UPDATE #3
 

So here's the newest update! http://www.usfirst.org/uploadedFiles...Update%203.pdf

lots of wording fixes but the main focus is on how the human players can/can't manipulate the orbit balls

Re: UPDATE #3
 

And not one single word clarifying bumper rules. Unbelievable.

Re: UPDATE #3
 

Basically it's a conglomeration of updates based on the answers to scoring/PS questions in the Q&A. I guess this is good for those people who didn't bother to read each question in the Q&A...

Re: UPDATE #3
 

I am surprised by G20c: the operation of recycling the moon rocks to the outpost by "passing" them through the port.

The port is not at floor level and is outside the arena railing. Your robot can't extend past the bumper perimeter. The Payload Specialist in the Outpost has no tongs. If the robot has only a shooter with which to "pass" the moon rocks to the Payload Specialist strapped into his seat on the other side who cannot move out of his seat without incurring a penalty ... Oh, the poor Payload Specialist.

Re: UPDATE #3
 

Still nothing on how trailers are supported for no-show robots.

Re: UPDATE #3
 

It'll be interesting what the ruling on this will be, but it's not really important until the first week of competition.

Re: UPDATE #3
 

Is anyone else having trouble downloading Section 7-The Game, Rev C? The link says it's revision C, but it loads Rev A.

Re: UPDATE #3
 

I wonder if there is going to be a signal, beep or ring of a bell at the "20 seconds left in the match" mark...like the shutdown sequence call

Re: UPDATE #3
 

If they've kept the 2007 effects (like they did in 2008), there will be one at 20 seconds and another at 15 seconds.

I hope they keep that sound set.

Re: UPDATE #3
 

Because there haven't been any changes in the rules since Update #2. There have been several illuninating posts in Q&A lately, but they don't actually create new rules. They only help us to realize what the GDC really was trying to say.

They did add two penalties (<G20C> and <G24C>), making a total of 29.

Beside all the PS/handling clarifications, we had the expected change in <G14> that it is the pre-penalty score that counts when calculating 2x or 3x.

They have to update the rules when Q&A change them. Only the rules are used by the referees/inspectors/etc. to make decisions.

Re: UPDATE #3
 

Does the bumper rules need clarification? So far, they pretty well spell out exactly how the bumpers are supposed to be. There have been debates about whether the rules should exist or not which is rather irrelevant, but the point is that the rules are all there and spell out exactly what is necessary. Frankly, if there is any more clarification on the bumper rules, I will be shocked and somewhat annoyed for having to read the same rule yet again.

Note: I'm sorry if I offended you, Abwehr, or anyone else out there. I'm just tired of reading thread after thread on this topic on delphi, not to mention the dozen threads Q&A and the lengthy section in the manual regarding a simple matter.

Re: UPDATE #3
 

I agree that the trailers for no-shows is not important until competition but it would be helpful for developing stratagy and having a back up plan if anything fails for us or our alliance

Re: UPDATE #3
 

I also agree about the bumper rule if you follow the simple string around the robot test and read the rules carfully there is, regretably, no real room for interptretation

Re: UPDATE #3
 

I think if you listen closely to the game animation you can hear the sounds at 20 seconds, not sure about 15 seconds.

Re: UPDATE #3
 

Bah, I still can not get use to the new names given to drivers/operators/human players. (Yes, I know I sound like a grumpy old man now :rolleyes:)

Re: UPDATE #3
 

Nah, I'm with ya on that one :)

Re: UPDATE #3
 

Its the same thing as last years problem of everyone calling the overpass "the rack"

Re: UPDATE #3
 

Now they fixed the link to point to Rev C, but they forgot to add the G07 rule changes.

Re: UPDATE #3
 

"<G23> SUPER CELL scoring – During the last 20 seconds of the MATCH, the PAYLOAD
SPECIALIST may enter a SUPER CELL into play by removing it from the CELL RACK. They
may then enter it into the CRATER, either over the Alliance Station Wall or through the
FUELING PORT. A ROBOT or PAYLOAD SPECIALIST can SCORE any SUPER CELL
that has been entered in play. If a SUPER CELL is removed from the CELL RACK before
the last 20 seconds of the MATCH, then two (2) PENALTIES will be assigned to the
offending ALLIANCE: under such conditions, the SUPER CELL may still be entered into
play and subsequently SCORED."

