This created a 3 offense vs. 2 defense on the other side of the field during that time; the robot that stayed back was known as the Backbot. Now they're saying that it's got to be only 1 defender against up to 3 offense in 2 openings. The backbot rule returns with a vengeance.
hmm.
It would be counterintuitive to double up in your zone, thereby giving control of all the returns to the opposing team?(assuming the 2nd robot is from the middle zone) How much do you predict this will happen?
Im thinking very much or very little...
DiehardCybercard
09-01-2010, 17:32
I have thought about this g29 rule as well. From what I can tell Breakaway is going to be a game heavily dependent on strategy. In my mind im unsure how you wold combat the situation you gave. However im excited to see all of the different possibilities this year.
AllenGregoryIV
09-01-2010, 17:42
This is a very important rule because with out this an alliance could block both opponents goals permanently and just have one robot scoring for their alliance.
It also leaves open the idea for a defensive specialist bot to play the back zone and be quick enough to defend both goals by themselves.
If you're a single robot defending against two, then have your alliance partners cut the ball flow of your opponents; it will then be up to two against one (in your favor) in the middle field, fighting for the returned balls. Who cares how many robots are there if they have no balls to shoot? :p
Ryan Simpson
09-01-2010, 20:29
If you're a single robot defending against two, then have your alliance partners cut the ball flow of your opponents; it will then be up to two against one (in your favor) in the middle field, fighting for the returned balls. Who cares how many robots are there if they have no balls to shoot? :p
That's exactly what I've been telling my team. Having two robots in the middle is the best option. If you get a bunch of balls into your zone, then the other alliance's one defensive robot can only remove them so fast. Then, once you get the majority of the balls into your zone, you could send one of the two middle bot on offense for a 2-on-1 and some easy goals. By controlling the middle of the field, you can control all of the balls and therefore the game.
Also keep in mind that the balls are returned into the middle section of the field, so it will be necessary for an alliance to have a robot in the middle to move balls towards their own zone.
you also have to remember that the balls will roll into the opposing zones of whoever scored that ball. They will have to go that extra mile. But because of <G29>,the defending robot will have to get the balls to the other side, and stop defending the opposite alliance from scoring.
Mtg Ruler
09-01-2010, 21:10
2 robots in the middle certainly doesnt mean you have control of the middle. even one robot of theirs can do alot to ensure it takes awhile to send them over. which then gives them time to have a defender get the balls in your zone back over to theres.
of course always have 2 in the middle if there arent many balls in the opposing scoring area, no point in wasting a bot like that
goldenglove002
09-01-2010, 21:24
it definitely creates a good strategy arguement. Someone who can mauever well in the opposing zone and block could really prove a to be a competitive robot, no matter what the other alliance members are doing.
On robot in the back playing strong defense with two high scorers up front would be very hard to beat.
Well at least unlike 2006 we won't have all those periods of when you are allowed and not allowed to score to worry about.
Chris is me
09-01-2010, 21:47
you also have to remember that the balls will roll into the opposing zones of whoever scored that ball.
I know of at least 2 teams that are challenging your "will" assessment there.
There's a legal way to do a lot more than people realize in this game, including crafty defensive strategies. While only one robot can guard the goals directly, there are many points of interception for the soccer balls.
That's exactly what I've been telling my team. Having two robots in the middle is the best option. If you get a bunch of balls into your zone, then the other alliance's one defensive robot can only remove them so fast. Then, once you get the majority of the balls into your zone, you could send one of the two middle bot on offense for a 2-on-1 and some easy goals. By controlling the middle of the field, you can control all of the balls and therefore the game.
I agree. Although I won't say you control 'all' of the balls (and believe that you need one robot scoring the whole time, otherwise all of the balls will be sitting in your side of the field/being shot back at you by the defender), the concept is the same.
Being able to have a good degree of control over the middle, because you can both score and get the ball to your side, assuming you miss, will make for an excellent robot. However, if two robots designed for the center are on a single alliance, then you're screwed.
I say specialize robots for hybrids; make it work very well in two sections, and functional in the third, because being paired up with 2 alliances that excel identically is rare. :P
lazydude15
09-01-2010, 23:04
I my opinion this rule kind of put a downer on the game. Think about it there are 12 balls and 3 robot on each team. If all 3 robots were to be one their opponent side, they would only score 3 point at most and then the would have to leave. The reason for this is because there is a rule that a robot can only hold one ball at a time. They can not that much of a ruckus being in their opponent zone.
