Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

I realize there is zero chance for a rule change at this stage.
My view of team 469 is the same as yours and others, they are great!
My ONLY issue is with the rule that affords loopers an unfair advantage in access to returning balls. At this stage, I only want to focus attention on what I consider the clear unfairness of this rule, so that any future game rules will hopefully NOT have this degree of potential unfairness available for exploit. I am NOT focused on how I "can more easily beat them". I want BOTH their victories and my losses to take place within a context of clearcut fairness within the rules, and this rule, I feel, is detrimental to game fairness. I don't see my pointing out a potential rule unfairness issue as being "ungracious on my part", and I reject your accusation to that effect.

We are eagerly looking forward to encountering a looper or two at the upcoming Northstar Regional, and will continue to prepare as best we can for dealing with them there.

-Dick Ledford

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

I agree, we have all made our points clearly enough at this point, and we can agree to disagree.
All the Best! - especially to the loopers!

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

Yeah, kind of like that unfair rule in football that allowed the Saints to kick an onside kick in the Superbowl so the poor Colts didn't get "access" to return the ball at the beginning of the second half? Playing a game by the rules and being smart enough and gutsy enough to exploit them to your advantage is not being "unfair".

Do you have any idea what "fair" means?? It means that the rules are the same for both teams. Saying that loopers have an "unfair" advantage is like saying soccor goalies have an "unfair" advantage because they can use their hands and the poor strikers can't. Live with it, it's the way the game works. Whining that it's "unfair" when it's the same for both teams makes little sense and gets kind of old. If it's within the rules and the same for both teams, by definition it is fair.

There's nothing to stop you from doing a better job on your tower than the opposing looper does on theirs.

From the Online Dictionary:

fair1   /fɛər/ Show Spelled [fair] Show IPA adjective,-er, -est, adverb,-er, -est, noun, verb
–adjective
1.free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice: a fair decision; a fair judge.
2.legitimately sought, pursued, done, given, etc.; proper under the rules: a fair fight.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

Still EQUAL ACCESS TO THE BALL though after 10 yds!

Just because it's the SAME BAD RULE for BOTH TEAMS, doesn't mean it is no longer a BAD RULE! We would never change any bad rules if we just argued that "when it's the same for both teams" then it is still fair & should not be changed. No one here at CD has yet given a very good justification for having this rule in the FIRST place..

So that was the real intent of the GDC - to turn the game into a battle of the loopers, and may the fastest & most accurate ball recirculators go on to ultimate victory! OK, now I see the big picture.

From McMillan Dictionary:
an unfair situation is one in which the people involved are not all treated equally or do not all have the same opportunities and advantages...

It does not matter which tower you are at, the defense is ALWAYS at a severe disadvantage when the looper exploit is allowed and deployed effectively. The status of ramp balls now changes from EQUAL ACCESS to EXCLUSIVE ACCESS FOR OFFENSE ONLY. This matches the above definition perfectly. It is ONLY from the bad rule that this unfair situation arises.

-Dick Ledford

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

One of the (minor) reasons my team abandoned this looping strategy (our primary strategy) a week and a half into build is that we didn't want to deal with the "cheating/unfair backlash" if successful. Despite TU 2 assuring that this strategy is 100% legal, to the average viewer (not well versed in the rules, a frequent CD reader or strategist that considered this idea) the initial reaction is to consider this strategy cheating. Note: this doesnt apply to Dick who is extremely well versed on the rules at this point He just has very strong minority opinion about balance in this game.

The major reasons were to avoid: 1)risk of design working as well as intended, 2)targeted counter-strategies (from the collective minds of all FIRST teams) and 3)boring our drivers (who would only have to switch left and right directions after deploy). Although, we had working ramp prototypes that bounced balls off the bump and into the goal, the deployment method was risky but potentially harder to stop than 469's method. So we voted for the conventional high-floor, low-ceiling, exciting kicker bot (a reasonable decision that turned out well). Props to 469, 51 and all the other looper bots for taking the risk and showing us what is possible.