Awesome this is what I was hoping we could do. We can probably get a score with our robot than with our shooters, we forgot to recruit members from our basketball team. :P

Re: UPDATE #3
 

I tend to agree with the folks that say the bumper rule has been defined. I don't really like the rule as it is written, but it is written. Many people have asked the question in the Q&A about bumper legality. The GDC has answered the questions (see here)

I just hope that this doesn't become the tether rule of 2002.

Re: UPDATE #3
 

Of course, the game animation is not always the most accurate source for game procedures. It forgets to mention the required use of tongs, shows the human player trading cells with a ref, not the rack.

In Rack&Roll, since you had to stay out of your opponent's home zone thing during the last 15 seconds, they played both a 20 seconds left warning (so you could get out) and a 15 seconds left noise.
So, I'm fairly certain that they will use some sound to indicate the last 20 seconds since there is a critical rule referring to that time.

Re: UPDATE #3
 

The game animation, as Dave explained elsewhere in the last day or so, is done in parallel with the "tweaks" to the rules. Some of those tweaks come too late to do anything about them, so it may be that the tongs and the cell racks were included in those.

Of course, then there's that one from last year... The animation showed something that was illegal until the first update came out (on a Monday). The manual just hadn't had that rule removed yet.

Re: UPDATE #3
 

Regarding the no-show rules, I don't see this as being much of a strategic plan.. my experience is that it is *very* rare that a robot doesn't show up to a match, and dedicating any time to planning this as a strategy would rob your team of the effort applied to strategies that would affect 99+% of your matches..

That being said, I agree that clarification of this situation should be posted in the team updates, but more in the spirit of 100% disclosure of the rules.. not because it should drive team strategies in any way...

Re: UPDATE #3
 

Here's the thing, if they don't put a trailer out there in some manner for a missing robot 100% of matches will consist of 0 robots and will result in 0-0 ties.

As much as I wouldn't want to waste all our hard work spent on the robot, I also wouldn't want to lose because the other alliance fielded no robots and we put ours out on the field.

Re: UPDATE #3
 

If the other team wins a match because;

1) the GDC announces absent robot = no trailer (which I doubt).
2) Teams then exploit this and field no robots.

They didn't win anything. Well, maybe something, the eternal loss of respect from anyone in the FIRST community who's opinion matters.

How could anyone be happy to win a robotics competition in which they never fielded a robot.

Some people are ridiculous.

Re: UPDATE #3
 

Hmmm.. so would it be too idealistic to assume that they won't let this happen, and whether they've announced it or not, wouldn't it be fair/reasonable to assume that all 6 trailers will be on the field regardless of no-shows?

(I guess my point is that this is probably a loophole that's useless to spend much time thinking about.. sooner or later they'll close it or else we'll end up with the scenario that you proposed..)

Re: UPDATE #3
 

I'm a bit surprised that they didn't do more to G14. Ok, it's the unpenalized scores, but still, what happens in the event of shut-outs? is there a low-score cap? and in what order are balls removed: do you lose the empty cells or super cells first, or is it just random? and finally, how, exactly, do these penalties get carried through the qualifiers, or will this rule be limited to the eliminations only?

would anybody be able to ask these in the Q&A for me, I don't have access to a team account in the FIRST forums.

Re: UPDATE #3
 

I agree with both of you (Adam and MrHero). The GDC will almost certainly clarify this, and I would almost certainly expect that the trailer's will remain on the field (no inside knowledge to base this on however).

The GDC is probably concentrating efforts (appropriately) on clarifying rules that are more likely to effect design and overall strategy decisions before they focus on any issues like this that should not effect team's designs.

Re: UPDATE #3
 

The team affected gets to choose, as a consequence of where they decide to put their payload specialist.

Re: UPDATE #3
 

Some of this has been addressed in the Q&A.
There is no low score cap, and a score of x to zero where x is not equal to zero will result in the three times penalty.

Here's the link:
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread...ighlight=score

Re: UPDATE #3
 

Here is a simple solution. If an alliance has 2 or more no shows they will be penalized 10 points for each no show over 1. That gets rid of the 0-0 tie.

Re: UPDATE #3
 

Hardly. You have based this assumption on a fundamentally unsound application of game theory.

