Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

You have some secret insight into the GDC that says they had intentions of trying to get the balls in Breakaway back into play with "equal opportunity"? I'd be interested in seeing the link if you do.

If that was the intention there are literally millions of ways to accomplish it where no team would have any advantage.

It's modeled on soccer about as much as "Overdrive" was modeled on NASCAR racing. Breakaway has some aspects of soccer. It also has aspects of basketball, hockey, off-road racing, and volleyball as well as it's own unique characteristics.

I've had the picture since the game was announced. :) Breakaway is it's own unique game as defined by a unique set of rules. I guess I just can't comprehend the lack of logic behind saying it's "unfair" when the same rules apply to both teams, even though it's a unique game that differs from any other game you're familiar with.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

This thread has gotten rather long and repetitive. I've been following it for a while and am not even sure what the argument is anymore. Everyone has different opinions about what set of rules the optimal game would have. Just look at Team Update 16.

Is it possible that including the tower extension rule may not have been the best decision by the GDC? Yes.

Do we fault 469 and other for developing a successful strategy within the rules given to everyone? No.

Certainly we can agree on these points?

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

I don't agree with the first point, actually. I like the rule the way it is, with only the tower's respective alliance aloud to expand on it. It prevents a lot of hairy areas in other aspects of gameplay (namely hanging, finale period restraints, and a lot of judgement calls for "forced penalties"), and overall definitely helps the game.
I also still fail to see how expansion at the tower would really help with ball blocking mechanisms to prevent a "looper." Other than perhaps a giant wall (which could still be circumvented by a looper design you'll see tomorrow), and I definitely feel gigantic wall bots are worse for the game than loopers.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

How would defense be helped in defending loopers by having expansion at opponent's tower? Well they could now reach the height to knock the balls away before they ever properly engaged the looper's ramp, that's how. They could also poke into the looper's ball chute flow path to deflect them off the chute. Many more options than just ramming endlessly.

-Dick Ledford

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

Dick, I suggest you re-read some of the rules.

Good luck poking the ball chute flow path or reaching above their robot without contacting them outside the bumper zone. :rolleyes:

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

Err... what? Normally you seem to be pretty "on top" of these things, but I'm not sure how any of these things could ever be considered "aggressive or intentional" contact. And from what I saw, COTBZ (it's been around for so long, it has to be an abbreviation!) has not been called very much this year anyway. Whether or not that's actually a good idea or not, I don't know, but I don't think you can go against it on this point...

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

I never said it would be simple or easy, but certainly a lot more possible to overlap your hardware with theirs in the 60"-84" zone within the flow path of the balls. I was not suggesting impacts with their chutes, only interference with ball flow WITHOUT CONTACT. At least with expansion both horizontal and vertical possible, there are a lot more creative options open for interference with the looping balls' flow paths.
-Dick Ledford

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

Trying to knock a ball off of a robot. How is that anything BUT "intentional"?

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

I'm trying to decide if you're really serious or if this is a joke. You're actually proposing that you could build something that will overlap the mechanism of another robot that you've never even seen before (or have any clue of how it's designed) WITHOUT TOUCHING IT and take the ball away if they would just let you expand on the other team's tower?

If anybody in FIRST had that kind of design, programming, sensing and construction capability, it would be demonstrated on their current robot and they would be scoring 100 points per game. They would then be immediately hired by NASA to design the next generation heavy lift launch vehicle ......

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

I personally think its funny that you would want to design your robot to interfere with such an infestimally small subset of the robots this year at all. There have been maybe 10 looper bots out of how many teams this year (1100+)? Why would you want to design your robot to interact with 1/10 of a percent of the possible robots you are going to deal with at a competition?

I don't even want to address how you would be doing this, as what you are describing is something that would have almost had to be designed right from the beginning of the kick off in order to have enough time and more importantly access to your robot in order to build your mechanism. How would you have been pre-cognizant enough to build this robot from the beginning. I thought building a looper was a gamble, and we are one of the few teams that took that gamble. I can't even imagine how much a gamble it would be to build an anti-looper bot.

I was in a first week regional and here in the south we don't get the incredibly unfair advantage of bag and tag, so whatever we are adding at Atlanta we have to bring in completely self-contained and ready to bolt on. Are you a bag and tag team which can basically rebuild your robot every weekend? With qualifiers starting on Thursday lowering the time I can get a robot addition added to nearly nothing, I don't see how you would even have the time to build your looper blocker otherwise.

On the other hand, if you had concentrated on a good kicking, maneuvarable robot like the other 75% of the robot teams, you can shut down the looper bots by just playing the game. Put your best kicker in the defender zone and kick the balls out of their endless loop. Sure they may get some balls scored while you're emptying their que, but with a good team you should be scoring just as much on the other side.

I don't see the need to change a rule for the very small chance that someone would have built a competent enough robot to take advantage of it. There is never a "fair" game, especially in FIRST. Someone is always got more resources, or more time(bag and tag), or a different idea. Do your best, and remember that FIRST is about inspiring high schoolers to want to be engineers and technically oriented. Those looper bots that are really effective sure have inspired our group.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

You should probably review the rules regarding bagged robots before you say anything more about them. Teams attending a two-day "bag & tag" regional or district competition get six hours of access to the robot during the week before that competition. See section 4.8.3 of the game manual for the specifics.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

That's good information, but the fact still stands that if you are attending a Michigan district event, you get 6 hours before each District event in your own workshop which is an HUGE advantage. Seeing as most teams are attending 2 or 3 districts plus the State Championship that does give the Michigan folks quite a big advantage.

I do stand corrected though and thank you for pointing out that it wasn't as crazy an opportunity as I thought it was. Still an advantage but not ridiculous.

Back on topic though, even if the rule had been changed by week 2 I don't see where it would really have done much good. And like some have pointed out, if it had been this way from the beginning then you would have had 84" wall bots blocking the view of the field. You aren't likely to do that on your own side of the field so I am glad to see this rule was fairly well thought out.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

So, Who's seen Rule Update #20?
The GDC met in an emergency teleconference meeting last night. Breakaway is a game designed with the idea of high mobility and interaction. For this reason, blocking the tunnel us now considered a form of pinning, as it restricts some teams to only one zone. A team may not block a tunnel for more than five seconds during regular gameplay. This rule does not apply during the finale.
And remember, teams, this update was published April 1, April Fools Day.
[the MC announced this during opening ceremonies at the Michigan State Championship today]

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

Just to be clear, there was no access period before the MI state tournament. Reason is because it is a 3 day event.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

I assume you would be blocking 469 from this tactic by sitting in their zone on the opposite side of the tower? If so, you would be the defending robot and 469's team mates would be free to score at will.

I also see it being more feasible to make a looper robot than one that keeps it from scoring. That way, the complex mechanism that you make can be used in all matches, not just ones against loopers.

No matter which way I look at it objectively, I always come to the conclusion that "fixing" the rule would *not actually be useful.

*EDIT: forgot that word...