Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

Check it out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cgh1887XDo

Scott

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

I respectfully disagree. The idea of FIRST is to come up with the most innovative solution to a problem. Of all the robots I've seen, 469 has been the most creative bot out there. Instead of imagining a new way to achieve some aspect of the game, 469 created a new way of playing the entire game. The only disadvantage is that it requires them to be dependent on a bot that can score at least a fair amount. As other teams start to learn how to defend against this, though, they'll need an alliance member that can score really well and/or someone who can keep other robots from bumping it during delivery. It'll be interesting to see them in later competitions, as people come up with creative ways on how to stop them.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

I think some high caliber teams can compete with them without that type of mechanism. A defensive bot with a good kicker could clear out that zone, leaving 469's alliance with not much else to do, but to move to the middle and fight over balls. I wonder if we have to wait until MI State or Atlanta to see such an epic match.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

I also must disagree. What is the "nature of the game"? this is a brand new, never before played game. WE create the nature of the game. 469 came up with a very creative solution. One that worked very well for them. They now have a very large target painted on them. For the next 5 weeks, hundreds of VERY smart people will be working VERY hard to come up with a strategy to defeat their method. I expect that at least some of those smart people will succeed.

This is the "nature of the game". A challenge is issued, a team meets that challenge, and thereby issues a challenge of their own. I look forward to Atlanta, where we will surely see how these challenges have been met.

Good luck to all!

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

This reminds me of "Spawn camping" in some first-person shooter video games, where you simply sit and wait in front of where an enemy player will start the game at (the "spawn point"), and shoot him right when he appears. The enemy then dies, then reappears in the same area moments later, only to be killed again.

Spawn camping is a good way to annoy your opponents and rack up points.

In team games, sometimes other teammates can shoot the "camper" to stop the endless cycle, but this case looks like it would be difficult to stop...

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

The GDC implicitly allowed this type of design via update 9 or whichever it was. I would say that shows that they certainly intended for such a robot to play this game.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

Kudos to Dan, Don and the entire 469 team for coming up with such an awsome design that were all trying to figure out a way to beat this possible game dominating bot. They need a great offensive bot to get this to work so 910 would be happy to fill that spot for you!!!!!

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

Cory,

It was update #2.

Mike

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

Except during the finale, is there something that would stop a robot from quickly parking themselves inside the opposing alliances tunnel thereby preventing 469 from getting in position? Of course, if you went too far so as to be in 469's end zone you'd get a penalty. You'd need a robot can go partially inside the tunnel and then be stopped by the platform and hence can't be pushed any further.

This Q&A http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=13730 makes it clear the carpet under the tower is not part of the end zone.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

Block the tower in autonomous, at least long enough for any (or most) autonomously-scored balls to clear the system, and then play ball-starvation. That's how you beat a 469-type robot.

Easier said than done, of course, but that's how you do it.

469 is great, because it forces the 'defense bot' to have a good ball acquisition and shooter, and not just be a brute-force blocker. If you can rob them of balls and force the two offense-bots to pull back to try to stop *you* from scoring, then you're in for a heck of an exciting game...

...if you can score a double or triple hang at the end of it all to cap off whatever balls you've scored, then you stand a good chance.

But if you DON'T stop them in autonomous, you're probably done for. Looks like those programmers better get busy! Did you put a white line finder on your robots, kiddies? :D

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

Except G28 says you'd get two penalties and a yellow card for crossing the center line during autonomous. I guess you'd have to get a close as you can without crossing the line.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

You can't completely cross the line, but you can partially cross the line in auton.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

I *knew* there was a reason we built and mounted a white-line finder in the center of our robot! :D

On that note, does anyone know if 469 has done the same? Because if you can get them to deflect off of your robot instead of going under the tower, and they don't stop at the white line...

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

Illegal under <R02-C>, which can be penalized under <S04> if you make it to the field.

It'd be easier to get them for pinning by parking across their tunnel entrance--most robots can't get through in the wide direction. They try to go in, and they keep trying for too long, it's a pinning penalty.

Re: How does 469 not violate <R19>?
 

Sorry, I'm on HughesNet, which is *very* downloading-pdfs-from-usfirst.com unfriendly. What is R02-C that would make it illegal to block the tower, and if they happen to deflect off of you in autonomous, they would not be penalized? (Please note that it would not be our robot that causes them to cross the white line -- it would be their drive train and their programming when faced with a situation that they perhaps did not anticipate.)

Seems unlikely given the overall time frame. At best you're probably looking at a penalty for extending when not in contact with the tower. (That would be *in addition* to a white line penalty, if any).