|
Serious question about defense No Flaming!
I have been searching the rule book thoroughly, and I have come up with a possible strategy that may be used at some point by some team at some regional... etc. Read carefully.
Scenario: Robots 1, 2, and 3 are on the red alliance, while robots 4, 5, and 6 are on the blue alliance. The blue alliance notices that none of the bots on the red alliance are capable of grabbing a tetra from the autoloader. To gain an advantage over the opponent, robots 4 and 5 drive over to the human player loading triangles and completely cover them, making sure not to bump into a robot that is already there. This leaves robot 6 to score throughout the match, while the red alliance helplessly wanders the field without a way to get tetras onto the field. I know many of you are thinking: What about that rule where you interfere with a bot while loading, you get flags. This is a different circumstance. Picture 2 opposing robots driving over and completely covering the triangles. This makes it impossible for the red alliance to get a tetra on the field without a 10 point penalty. Also, the interference penalty is only in effect if the blocking robot interferes after the red alliance bot is already in the zone. If they can never get into the zone, is this null and void. As I stated in the topic, I'm not asking for someone to say I'm un-GP. All that I am asking is an official or at least semi-official answer to this question. Thank you for reading this far. |
Re: Serious question about defense No Flaming!
Try FIRST Q&A for an answer. Or, is dlavery around? ;) If he can't answer the question, very few can.
As for GP, this is not a tactic that would fall under that category. And, what happens if 1, 2, and/or 3 is/are good pusher(s)?If they push 4 or 5 out of a loading zone, they (1, 2, 3) can get a tetra. This is aside from the fact that it is now 2 or 3 robots all blocking one from scoring while another waits for one of the robots in a loading zone to leave. All this is aside from the fact that this scenario is HIGHLY unlikely to occur, particularly during quals. --Eric |
Re: Serious question about defense No Flaming!
If you read Team Update #4 you will find out very quickly that that strategy is a very horrible one. If the Red alliance entered enough of the loading zone to disable themselves, which i'd have to read more or you can do, and the Blue was still interfereing then the Blue alliance would recieve 3 10-point penalties. Once again look at Team Update #4 for a better description of the rule and some examples.
|
Re: Serious question about defense No Flaming!
I think applying Gracious Professionalism to strictly legal game play trivializes what is a much more important and fundamental FIRST concept. In my mind 'GP' as a moniker for Gracious Professionalism obscures the meaning behind the concept. In terms of the rules, I agree with Tim Delles: All Red has to do is get one tire over the loading zone, and blue looses a lot of points for this move. That is all the disincentive necessary. In this instance the game is structured to look after itself.
|
Re: Serious question about defense No Flaming!
I'll agree that one tire on the loading zone puts blue in a bad spot if they don't immediately get out of the way at that point. However, blue would be in a bad spot anyways. Blue has 2 robots sitting and doing nothing and 1 scoring, while Red has 3 robots without anything to do. I, personally, would hate to be the blue driver in charge of winning this match by scoring. Driving against 3 bots that have nothing else to do but block you from goals makes your task all but impossible. Not to mention subjects your robot to an awful lot of pushing and shoving. And don't think that the red team wouldn't catch on quick and start doing this. The only advantage you'd have is the initial 5 seconds or so of surprise.
|
Re: Serious question about defense No Flaming!
If any the the red robots touch the 2 defending blue robots in the loading zone, it is a 10 point penalty. Read the team update 4.
|
Re: Serious question about defense No Flaming!
It looks like it's legal. As long as red isn't in the loading zone, blue can't be penalized. The trick is for the Blue team to keep the Red team completely out of the loading zone. And as the Q&As and updates suggest, it should be obvious that your robot is in the loading zone, so the ref won't be watching closely for when the red robot barely touches the loading zone. The real problem is leaving one alliance mate to fend for himself against 3 other annoyed robots.
|
Re: Serious question about defense No Flaming!
Is it legal? Yes. There is no rule prohibiting this type of play.
Is it Graciously Professional? Yes. This is a valid defensive tactic, and a legitimate play. There is no problem with teams that play competitively and hard, as long as they behave within the rules. Is it smart? No. Update #4, Example #1 spells it out. All Red has to do is push Blue hard enough to get just one wheel into the loading zone, and Blue gets hit with a 30-point penalty. That is too big a risk to take in this game. You can be legal and be graciously professional, but still be dumb. Play smart. Stay away from the other alliance loading zones, and just concentrate on using your own zones as fast as you can. -dave |
Re: Serious question about defense No Flaming!
Great replies, that is truly what I was looking for. I agreed with most of you when I posted it, but I really wanted to stir up some actual thought. I don't expect to see any team use this strategy at competition, especially now that we have shot the strategy down. I also appreciate those who were intelligent enough to be able and willing to make the distinction between strategy and GP. For that, I applaud you. Again, great responses, and good luck in competitions.
|
Re: Serious question about defense No Flaming!
Personally, I think this is a fine strategy. And I think it will be used a lot more than most people believe. Especially if penalties are handed out as freely as I understand they were at scrimmages.
