Re: end game defense
 

I don't think that the repetitive use of this strategy is even necessary. It is quite possible that there will be several matches per regional, or even more, where this technique would be pointless because the opposing alliance doesn't have a robot with a ramp.

On the other hand, I do agree that it is indeed a great example of creative strategy, not bad usage of GP. But it is also a tradeoff that would have to be determined on a match by match basis. Similar to how an alliance would decide if they wanted to rush all 3 robots back to the home zone to get on a ramp or deploy a ramp, or would they sacrifice one to play defense on their scored ringers with spoilers.

Re: end game defense
 

I think that wouldn't be worth it The referree would most likely give you a yellow card and then you could only do that once.

It isn't worth it and it isn't "gracious professionalism" :o

Re: end game defense
 

I think in the spirit of GP the rule allows blocking as a strategy, because otherwise robot design takes a huge advantage over strategy in this situation. I have always thought the game designers included situations like this on purpose to make sure even well-designed bots can be countered strategically by a lesser bot (in this case anything with a drivetrain).

In any case, we probably wouldn`t see much of this activity in seeding. Strategy just gets so much more drastic in the finals....

Re: end game defense
 

So you are saying GP means intentionally cheating? :eek: I don't think that the game designer's wanted this strategy, otherwise it wouldn't illegal.

A HUGE part of robot design is strategy! How else do you know what to build?

I think that this supposed 'strategy' is disgraceful and I will lose all respect for those who attempt such a horrid method of winning. :mad:

Re: end game defense
 

whoa, I`m sorry. I didn`t mean to offend. I think no blanket statement will cover this little loophole, because there definitely is the possibility of using it in a very malicious way. I`m sure a rule clarification as to whether or not this would result in a yellowcard would clear this all up - if a yellowcard is issued for this type of blocking it is obviously not in the spirit of the rules. In my opinion, however, if the rules are clarified to state that it does not merit a yellowcard, then it is a valid strategy.

Either way it`s risky business, and a team would have to be in a pretty bad situation to opt for this.

Re: end game defense
 

:o Sorry to whig out on you. It's been a long exam-filled week. :ahh:

I think that FIRST needs to clarify this loophole. :)

Re: end game defense
 

So how's about we take this to the Wonderful Wizard of Q&A? I've submitted a question to them concerning this sort of situation--we'll see what develops.

Edit: My question, as submitted:

Re: end game defense
 

Awesome idea! :p I hope we have an answer soon because this could totally change a lot of people's strategies!

Re: end game defense
 

Note: This is not an attempt to interpret any rules in their current state. It is an opinion and should be treated as such.

It is my opinion that this violation of the rules should warrant a yellow card.

While this is a creative and excellent reactive strategy I have one huge issue with it. Attempting to defend liftees or the lifter during the End Game poses a threat to all robots involved. Defending in this manner will almost certainly lead to the tipping of one or multiple robots involved and could very easily lead to robot damage.

Someone likened this situation to a foul to stop a fast break in basketball. I believe this comparison is flawed for a number of reasons:

1. Foul shots can earn up to the number of points that would have been awarded for the breakaway basket. The penalty for violating this rule is half what the earned points would be.

2. A flagrant or intentional foul has a penalty GREATER than the potential points from the shot itself.

3. If a player (robot) becomes injured (damaged) as a result of a clearly intentional foul the player committing the foul is likely to be ejected from the game (E-stopped) and probably will be suspended by the league (refs) for a game or two (in this case a yellow card would be the closest equivalent).

Re: end game defense
 

I have to say that this is a patently silly idea. Wedge rules are suspended in the home zone, and a team is penalized or DQ'd for driving on an opposing robot. I think defending in the home zone is just asking for extra penalties or getting knocked over. In addition, I think that you have pretty much no hope of defending both robots at once. If you're defending the ramp bot..... Well. If 57 sees this happening, we'll probably add a few extra ramps to the front and back of our robot to discourage this. I really just don't think this is a smart strategy at all.

