Re: The ultimate game breaker bot.
 

I actually have found the ultimate bot design. The issue is whether or not any rules will be broken.

http://www.xkcd.com/689/

Re: The ultimate game breaker bot.
 

heh... If only Randall had named that comic Dozer's Revenge :P

Re: The ultimate game breaker bot.
 

To start, this would most likely be barred from use simply because it's designed as a loophole tactic; judges try to eliminate that as much as possible because it's not in the spirit of the game.

Also, wouldn't this violate the finale configuration rule <R10> which says the maximum "regular configuration height" is 60 inches, meaning the robot can't extent to the height you specified because the bar is 7 feet above the ground?

Also, I can't cite the rule off hand but robots can't interfere with the ball-return mechanism...I'm fairly sure the judges could use this to disqualify your bot in attempt to keep out loophole designs, like I said in the beginning.

Re: The ultimate game breaker bot.
 

<G30> and the OTHER configuration in <R10> allow it. <G47> only disallows contact with a ball on the return. The second it is not on the return, a ball can be contacted.

Re: The ultimate game breaker bot.
 

Judges are there to enforce the rules, not bar something because it is a 'loophole' tactic. It's up to the GDC to determine legality of a tactic/device.

When you are touching the tower you may assume FINALE configuration at any time. Thus the total allowable height while in contact with the tower is 90"
The tactic here does not interfere with the return mechanism. It waits for the ball to leave the return mechanism and then redirects the ball.

From what I see, properly implemented, it could be legal. As for it's effectiveness ... That is to be seen. I, personally, look forward to playing against this strategy.

Re: The ultimate game breaker bot.
 

So, how about if a bot has a net that sticks up 3-4 feet and when the balls leave the chute they hit the properly placed bot and at least roll toward the tunnel into their alliances side?
It's passive, but if it's in the middle of the bot the balls would hit it more than 3 inches in the frame perimitter.
I don't see this as a sole stragity, but as something availble to help the alliance if needed.
What do you think?

Mike

Re: The ultimate game breaker bot.
 

You can't touch the balls once you're up on the tower.

Re: The ultimate game breaker bot.
 

Says who? Which rule prohibits this?

Re: The ultimate game breaker bot.
 

I think the only question here is, The GDC want's teams to play soccer, more or less, is doing something other then playing soccer going end up becoming illegal via a clarification week 6 or between events? Basically, teams are scared of ending up like 190/1519 in 2008.

Re: The ultimate game breaker bot.
 

The GDC has surely seen this thread, and posted Team Updates about above bumper zone passive ball manipulation mechanisms in response to proposals much like this one.

Multiple aspects of 190's hurdling approach were deemed either illegal or against the intent of a hurdle only a week or so into build season. 1519 is sketchier territory.

I don't think a lot of teams are scared of their robot designs being ruled illegal.

Re: The ultimate game breaker bot.
 

Not to pick on Dan, but I want to clarify the roles. Judges are there to select awards (Chairmans, etc.) Referees and Inspectors are there to enforce the rules. Very different roles among the three positions.

Re: The ultimate game breaker bot.
 

I stand corrected.

;)

Re: The ultimate game breaker bot.
 

IMO, 190's hurdler, while certainly playing the edge of the rules, I think should have been allowed. As for 1519, I don't see how it was sketchy at all. They had a movable control board, which was the ROBOT, since it had the ROBOT CONTROLLER on it. Fezzik and Speed Racer were simply two MECHANISMS it could be attached to. I always thought this sort of thing was EXACTLY within the spirit of the interchangeable MECHANISMS but have to be within 120lbs all inclusive rule.

In any case, I dont think that theres going to be many (if any) teams trying this tactic, as its very difficult to do it within the rules as written now.

Re: The ultimate game breaker bot.
 

Last time I played soccer, which was quite a few years ago granted, I could "trap" the ball with my chest and drop it at my feet to dribble down the field. All I see this approach doing is the same thing.

You obviously can't POSSESS the balls over the bumper (using your hands in soccer) but I see nothing in the rules, now that they clarified them with the update that would disallow passively directing the ball with the top of your robot (your chest) like you do in soccer.

Re: The ultimate game breaker bot.
 

If you wanted to go by the spirit of the rules, 1519 was not legal. If you wanted to go by the letter of the rules, then they were (unless possibly their bumpers weren't). (To quote a Q&A for that year responding to a question about something else, "That would be a violation of the spirit, but not necessarily the letter, of the rules.") ROBOT that year was poorly defined; something about whatever a team places on the field that has passed inspection, if I recall correctly.

The next year, the definition of ROBOT was changed to include a mobility system, control system, etc. and it hasn't changed.