If my robot can't pick up a tetra without incurring a penalty, I would want it to prevent an opponent from picking up a tetra. Especially if we wouldn't get a penalty unless they could out-push us. FIRST did clarify the "in-the-loading-zone" definition (part of the robot which remains within the intial footprint which is contacting the hdpe), but the comment regarding how it should be obvious to the referee that this is the case is where I see a lot of issues arising. There will likely be a lot of penalties issued as it is. This will likely be followed with team members explaining to referees where there robots "obviously" touch the ground, and where they would "obviously" be touching the hdpe if their robot was loading. Does it need to be this complicated? Maybe. Either way, a lot of robots will end up moving towards a defensive strategy with the current penalty situation. Personally, I hope FIRST limits penalties in the future to those cases that are safety related and game-play limiting (pinning, flipping, etc). This penalty doesn't appear to fall into either category. Still, the rules for this year are in place, and all we can do is hope for great game play this year, and improvements for next year. |
Re: Serious question about defense No Flaming!
Read above posts about GP, and Legality.
Now: This is a bad idea. You will end up with a low scoring match (from what I can tell) with only 1 robot actually doing any scoring, instead of all 6 doing it. This will yield a low scoring match for both sides, and the winners would end up (most likely) with a lower score then if this strategy was avoided, and they lost anyway. YHBT, HAND. Of course, these are qualifying points, so... |
Re: Serious question about defense No Flaming!
Ok there is a big reason why this would not work. If red discovers that they cannot load any tetras then they will put 1 robot near the human player zone to keep it occupied and the other 2 will have a 2 on 1 advantage over the blue robot. The score of the game will be 0-0 unless something happened in autonomous. This would hurt everyone's ranking points. In my opinion, offense is the name of the game. FIRST wants close matches but they also want some scores around 100 if possible. If all you need to do is win the match and you are winning after auton, then you might consider this strategy. Otherwise, it is very not fun to watch and it will end up hurting all 6 teams.
|
Re: Serious question about defense No Flaming!
I hope teams use this strategy against us. I will tell my driver to spend the entire match pushing the blocking robot. All we have to do is move it enough to get ourselves touching the zone (and still be touching the other bot) and, BAM! instant 30 point penalty. That is the equivalent of three rows or ten tetras. If you are going against the ThunderChickens then please, please, please use this strategy against us.
I am somewhat being sarcastic, but I think the "sit and block" strategy is a really bad strategy. With the size of penalties, FIRST has made it obvious that this is a scoring game. There will be defense, but the game is designed to have the defense occur elsewhere on the field. -Paul |
Re: Serious question about defense No Flaming!
I agree with Paul C. If you are going to use this strategy, you better be sure that you have enough traction and power to out push two very determined robots.
Yes, it's legal and I applaud the individuals for developing the idea. It shows some real "out-of-the-box" thinking. However, any team that wants to employ this strategy is going to need to think about it very carefully. |
Re: Serious question about defense No Flaming!
I agree with Dave and Paul about the "sit and block" defense of robots attempting to obtain tetras - it's not really a wise thing to do. However, what about once they've picked their tetras up? Example 6 Robot "RED01" is in the red alliance loading zone, is already loaded with a tetra, and is waiting for a path to clear to the center goal before moving in to the rest of the field. Robot "BLUE01" approaches the loading zone, and blocks RED01’s attempts to leave the loading zone and score on the center goal. The robots come into contact several times while BLUE01 blocks RED01. No penalty is assessed to either alliance, provided BLUE01 acts within the limitations of <G21> that prohibit pinning for more than 10 seconds. RED01 is not retrieving a tetra, so no violation of <G15> has occurred. I do not agree that staying on your side of the field and trying to maximize your score is always the best approach to take for this game. When you're strategizing with your partners before your next match against a significantly superior offensive alliance, which of the following decisions is more "dumb"..... A.) Realizing that you have little chance at macthing their ability to cap and cap and cap and cap, and deciding to lay down some heavy D in an attempt to level the playing field, improving your chances of victory, or B.) Giving up all hope of winning the match by "valiantly" trying to match your opponent tetra for tetra, playing up to the crowd's (and FIRST's ?) supposed preference for offense, giving your opponent even more ranking points, making it even more likely you won't be able to catch them in the standings. ??????????????? Well, if it were up to me, I think I'd prefer a decent chance of a W and low ranking points over a certain L and improving the powerhouse teams' chances of warding us off in the rankings. There ARE going to be situations in a match that require keeping the other alliance from scoring, and instead of waiting and reacting once the opponent decides which of 9 goal locations they want to take their tetra to, why don't you proactively box them into a known location????? If your team is leading somewhat comfortably and want to limit the opposing alliance's ability to quickly score, or you're desperate because you're not equipped with the offensive firepower to compete against the robots in the opposing alliance, why wouldn't you want to use the opponent's loading zone locations as the place to make your stand? The field border and nearby goals serve as natural allies in keeping your opponent where you want them. Give your opponents a wide berth on the way to their tetras - let them make the first move to whichever loading station they choose. While they get their tetra, get in position to stop them, then block them as they try to leave their zone - according to Example 6 above, everyone's fair game once the tetra has been "introduced". If you have a robot that doesn't have a robust arm that can match the opponent tetra for tetra or help you effectively block them from capping at a goal, then your best option may be to try and fence them into their loading area before they can escape to cap. The more time they spend avoiding you, they less time they can spend capping. Oh, by the way, you're also in prime position to keep them from getting their last ditch 10-point score by blocking their endzone. As recent championship alliances have shown, utilizing a good balance of offense AND defense is a proven way to succeed. Let's all say it together - defense can be cool, defense can be fun, defense can be exciting in its own ways, and it's most certainly not a dumb thing to do, if implemented effectively at the proper times. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:27. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi