Team Update #6
 

Team Update 6 has been posted.

I don't really like the exemption from <G61> for rules <G32> and <G33>. I see this increasing the burden on refs to determine if whether an offensive team is using "strategies aimed at taking advantage of this exception". I also see it increasing the burden on the offense to show that they are not using such strategies.

I would have liked to see them leave <G61> in place for those rules, but add the Red Card for not leaving.

There are already plenty of places where defense is not allowed in this game, I don't really see the need to limit it further like this.

Re: Team Update #6
 

Looks like the pole is illegal as well.

By pole, I mean a pole to bring the minibot down to a level that a person can reach.

Re: Team Update #6
 

Little worried that "pushing through" the defense into your own scoring penalty will be considered a "Strategey aimed at taking advantage of this exception" even though the goal was to get yourself into your own zone.

Re: Team Update #6
 

Wow, looks like they really want the mini-bots to come back down the pole by themselves...

Otherwise, I'm a fan of the additions to G32 and G33. It means that if your robot is in front of mine while I'm trying to score, and you think that you're going to get pushed into my scoring zone by accident, then that means you better get out of my way.

I guess this is one of those changes to encourage offense over defense, or at least make defense a bit more difficult.

Re: Team Update #6
 

So much for opportunity cost / benefit analysis in strategy, eh.

I wish they didn't make my idea to get the minibot back down illegal - I was hoping our driver could sit on our coach's shoulders :P

Also most important: Two robots cannot "lock" a robot in their Zone by driving in front of both exits and sitting there. Unlike previous years, two robots cannot pin a robot.

Re: Team Update #6
 

sounds like maybe the whole minibot concept is a joke... like robots hanging off each other in 2010.

sounds like the only way would be a limit switch on the the bot to somehow flip the motor polarity or turn off the motors.

Re: Team Update #6
 

Why not? While the word "pin" is not defined in the manual I would not consider trapping a robot in their Zone as pinning "an opponent ROBOT that is in contact with a field border or TOWER"

Re: Team Update #6
 

I misread "field border" as "tape line", whoops.

Re: Team Update #6
 

Team update 6 pretty much brings my opinion on this game down to the level of Overdrive, a game I did not like at all for one simple reason. Penalties are going to decide every game now. Everyone is going to be so gun shy, that defense might as well be completely disregarded.

On the one hand it makes it great for robots capable of hanging tubes, you'll be able to score with impunity. So the veteran and competent teams are going to be having a blast.

On the other hand, the poor rookies and those whose grand designs fail, that end up only with defense bots are going to be hosed. You'll spend the whole game worried about crossing this line, or if your alliance is pinning that guy too long.

I guess we'll see how the game plays but I am starting to be a little leery. With every mini-bot being the same after the other updates, and after the second week of Regionals all the minibots being pretty much identical due to following the best design, and now defense being curtailed even further than it was, I just don't know if I will enjoy this game too much.

Re: Team Update #6
 

OR they really want us to use the NXT Controller. Possibly because it's the most expensive item of the FTC kit? And so begins the political arguments.

Re: Team Update #6
 

I wasn't going to say that, precisely because of the political arguments that were bound to ensue. However, I'd suggest simply getting a Mindstorms NXT kit instead, if you're going that route and don't have an NXT controller on the way. It's really fun to monkey around with LEGOs for a while to relieve stress.

But what I will say is this: The Minibot race was a race up the pole. As I understood it, the goal was to trigger the target at the top as quickly as possible by going up the pole, then retrieve the robot by whatever means were designed in, pole or otherwise.

This changes the game to "Race up the pole, then activate your down-going mechanism"--which down-going mechanism I would anticipate most teams not having designed in yet. Why not have a race down the pole instead.

I see why they did it--4 retrieval poles on the field, each about 5' long, could create a somewhat dangerous situation, and having people off the ground creates an even more dangerous situation--but not allowing a pole to remove your minibot? How else are you supposed to remove a minibot that gets stuck near the top while sliding down? Are you supposed to ask the field reset for whatever device they're using?

GDC: For your next change, would you mind putting a second target in the base, and allowing points for hitting it after hitting the target on the top? Just to give us a reason to have the minibot come down besides the risk of a Yellow Card, and to extend the "race" to assist with minibot removal?

Re: Team Update #6
 

I agree. It looks like intentionally grabbing that tube in the opponents lane would conflict with making "immediate effort to leave." :(

Defensive pressure is now shifting areas. While they can no longer hug the Zone, they may have more influence as teams try to go around them against a lane border. What happens if a defender hits me into their lane as I try to go around them enroute to my scoring zone? Do I get a 3 point penalty, or do they get a yellow card for "taking advantage" of the exception? Still reading... ::rtm::

Re: Team Update #6
 

I really don't think that this is game makes defense impossible, just difficult to play without a plan. While you can't pin other robots, you can push them. There is a wide open area of the field where full contact is allowed. Now if your goal is to absolutely prevent another team from scoring, that may not be possible. But think about this, all of the scoring for an alliance is together on one side of the arena, in the middle, and the sides are off limits to the scoring teams. The scoring zone is more concentrated than a "typical" FRC game. I don't think the good defense is going to be played right outside the opponents scoring zone. I think it will be played as robots try to transition from getting a tube in their lane to the middle of the field.

You can do a lot by making it really difficult for an opponent to make it into the scoring zone. Whenever they exit their own lane, they have to move back into the middle. If they try to go out the end, you just parallel their movement between the towers. They can't go into your lane without getting a penalty, so if you drive well, they have to push out past you. So I am betting that teams without really beefy drive trains will try for the race out the side of their lane into the middle of the field. Again, just try to parallel their movement between the towers. If you lurk by the tower at the corner of your opponents' lane you can move to block their movement to the scoring zone without risking entering their lane.

As I type this I am more firmly convinced that coordinated, planned movement is needed. This may be a year when "offensive blocking" is really important. If your alliance has a really good scoring robot, the other side has a strong incentive to have one of their robots do everything it can to slow that robot down. Some coordinated interference by a teammate might be needed to spring the good scoring bot free.

On the other hand now, getting your minibot down is going to be a challenge. I am thinking that our schools' long armed, 6' 10" center might make a good human player. :)

Re: Team Update #6
 

Please correct my understanding of these rule changes. For ease of explanation, let's assume a Red ROBOT pushes a Blue ROBOT into Red's ZONE.
So Blue gets a PENALTY.


If it looks like Red has a strategy of pushing Blue into the zone, Red will get the YELLOW CARD.


So after Blue got pushed in, they have to make an effort to leave the ZONE. If Blue contacts a Red ROBOT or a GAME PIECE being carried by Red, Blue will get a RED CARD. It is not clear if this includes the Red ROBOT that was doing the pushing or not.

Re: Team Update #6
 

I have a dig deeper challenge.

Same situation, red pushes blue into the zone. Either way blue gets a penalty. Red might get a yellow card.

What if red keeps pushing until blue hits red2? Now does G61 apply? or does blue get the red card.

Gary might be talking about this but I am not sure if thats exactly what he is aiming for.

Re: Team Update #6
 

Alex only expanded on what I was talking about. My question on a RED CARD was whether there must be a Red2 that is contacted, or did the contact with Red1 cause the RED CARD?

Either way, this can lead to some distressing strategies.

Re: Team Update #6
 

Well there goes our "Ahead of Schedule" status. Back to the drawing board with our mini-bot. Too bad because it works perfectly and I just ordered $30 more of limit switches that might as well be thrown out because it seems we're going to be forced into using the stupid heavy NXT brick.

:mad: <- Not happy FIRST, not happy at all.

Re: Team Update #6
 

OR, during the elimination rounds, you pin Blue to the wall for thirty seconds, thus incurring sixty penalties, while you wait for red2 to contact Blue and get blue a red card, thus causing the blue alliance's disqualification and red to win the match by default.

Re: Team Update #6
 

Hmm, given the concern being raised about having to get a NXT brick to get the robot down, I hope the GDC will allow a small kite string like tether for your minibot. Pulling the robot down would be easy enough, and a string doesn't add any advantage in the race portion.

Right now the rule is you can't violate the 12"x12"x12" volume so a string would be in violation, but if they could make an exception for non-powered tethers it would make it relatively simple to get the robots back down.

Re: Team Update #6
 

I'm willing to bet there's some kind of electrical solution that reverses the direction of the motors with the depressing of a limit switch that doesn't "unreverse" them once it's lost contact.

But I didn't really think the GDC wanted people implementing flip flops on their robots...

Re: Team Update #6
 

Double Pole Double Throw light switch?

Re: Team Update #6
 

There are household 4-way light switches which can do this. Because they are commonly mounted in a wall outlet box, and are available at home supply centers, they fit this requirement


I wonder what they would say if you said "I disassembled my 1 motor controller and used the electronics to build a flip-flop"

Edit: Beaten to it.

Re: Team Update #6
 

All you'd need is a D flip flop - the "top" sensing limit switch feeding both the clock and input.

Re: Team Update #6
 

the catch is making it work at the correct voltage and current. you would have to use a relay to do that... very doable indeed...

so to do that, you would need an 74LS74 IC (or other d-flip-flop), a resistor or 5v voltage regulator, and a relay.

good thinking chris!

Re: Team Update #6
 

Get those items added to R92 and you're golden.

Re: Team Update #6
 

The new rules are really quite simple if you just consider what their intended purpose is: If you are playing defence and your opponent overpowers you into their scoring zone while on their way to score then you have to GTFO or you get nailed. However, if your opponent is just having their way with you around the field and pinning you in one of their zones for no other apparent reason than to attempt to incurr penalties agaisnt you then they get nailed.

The bottom line is that if your opponent is more powerful than your robot, then you best get out of their way however, they cannot use this advantage to maliciously force penalties upon you. If you find yourself in a no-go zone then you best be doing your darn'dest to get out. If you find your opponent has ended up in your zone, you better give them a chance to leave or just go about your business of scoring or collecting a gamepiece.

Re: Team Update #6
 

I'm quite relieved by this update. We built our robot to be able to "push through" defensive robots, in the hopes that there would be a clarification that robots needed to leave opposing alliance zones immediately upon being pushed in. We finally got that. The <G61> exception is a wonderful bonus for us, far more than we had hoped for, I honestly think it is a little bit excessive. Forcing a robot to waste crucial seconds trying to maneuver out of an alliance zone is enough of a disadvantage. They didn't really need a penalty on top of that, but it works well with our strategy, so I won't be too vocal with my complaints. :rolleyes:

I'm with mathking regarding defense. This rules update makes for some very interesting defense strategies, and, of course, some interesting counter-defense strategies. Consider that a robot can block an alliance lane singlehandedly if it's maneuverable enough; that could significantly slow a logo delivery. Also keep in mind that robots coming out of alliance lanes can interfere effectively with the other alliance's scoring.

Keeping this in mind, I can envision a two-robot "pickup crew" scenario: Red1, an offensive robot, goes to pick up a logo piece from its feeder station. Blue1, a defensive robot, tries to block Red1 from leaving by the end of the lane. Red1 moves to the side instead. Blue1 moves to block that side, but Red2, a maneuverable support bot, blocks Blue1 from moving to block - almost like a screen in basketball.

As Red1 leaves the lane from the side, it encounters Blue2, which is approaching the blue scoring rack. Red1 pushes Blue2 hard out of the way, forcing Blue2 to waste precious seconds realigning. Red1 then moves down the field toward the red alliance station. Red2, the defensive bot from earlier, moves to block the blue alliance lane, preventing Blue3, which is at the feeder station, from leaving by the side to interrupt Red1 while it scores.

Offense is defense.

Re: Team Update #6
 

Is everyone agreeing that a RedBot pushing a BlueBot into the RedZone automatically means a penalty for the BlueBot, no matter what?


what if the RedBot just wanted to get to a peg behind BlueBot in order to complete a logo, and intentionally pushed the BlueBot, not in order to have it in the zone, but in order to get to the peg... is that a Yellow Card for RedBot

Re: Team Update #6
 

Yep. <G61> exception.