I agree that this thread should be closed temporarily. Let's give 469 a break from the controversy as they prepare for the Troy District event. By Friday night, they probably will give us something new worth discussing. The discussion is a civil debate, but it is just the same differing opinions about a strategy that allowed an elite alliance to dominate one event in record fashion. Reading some of these posts cannot possibly be a pleasant experience for members of 469. I congratulate them for resisting the natural urge to fire back when someone suggests that your accomplishments were earned by exploiting an unfair set of rules and those rules should be changed to make their design and strategy illegal. Most of the time, I would expect a thread like this to spiral into a flame war with tons of deleted posts. Restraint on their part is a major reason for this.

I'm not saying stop discussing this all together, just take some time to observe the competition this weekend without all the rhetoric. Perhaps then the discussion should continue in a new thread since OP here was focused on the reducing the penalties for violating the finale tower protection rules.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

Nothing in the rules to stop a defensive robot with a 60" tall ramp angled in the opposite direction from wedging itself under 469's tower. Any balls coming down the return ramp would then be accelerated towards the opposite goal. The defensive robot has the advantage because it gets to start right next to 469's tower and could easily be in place on autonomous before 469 could cross the field. Would you say that in this case that the DEFENSE now has EXCLUSIVE ACCESS to the balls that were just scored by the opposing alliance??

The way the rules are written the only advantage an offensive robot has is in it's ability to expand in contact with the goal. Trying to say that the rules are "unfair" if they're not the same for offense and defense defies all logic. Should all soccor players be able to use their hands like the goalies? Should football offensive linemen be able to use their hands like the defense? In baseball, ties go to the runner. I guess you think they should be split 50-50? Who gets the first one? Obviously you've never played a game of basketball using "make it - take it" rules, where the team that scores also gets to bring the ball back in. The rules are an inherent part of defining the game and are not "unfair" to anyone.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

I believe that this rule is perfectly fine as worded. Good strategy such as 469's requires good counter strategy not an adjustment in the game. This rule leads to different robot strategies like 469's, different in game strategies, and simply calls for an adjustment in alliance selection strategy to combat it. Good rules call for alteration of strategy and for risk/reward. This rule as written has accomplished that. If a team has created a robot that is currently making their strategy a reward then come up with an in game strategy that makes it a risk.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

Dick,

As I understand it, your primary problem here is that allowing robots to expand when touching their own towers gives an unfair advantage to loopers, allowing them to create designs that are too dominating. Your proposed solution was to allow all teams to expand when touching any tower. There's been a couple of posts suggesting this would be a bad solution just as prone to exploits. Vision blocking defensive wall bots are just one of the shudder inducing designs that come to mind. So I'd like to take a different tack here. If you believe the issue is with only allowing teams to expand while touching the their tower, then consider this solution:

No teams are allowed to expand before the finale. This "solves" your claimed imbalance in the rules. But does it really prevent a powerful looper in the style of 469? True, they gain certain advantages from expanding upwards and outwards. But would a normal configuration robot designed along the same lines be that less powerful? It would still be able to wedge under the tower, if slightly less so. The catch mechanism would be slightly less reliable. The funnels would be a bit more complicated and possibly a bit less accurate. But you could still implement nearly the same robot without ever bothering to leave the 60x38x28. The only differences would be slightly less accuracy (which isn't perfect or necessary anyways) and increased temptation\ability for other teams to clobber and mangle their robot. The difference is just a matter of degree of perfection.

So, what else could you come up with to stop this strategy? Rules against directing balls with structures above the bumper zone? That's hard to enforce and eliminates innocent ramp and wall bots. Rules against sitting in one place? There's just no way to change the rules to eliminate or seriously weaken looper bots that won't create a myriad of other problems.

So, in answer to your request for a defense of these rules:

These rules create less problems and truly unfair designs than any other similar set of rules the GDC could think up. Any other rules would create the potential for far too many other problem robots or would be too restricting to other game aspects. The potential for a truly extremely dominant looper was likely judged extremely small and not particularly harmful.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

My idea with both teams being allowed to expand at either tower was that it still allowed the 469 & 51 teams to work as designed, but it gave the defenders a chance to contest for the balls at the same elevation. Thus the loopers would have to do some ball control battling up high if they wanted their balls to recirculate as planned. With the current rules, it is like having an NBA jump ball where the defense can't leave the floor --- so who do you think gets possession every time? Of course, the offense does. I feel that ball ramp returning balls have the same status as jump balls in the NBA, and both the offense and defense should have EQUAL ACCESS to these ramp return balls. Is this so hard a concept to comprehend. I don't see where these absurd comparisons with soccer goalies using their hands are coming from. Ramp returning balls are a TOTALLY DIFFERENT scenario. The NBA jump ball analogy is a fair and realistic comparison. Am I making up absurd analogies to back up my position? I think not. Any neutral people out there?