Kevin Sevcik
09-01-2010, 23:06
I know of at least 2 teams that are challenging your "will" assessment there.
There's a legal way to do a lot more than people realize in this game, including crafty defensive strategies. While only one robot can guard the goals directly, there are many points of interception for the soccer balls.
You can bump that up to 3. And probably a whole lot more in reality.
Tetraman
09-01-2010, 23:14
I my opinion this rule kind of put a downer on the game. Think about it there are 12 balls and 3 robot on each team. If all 3 robots were to be one their opponent side, they would only score 3 point at most and then the would have to leave. The reason for this is because there is a rule that a robot can only hold one ball at a time. They can not that much of a ruckus being in their opponent zone.
You score goals in your zone, so if it was legal to have three robots in your opponent's zone, all they could do is defend. And having three robots sitting in front of two goals, make scoring impossible.
This rule's obvious intent is so that way you can't send two robots to sit in front of your opponent's goals so your opponent's can't make a score.
mathman05
10-01-2010, 01:08
Tetraman has it right. I should look at the intent of the rule. Although, I want to say the next few things without seeing the intended meaning:
Firstly, looking at the exact wording of the rule, "Only one opposing ALLIANCE ROBOT is allowed in the opponent’s ZONE."
Let me rewrite that, assuming I already know I'm on the RED alliance: "Only one BLUE alliance robot is allowed in the BLUE's zone."
Here, it looks like the rule limits the number of offenders an alliance can have in the zone nearest their goals (if I'm not mistaken).
Also, a clarification if someone can provide it. The rule states, "A ROBOT is considered in this ZONE if any part of the ROBOT is in contact with the ZONE's green carpet." Where is the exact boundary of the zone? From what I have read, 'green carpet' does not define the boundary of the zones. This would only apply to robots that travel through the tunnel, and I assume the "boundary" is the exact center of the bump.
Tell me what you think...
I would say that the GDC has chosen the green carpet because it's a lot easier than the middle of the bump to see. After all, if you're coming out of the tunnel, the green carpet is obvious. Ditto if you came down a bump, upright or not. The spec in 6.2.1 is that the bumps divide the zones, nothing about boundaries.
I think, in regards to your first point, that that is one of the few messups in the Manual. Taking it as we've been taking it, it should read that "only one robot from an alliance may be in the opposing alliance's zone at a time". Taking it as written, it means one offense vs. up to 3 defense. Update #1 will hopefully address this. (If not, I expect both Q&A and Update #2 to get to this topic.)
mathman05
10-01-2010, 01:23
I would say that the GDC has chosen the green carpet because it's a lot easier than the middle of the bump to see. After all, if you're coming out of the tunnel, the green carpet is obvious. Ditto if you came down a bump, upright or not. The spec in 6.2.1 is that the bumps divide the zones, nothing about boundaries.
I would assume that the zone does not start until after you pass through the tunnel (because that is the same line that would determine if you are in or out if you were to go over the bump). The bumps themselves are not considered part of either zone that they separate.
Chris Fultz
10-01-2010, 10:00
Firstly, looking at the exact wording of the rule, "Only one opposing ALLIANCE ROBOT is allowed in the opponent’s ZONE."
Let me rewrite that, assuming I already know I'm on the RED alliance: "Only one BLUE alliance robot is allowed in the BLUE's zone."
Here, it looks like the rule limits the number of offenders an alliance can have in the zone nearest their goals (if I'm not mistaken).
I think this rule is correct as written.
If I am RED, then only one opposing alliance robot (BLUE) is allowed in the opponent's zone (RED, because the "opponent's" statement refers back to the 'opposing alliance' earlier in the sentence, which is BLUE).
So, RED can only have one robot in the BLUE zone, BLUE can only have one robot in the RED zone.
spiffyspleen
10-01-2010, 10:55
Is anyone thinking about defensive robots, or are they too outnumbered by <G29>?
mathman05
10-01-2010, 13:16
I think this rule is correct as written.
If I am RED, then only one opposing alliance robot (BLUE) is allowed in the opponent's zone (RED, because the "opponent's" statement refers back to the 'opposing alliance' earlier in the sentence, which is BLUE).
So, RED can only have one robot in the BLUE zone, BLUE can only have one robot in the RED zone.
Yeah, I agree. But if that was the intent of the rule, it should be rewritten without the "opposing" in it. It would make much more sense: "Only one alliance robot is allowed in the opponent's zone."
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.