Tougher call, left to the ref's judgment. The best that RedBot could hope for would be a BlueBot penalty, and no penalty to RedBot. Depending on the ref, it could be BlueBot penalty, RedBot yellow card.

Re: Team Update #6
 

After thinking about it some more, i'm now sure that it would mean a yellow card for BlueBot, since he must have known that pushing BlueBot into the Redzone would mean a penalty. Thus if he purposely pushed him into the Redzone, regardless of his intent (which was to reach the grid, not to have BlueBot incur a penalty), he must receive a yellow card since he knew his actions would mean a penalty for BlueBot.

If this analysis is correct than it is imbalanced and may indeed be an advantage for BlueBot!

consider:
Bluebot on the edge of the RedZone, zipping up and down the border to block RedBot. RedBot has two options: he can wait for the match to end, or he could try and force his way in. if he forces his way in Bluebot get's a penalty, but RedBot get's a yellow card!

Re: Team Update #6
 

If your minibot is geared fast enough to be competitive, there is not need to reverse the motors. simply turning them off will bring cause the robot to roll back down automatically.

I will post a circuit with 2 2way light switches in a new thread.

Re: Team Update #6
 

I think you messed up the colors a bit here. Anyway, I don't agree that the yellow card is automatic. The rule says "strategies aimed at taking advantage of this exception will result in a YELLOW CARD", not "strategies that knowingly invoke this exception will result in a YELLOW CARD".

If the referee believes that it is part of your strategy to cause opposing bots to get penalties. then you get a yellow card. If, however, you have a legitimate strategic need other than that, and as a result you push an opposing bot into your zone, you will not receive a yellow card.

Reaching a scoring peg immediately behind a defending robot, for example should be allowed (according to my understanding of the new rules). Since reaching a scoring peg is a legitimate strategic goal, your strategy is therefore to score, not to cause penalties.

If, however, you were to do the same thing while not holding a game piece, you are quite clearly only trying to cause a penalty, and thus will receive a yellow card.

This kind of judgment call is exactly what the driver meeting is for. There we can get the Head Referee's own take on rules like this and get a good feeling for when yellow cards will be given.
The only problem is that you can't really plan in advance regarding this rule.

Re: Team Update #6
 

I'm really disappointed with the minibot ruling. I thought for sure that they would just allow teams to bring out a pole to retrieve Minibots. Is it really that big of a deal? We have found a way to consistently get 6 robots on and 6 robots off the field in a safe manner, I think that we would be able to safely retrieve our 4 or less minibots too...

As far as the defenseive rulings go, its a terrible thing to change the game this drastically this late in the build season. If the rules were written this way from the beginning it would have been clear the GDC wanted to discourage defensive strategies and all teams would have focused 100% on building a fast tube scorer and didn't have to worry about being defended against. Now teams that wanted to focus on defense are way behind the eightball and teams that maybe went against mecanum because they didn't like not being apush through a defender now regret that decision because likely that scenario won't play out nearly as often.

I mean does the GDC have difficulty dissecting their own game? It had to be clear to them that straffing between the towers was the perfect location to play defense. Either recognize that early and take it out of the game or live with your decision. Don't change it in week 3.

Re: Team Update #6
 

I think we need to lawyer this- the English language is fraught with opportunity to be unclear:

"<G32>
(a) Neither ROBOTS, HOSTBOTS, nor MINIBOTS may break the planes of the vertically projected borders of the opponent’s ZONES, including a GAME PIECE in their POSSESSION.

(b) Momentary incursions by a POSSESSED GAME PIECE will not be penalized if they do not make contact with anything in the ZONE. Violation: PENALTY.
(c) G61 does not apply to this rule, however
(d) strategies aimed at taking advantage of this exception will result in a YELLOW CARD.
(e) If a ROBOT enters the opponent's ZONE and does not make immediate effort to leave OR if it contacts another ROBOT (or GAME PIECE in its POSSESSION) also in the ZONE, then the intruding TEAM will receive a RED CARD."

My lawyerly interpretations...