-Dick Ledford

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

Last time I checked, the NBA players were allowed to grab said jump ball. In Breakaway, players are not allowed to grab it, except with their "feet".

It's a jump ball where the defense can't leave the ground, but the offense can't grab the ball before it hits the ground. They can sure swat it in the direction of their team, though.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

I think so. I think a closer analogy to the Breakaway scoring system can be found in tennis or volleyball. In both those cases the defensive team gets NO chance at the ball once it's scored. The offensive team gets the ball back and gets a chance to score again without the defense being able to touch it, just like "Breakaway" using a looper. The only way the defense can get the ball is to get between the ball and the goal once the offensive team tries to score again, then take the ball away. In tennis or volleyball, even then they can't score it, they just win the opportunity to go on the offensive.

I would say that the defense in tennis and volleyball having to "BREAK the serve" is analogous to the defense in Breakaway taking the ball away in the opponents home zone and moving it down the field and scoring it. Since the defense can't touch the ball immiediatly upon it's return to the field after a score (just like tennis and volleyball), they must disrupt it before it reaches the goal to stop a score and gain the opportunity for themselves to score.

If a tennis or volleyball team feels that the rule that gives them the ball back after scoring is "unfair", there's nothing to stop them from serving an easy blooper to their opponents. Likewise, if you feel that the rule that lets "Breakaway" offensive robots expand on their tower is unfair, feel free to not take advantage of it when you are on offense. But don't cry that it's "unfair" for a team to play by the rules that apply equally to everyone.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

You are missing the entire point of my NBA jump ball analogy. It has NOTHING to do with hands or feet , and nothing to do with grabbing or swatting the ball.
The point relates to fairness in the method of how balls are reintroduced into game play. An NBA jump ball is tossed airborne by the ref and both players have totally equal access to it at that moment. A Breakaway returning ball is launched airborne, and the offense has exclusive access to it until it drops to the 60" max. height level limit of the defensive bots. The loopers take advantage of this EXCLUSIVE ACCESS TO THE BALL to accomplish this strategy. This 24" looper advantage is the point of contention.

-Dick Ledford

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

A jump ball (more commonly known as a tipoff) is the start of the half. It is never done right after a score. At that time, there is no offense or defense. Your analogy doesn't hold.

Now, for a rebound, it would hold better, as that's a missed shot going to who-knows-where and up for grabs. Having the defense stay flat on the floor then would create havoc.

I think you'd have made your point better with an NHL faceoff, where both sides have equal access to get the puck back to their players once the puck drops. Those happen after every goal, or after a penalty puts the puck in one of the circles. Imagine doing one of those with the scored-on team starting with their stick outside the circle...

You're not making up absurd analogies, but using analogies that have little to no relation is just as bad, or worse.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

Bad analogies - these sports make no pretense of having balls come back into play in any type of an "equal opportunity" way. Breakaway is modeled on soccer. The soccer throw-in does not give any positioning advantages to the players on the field for either team. Hockey is similar to soccer - face offs have equal access to the puck. Are ya getting the picture yet?

-Dick Ledford

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

Well, if you want to strictly narrow the focus on the post-scoring aspect of how balls are re-introduded to a game , then soccer rules actually GIVE possession (for the mid-field kickoff) to the team that was defending the score, and on top of that, they even provide a 10-yard buffer to assist them in getting their attack organized.
In fact, the Breakaway ramp scheme seems to have been intended to do mainly this same thing - get ball back into play at midfield, and have a direction of ball travel favoring team that was defending the score. There are philosophical considerations in designing game rules, and both soccer and Breakaway had a lot of similarity, at least until the GDC interpreted them such that the looper exploit was approved.
In my view this caused a philosophical shift in a wrong direction.
BTW, Eric, originally basketball DID do a jump ball after every score, but that changed at some point.
-Dick Ledford