Re: end game defense
 

Guys, there IS NO ADVANTAGE here. Think about it for a minute: You prevent them from getting 60 points. To do that, you need your robot in their end zone for the entire end game. Aside from the fact that they can see this coming and beat you to the punch (gaining points), there are 30 points in penaties coming to you. AND, your partner can only lift one robot because you are at the other end of the field, giving you 30 points--just enough to cancel out the penalties. Net score: 0 points. So, the end score would be: 0 to (30-30=0) in bonuses.

Re: end game defense
 

'Nuff said about the possible best result

Re: end game defense
 

Who says my alliance can lift two above 12? Who says it can even lift anyone reliably or quickly? Who says I'm in there for the full endgame? In fact, who says I can't disrupt their loading process, get back, dance a jig, and get above 12 inches all in the endgame? You're making a multitude of dangerous assumptions.

I agree; when I read that rule I thought to myself that it was the only possible grounds or justification a ref would have for interpreting the rules so liberally as to award a card. Stating the intent of any rules in a rulebook is bad practice, but it's been done so we must work with it; it might conceivably be interpreted as grounds to penalize further than the rules actually allow by the more liberal referees (despite the fact that <G03> is about something else entirely). But I'm sure there will be a clear guideline put out to all the head refs in conferences to come about this very issue.

Actually, in basketball, stopping an imminent basket fast break with a foul changes the opponents' potential score increase from about 1.99 to about 1.4 or even less (think Shaq). I'll take a dunk over a pair of free throws any day of the week; if fouling late wasn't statistically advantageous to teams it wouldn't get done. Same thing goes for this game. In fact, you've outlined why this is an even more effective strategy than in the case of basketball all by yourself; there's an even bigger potential net gain.

Now if you damage another robot trying this, you should be held to account the same way you would be during the rest of the match, because nothing has changed. I'm all for tossing yellow cards all over the place when intentional tipping occurs, but anyone who tips intentionally on D deserves what's coming to them. Still, I would hold that placing one's robot in front of the opposing alliance's ramp bot is a pretty darn safe strategy. I've never been hit by a parked car before, but I'm pretty sure It wouldn't hurt.

Re: end game defense
 

I think that if you're going to try to play defensively, you're going to have to attempt to keep the lift-bot out of the home zone from outside of the home zone to avoid being carded. They have the penalties for you being inside the home zone for safety reasons as there will be robots lifted off of the ground and if you rammed the lift-bot at that point you could cause significant damage to the lifted robot.

I highly doubt that they will give you an card for violating <G25> if you make it clear that you are trying as hard as you can to play defense without violating the rule, but occasionally you overstep the line in your attempt to play defense.

As a water polo player, the best defensive strategies almost always include taking minor fouls in order to prevent an opponent advantage, but if you make a major foul in the process you are going to have to pay for your mistake. In FIRST, there isn't always a whole lot of distinction between intentional major and intentional minor fouls. In my experience with FIRST if you are going to violate a rule you had better make sure you're trying as hard as you can not to before you do.

Re: end game defense
 

well, who says u gotta take a 30pt penalty......With decent driving, one could probably block out at least one of the opposing alliance's robots with a relatively high success rate W/O going into their endzone. Reasons for believeing so:
1. robots will be rushing to the endzone at a point where relatively little time is left in the game... ie. <20sec So, if you are able to simply impede their advances, blocking a straight path to the endzone, they may not have enough time to climb on/get lifted in time.
2. if robot A is the one that lifts/lets others climb on to it has grounded itself (expanded to brace for the other robots, which i believe has to happen for 120lb robot to be lifted by robot A) there is a very small/limited entry point to get the bonus points, as robot A is no longer mobile at this point.

therefore, there is no need to get into the endzone(and incur a penalty) to play defense against the "above ground" bonus points

Do you guys agree with me? or is it already clearly established that getting the 30pt penalty is inevitable?