"this rule" - all of <G32>

Possible interpretations of "this exception":
[most likely]
(b) - "Momentary incursions by a POSSESSED GAME PIECE will not be penalized if they do not make contact with anything in the ZONE."
YELLOW CARD for intentionally holding a GAME PIECE over an opponent's zone.
[not likely]
(c) -"not getting penalized because of <G61>"
If this were the interpretation of "this exception", then it indicates a YELLOW CARD. However, the sentence immediately following indicates a RED CARD for the same infraction.


I think a rewrite of the rules in question to eliminate ambiguity of terms like "this exception":

<G32>
[a] Neither ROBOTS, HOSTBOTS, nor MINIBOTS may break the planes of the vertically projected borders of the opponent’s ZONES, including a GAME PIECE in their POSSESSION.
[b] Momentary incursions by a POSSESSED GAME PIECE will not be penalized if they do not make contact with anything in the ZONE. Violation: PENALTY.
[c] G61 does not apply to this rule (<G32> parts [a-b]) , however
[d] strategies aimed at taking advantage of this exception (<G32> part [b]) will result in a YELLOW CARD.
[e] If a ROBOT enters the opponent's ZONE and does not make immediate effort to leave OR if it contacts another ROBOT (or GAME PIECE in its POSSESSION) also in the ZONE, then the intruding TEAM will receive a RED CARD.

From this POV, all YELLOW and RED CARDs for this rule apply only to the intruding robot, not any robot pushing the intruding robot.

I would also change the wording in [e]:
"If a ROBOT enters the opponent's ZONE": it could falsely give the impression of intent and that "enters" does not include "was pushed into".

TO:

"If any portion of a ROBOT is in the opponent's ZONE and does not make immediate effort to leave OR if it contacts another ROBOT (or GAME PIECE in its POSSESSION) also in the ZONE, then the intruding TEAM will receive a RED CARD."

Re: Team Update #6
 

I agree that I don't like this drastic a change this late. And I think the penalty is too light for intentionally pushing an opponent into your zone. If the opponent definitely gets a penalty from it I think pushing them into the zone intentionally should be a Red Card. Particularly since the way I read the rule, pushing a team intentionally into an ally inside your scoring zone gives them a Red Card and you a Yellow Card.

Re: Team Update #6
 

Biggest upset for me in now the NXT Brick. I'm not against completely, as cost wise we have a ton around from our Lego team we sponsor.

However

As mentioned before it's a lot of Extra weight that I know will drag our mini-bot design down. Also the NXT brick runs on it's own sets of batteries, so now thats double the amount of batteries you have to juggle to try to keep charged.

Looking at the risks vs. benefits on the pole issue, I just see that the risks IMHO aren't strong enough to take away the benefits.

Re: Team Update #6
 

Defense still matters, and pinning still matters -- you just have to do it as the robots cross the field, and not up-close-and-personal. Pushing around a robot enough to double the time it takes to cross the field is equivalent to halving the number of tubes they can score.

Four-second pins, blocking lines of access without pinning, etc -- these things till matter, and matter quite a bit!

Re: Team Update #6
 

In my opinion, the GDC has not changed the game. They cautioned you to not play defense beyond the yellow warning line. Now they have clarified the rules to potentially penalize teams that do this. Playing defense between towers is exactly where they intended defense to be used. No change. If the offensive robot pushes a defender from the tower into their scoring zone, that would be a yellow card on the offensive robot. If they pushed a defender about two feet into their scoring zone, that would be a penalty on the defender playing defense beyond the warning line.

Again, this is my opinion of the GDC clarification.

Re: Team Update #6
 

Less technically creative teams will look to solve the problem with an NXT brick; however I can think of several dozen solutions that don't involve an NXT brick. If costs and/or weight are an issue, think harder.

The rule states "without special equipment". I assume a Bazooka is special, but perhaps a 5 foot stick is not. Nonetheless, the solutions I mentioned above don't involve any equipment for retrieval.

Defensive bots will just need to stay further away from the opposing Zones to avoid penalties. Especially those that can be pushed. But if your defendabot can't be pushed, that lets you get a lot closer. The yellow lines show that GDC considered this, and have now clarified and raised the ante for those who flaunt it.