Using some VERY basic assumptions: If an alliance fields no robots, nobody can win. If an alliance fields more robots than the opposing alliance, the alliance with more robots will win. If both alliances field the same number of robots, nobody wins.

BLUE ALLIANCE
3 2 1 0
RED 3 Robots (0,0) (1,0) (1,0) (0,0)
ALLIANCE 2 Robots (0,1) (0,0) (1,0) (0,0)
1 Robot (0,1) (0,1) (0,0) (0,0)
0 Robots (0,0) (0,0) (0,0) (0,0)


From a pure strategy point, both alliances will go with 3 robots, as that is the dominant strategy - that is for every scenario, 3 robots has a greater or equal outcome to any other strategy.


Now the biggest assumption is that if both alliances play the same number, no body wins. So we'll factor in X as the probability of Blue Alliance winning with equal numbers of bots (allowing for X < 0 if Blue will 'probably' lose, but X<=1,X>=-1). Let's also assume that a loss does more than not harm a team, but negatively affects it.
This gives us:

BLUE ALLIANCE
3 2 1 0
RED 3 Robots (-X,X) (1,-1) (1,-1) (0,0)
ALLIANCE 2 Robots (-1,1) (-X,X) (1,-1) (0,0)
1 Robot (-1,1) (-1,1) (-X,X) (0,0)
0 Robots (0,0) (0,0) (0,0) (0,0)

Thus, at the very least Blue's dominant strategy is 3 if X>=0, and Red's dominant strategy is 3 if X<=0, so one team will play 3 regardless.

Let's go one step further (without working out all of the mixed-strategy equilibriums that is). Let's assume that any team that fields no robot LOSES a match where the other team fields any robots(consider any sporting event, a complete no show results in a forfeit victory for the team that is there). Even if that is not a judged outcome (that is, if the judges declare no show = tie), scouting teams will be disappointed by not being able to see robots in action, and that will likely negatively affect their decisions, hurting the chances of a no show team getting picked for a final alliance.

So we are given:

BLUE ALLIANCE
3 2 1 0
RED 3 Robots (-X,X) (1,-1) (1,-1) (1,-1)
ALLIANCE 2 Robots (-1,1) (-X,X) (1,-1) (1,-1)
1 Robot (-1,1) (-1,1) (-X,X) (1,-1)
0 Robots (-1,1) (-1,1) (-1,1) (-1,-1)

This shows that both alliances will ALWAYS play 3 robots if possible.

Re: UPDATE #3
 

I think you could argue this assumption.

Re: UPDATE #3
 

Which is why I specifically said

While it is certainly possible for 2 robots to beat 3, in an average playing field, with randomly assigned team mates, the 3 robot team usually has a significant advantage over a 2 robot team.

Re: UPDATE #3
 

Any alliance that allows a 0 score for the other team would be at fault themselves. It is too easy to score a few for the other alliance just to preserve your advantage in the following matches. In the end play to have fun and watch how other robots work:)

Re: UPDATE #3
 

If both sides play "optimally", the alliance with 2 robots will always win, since two trailers cannot hold as many game pieces as 3.

(I'm just playing devil's advocate; I know that this won't be a practical limitation on scoring) :D

Re: UPDATE #3
 

I don't think so, while the 2 bot alliance will have more targets, they can only focus on one at a time. While the other alliance will have another bot to "pick" and "bully" with.

Re: UPDATE #3
 

Unfortunately they will have a hard time with that, because if the other side is also playing optimally they can better control the ball supply (there may be more room for balls in trailers, but the 2 robot alliance will not be able to get as many balls to score with).

Re: UPDATE #3
 

If there are more than 2 match scores in any regional in which an alliance fields 2 or more robots and attains a (pre-penalty) score of 0, I'll eat my hat. And yours, too.

Re: UPDATE #3
 

I'm gonna buy one of those big 10 gallon hats, just so you have a hard time of it. :)

Re: UPDATE #3
 

It seems reasonable, so I am assuming it will be the case, that it turns out that the trailer is left on the field for a no-show robot. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen, so my team has been discussing strategies for dealing with a no-show alliance partner. We think that the best course it to put the no-show at the outpost because of the outpost PS finite ball supply and then to "rescue" it in autonomous mode by sweeping it away from the outpost with our robot, for which we plan to have such autonomous modes.