I'm not going to lawyer anything, BUT if you really want clarity, the GDC shall further consider sentence structure. This example is somewhat less ambiguous:

Re: Team Update #6
 

I see your point. It just seems to me like it was...
Week 1: Strafe between the towers is ok, if you get pushed into your opponets scoring zone you need to make an effort to leave. If not, you will be penalized
Week 3: Strafe between the towers, if you get pushed into your opponets scoring zone you get penalized automatically.

That's a BIG difference this late in the season. If they didn't want defense played between the towers then penalize it from the get go.

Would you even consider this robot if the current ruling was in place in week 1? http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/36093

But that's the best place to play defense and that's what team up until three weeks into build season have designed their defensvie robots around.

I agree the GDC wanted it this way from the beginning but they didn't do a good enough job detailing it from the start and should have just lived with it IMO. I really hope 3553 decided to go with a different strategy because I can't imagine being a rookie team trying to re-tool their robot that was built to play the week 1 game in week 3.

Re: Team Update #6
 

I think 3553 will be OK. They just have to make one relatively minor tweak to their strategy and they'll be quite effective at slowing opponents down.

If you can block teams from leaving their zone, they push you into the middle of the field. No penalty there. Or they go through your lane, -3 points for them. And it slows them down just as much as fighting to get through you to the scoring grid.

Re: Team Update #6
 

Wouldnt them having to drive through your feeder lane actually be -3 AND a yellow card?

Re: Team Update #6
 

Nah. -3, possibility of a red card (no immediate departure/contact with something in there), and maybe you get a yellow card. But when they could try to go through or around you, then that kind of removes your yellow card from the equation in some circumstances.

Re: Team Update #6
 

One other thing i saw on the update that i wanted to ask everyone on CD, when they say that the red card will be given to the TEAM that gets that severe of a penalty, will that DQ the match in quals like it would in elims or does that team just not get the match counted towards their rankings?

Re: Team Update #6
 

DQ in quals is the equivalent of a 0-ranking point loss. DQ in elims applies to the entire alliance.

Qual DQ won't affect partners (unless it's a <T03> DQ).

Re: Team Update #6
 

[quote=340x4xLife;1010986]

That's a BIG difference this late in the season. If they didn't want defense played between the towers then penalize it from the get go.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/36093


It is a radical change that should have been included in the original rules. I think the observation that blocking bots from leaving rather than entering is a good adaptation to this change. Also, pinning is more important and has to be part of defense, stalking the other Alliance's line to prohibit entry won't work, weight, wheels and drive train of bots built to block all have to be chosen for strength and stability vs. maneuverability. Quick light maneuverable blocking bots are going to be penalty factories for the opposition unless they keep to the middle.

Re: Team Update #6
 

So here is an idea on the retrieval of the minibot...
At the end of the match... a little door opens on your minibot and a rope falls down...allowing you to pull it down...

Someone tell me what they think of the legality of this... It would deploy after the match was over...

Tell me what you think

Bob

Re: Team Update #6
 

In a word, YES. I still believe that team is going to be one of the most unique robots strategically and a valuable asset to an alliance. They can play defense anywhere they want, not just at the line. I would hope that they can make the sides go up and down at a reasonable pace though(up to get in place, down to stay in place). Besides that, there is still ambiguity as to what happens when you push a robot into it. I think that if you don't make a slight attempt to go around them, then you(scoring bot) is at fault regardless of them being near the line. If you try to go around and they move into your way, then it is their(defense bot) fault. I hope they clarify it this way in the updates though. It should make it more cut and dry for refs and make the punishment fit the crime more.

Re: Team Update #6
 

I completely agree (as I stated earlier) that defense just needs to be played in the middle of the field, and played to delay them getting to the scoring zone. I don't think it will be hard with good defense to double or triple the amount of time it takes a robot to traverse the field and score.

I am still concerned with the idea that if you get pushed into an opponent's robot in the lane or in the scoring zone you get a red card. For example, you get a tube and come out of the lane toward the middle of the field (side note: I think that against a defender coming out of the lane along the edge of the field will make it very tough to get to your scoring zone) and the defending robot blocks and shoves you back, pushing you back into their scoring zone and one of their allies.

Re: Team Update #6
 

Genius!

<R92-J> Allows rope, and there aren't any limitations on its length.

Re: Team Update #6
 

Yes there is. Your minibot cannot excede the 12x12x12 at anytime.

Re: Team Update #6
 

During the match. If I have a 12" cube, and I take the top cover off by a hinge (disregarding legality of that for a moment--bear with me), and that top cover is 6" thick, I now have a 12" by 24" by 6" block. I'm in the pits, or accessing the NXT before the match (or after the match) to turn it on or off. Am I illegal?



If, at match end + 30 seconds or so, a minibot dropped a rope to about the 6' mark, making it easy to grab, I think it would be legal, because it's after the match. However, that rope/cord/string would have to be inside the cube the entire match.

I like the idea, but I'd probably suggest asking Q&A about this.

Re: Team Update #6
 

does anyone know if it is legal to stand on the base of the tower to retrieve the tube? if it is then all you really need is a pretty tall guy on the drive team every match.

Re: Team Update #6
 

The update says you must be standing on the floor.

Re: Team Update #6
 

Looks within the rules to me, just remember that after the match isn't when time runs out; it's ten seconds until after time runs out OR until everything comes to rest, which means that if you drop a rope five seconds after the buzzer while minibots are still climbing, you're in trouble.

Re: Team Update #6
 

Have fun wiring a minibot to drop a rope after the match without an NXT.

If you do have an NXT - you don't exactly need the rope...

Re: Team Update #6
 

The minibot coming back down shouldn't really be that much a problem. Everyone's trying to shave off as much weight as possible, which means the massive weight (proportionally) of the battery should ( i didnt say will) be enough to make the wheels slide nicely back down.
P.S. has anyone actually found out yet if the battery is enough to pull it back down?

Re: Team Update #6
 

MINIMARIA doesn't backdrive off the pole in her current incarnation, but she falls right off with a good shake...

Re: Team Update #6
 

On at least one of our minibot designs the battery weight is not enough to drag it back down.

Re: Team Update #6
 

On the only one of our 3 minibot designs to be tested, the bot does fall back down under its own weight if the motors are not running. This is using a magnetic gripper to the pole.

Re: Team Update #6
 

Our minibot slams back down as soon as it hits the top of the towers, and the battery is our main weight on the back of our minibot (which weighs less than 5lbs).

It probably depends on your minibot weight and where the battery is placed.

Re: Team Update #6
 

I wish I had some wise, forehead-smackingly true, verbal harpoon to throw at the offense, offense, offense mentality that colored last season's FRC game and is coloring this season's; but I don't.

What I do have is a strong distaste for it. I have been a team mentor or a 5th Gear developer for Aim High, Rack-N-Roll, Overdrive, Lunacy, Breakaway and now, Logomotion. I applauded the Aim High through Lunacy game rules; and I generally applaud the Breakaway and Logomotion rules; but I simply have a gut dislike of seeing so much effort put into tilting Breakaway and Logomotion toward offense.

However, it is FIRST's game to create, and it is our/my choice whether I play it or I spend my time on something else. So I'll try to save any further complaining until I get asked about my opinion; and regardless of whether I get asked, I'll remember that no one is putting a gun to my head, and I'll get on with my business...

Blake
PS: To put this into perspective, I also have a gut dislike for allowing basketball players to hang onto the goal's rim. As for making zone defense illegal in the NBA - I didn't pay enough attention to pro B-ball before that rule change to be able to form an informed opinion now.

Re: Team Update #6
 

I actually thought Breakaway allowed for a pretty high amount of defense, and the restrictions were very reasonable (only one robot in the defensive zone because otherwise 2 robots could block both goals, hanging protection for the sake of preventing excess robot damage). Seemed like a very solid balance to me - the game ultimately being won by one of the best back zone robots in FIRST.

This game's strangling of defense is something I'll form more of an opinion on once I play it.

Re: Team Update #6
 

I agree. Breakaway was very good as defense goes (during elims). I keep on flipping back and forth on if this game will be good or bad for defense. I think we will have to just wait and see.

Re: Team Update #6
 

The ranking point rules were tilted obscenely against defense. If red scored six goals and blue scored zero, and red got one penalty, then blue would get six RPs and red would get five. Who really won that match?

We had an extremely strong defense bot and the more we won, the more we went down in the rankings.

Re: Team Update #6
 

After the week 1 team update, Red would get 10 and blue would get 6 (since the winner got 5 points for winning)

Re: Team Update #6
 

My regional was in week 1 :mad:

Re: Team Update #6
 

Oh please let us have a 5th gear :yikes:

Re: Team Update #6
 

Re: Team Update #6
 

Perhaps I am misreading the rules update, but it looks to me like the change (or clarification) places at least (I think more) of a burden upon a team trying to score with an opponent playing defense outside of the scoring zone.

If I am either trying to enter or leave the scoring zone and I am pushed into my opponent’s Lane, then I receive a penalty. If a referee determines that I do not make immediate effort to leave OR if I contact another ROBOT (or GAME PIECE in its POSSESSION) - presumably another of my opponent’s robots, then I will receive a RED CARD.

I certainly hope that this was not the intent of the GDC or that I am misinterpreting the updated rules.

Re: Team Update #6
 

Hmm.

What if little lexan slip pads were designed into the MINIBOTs such that when the bots hit the top, the impact forced the slip pads underneath the wheels -- thereby reducing friction with the pole and thus allowing the MINIBOT to slide down the pole? This assumes a cutoff switch is designed into the MINIBOT as well.

Re: Team Update #6
 

Hmm...

Re: Team Update #6
 

"Then, it won't so much fly as plummet!"

Re: Team Update #6
 

That's why it reduces friction rather than creating full separation: just how much friction it reduces is completely customizable if you think it through. There's no magic to it; the best way to figure out the balance for a given MINIBOT is to prototype on a specific design. It's better (IMO) than relying on backdriving the motors (though it'd take away the 'innovation' of regenerative MINIBOT falling :rolleyes: ) while also removing the need for other (heavier) concepts (like the NXT + sensors).

Re: Team Update #6
 

I get that... I just saw a way to make a Monty Python quote relevant and couldn't pass it up!

Re: Team Update #6
 

I wouldn't say that defense has been strangled.

Yes, the days of "beat the hell out of them so they can't score" defense are gone, but I really think that smart defense still can be played and is still important in this game.

Personally, I'm thinking that keeping an opponent in their zone or lane may be a worthwhile strategy, and wouldn't be all that risky to do (versus keeping them out of their zone and risking getting pushed in). Also I think we'll see a lot of defense played in the mid-field in the form of Picks and blocking the straightest routes to and from the scoring zone and feeding lanes.

Basically, the point would be to slow a robot down while they're attempting to score instead of trying to keep them from scoring all together.

Re: Team Update #6
 

If you're anywhere near their zone, you get nudged in by a second robot and instantly get a penalty.

Teams are going to have to stay FAR AWAY from the zones if they want to not get stupid penalties that are no fault of their own.

Re: Team Update #6
 

Like <G22> in 2008. It was avoidable, but usually only by not trying to rectify mistakes or play defense anywhere near the lines.

Re: Team Update #6
 

Which is why you wouldn't want to keep someone from getting into their zone.

Keeping someone from getting out of their zone might be a bit easier and less risky since a hit from the robot that you're defending would most likely cause you to move away from the zone.

Re: Team Update #6
 

I'm expecting these rules to be nearly as universally hated as <G22> from 2008 come week 1 regionals.

I might be proven wrong, its just what I think right now.

Re: Team Update #6
 

I'm saying that if you're trying to block someone from getting out, all they need to do is get an alliance partner to nudge you and even though you did nothing and had no intention of breaking the rules, you lose points.

I guess you're right - defense is big. The best defense to play is to have a robot dedicated to making the other alliance get penalties.