Re: Team Update #10
 

This is an awful update, atleast for week 5. This should have been shut down in week one, as should all major strategy changing rules. I know for a fact that there was atleast one team planning to make an extending blocking robot. If two teams teamed up to do that, they could shut down the entire scoring zone, and effectively lock opposing robots into their zones.

My team considered that as a Chokehold strategy this year, but decided it was implausible to use it, since its unlikely that there will be two of such types of robot in one alliance during qualifications.

If a team decided to use this as their strategy, they don't have enough time to change it now. They are very far up a certain creek.

I also feel that this update, along with the last few have been restricting the game play a bit too much. I'll reserve my final judgement for when I see it played, but right now, this seems like an extremely restrictive game, both in gameplay, and in robot (minibot) design. The GDC seems to have decided exactly how the game is meant to be played, and have removed any strategy that doesnt fit their vision (launching minibots, spring minibots, heavy defense, etc...)

Re: Team Update #10
 

As a part of the team who has the Dragonfly defensive bot, I just want to clear up that we will just take this as another challenge. It only says your ALLIANCE cannot team up to block the field. I don't see this being an issue.

We'll see how the regional plays out. :)

Re: Team Update #10
 

You'd have a case on triple defense on 148 or some of the other perennial powerhouses, John. Double defense? Maybe, but I'd assume that you guys are to busy scoring through it to pay any attention--and anybody playing any less than double defense is getting beaten handily anyway.;)

That's kind of my fear, too--if I'm parking a robot between my towers and playing defense on any robot trying to go through that gap, am I going to be called for blocking the flow of the game? I hope not! But I would not be surprised if any team doing that was be called.

Re: Team Update #10
 

Love this update!

I was dreading the 'score first then shut down all scoring' tactic, because it commits one of the worst sins of FIRST: It renders the game *boring*.

I know, I know, some people will disagree with me on what does and does not constitute 'boring', but I think of things from the perspective of the casual spectator. It MUST be exciting to non-participant spectators (e.g. friends, family, classmates, and invitees of those on the teams) in order to fulfill it's mandate of changing the culture.

Lunacy: reasonable fun to play, boring to watch as a casual observer (because it was too hard to keep track of everything going on if you weren't nails-on with the rules). GDC solution: hire people who specialize in entertainment. And GOOD FOR THEM.

Logomotion: both boring to play AND boring to watch if this strategy is enacted.

Defense isn't outlawed, you just have to give the other teams a chance.

Woot, I say. Woot!

Re: Team Update #10
 

After the unintentionally defensive game "Breakaway", which followed the best FIRST game ever (abbreviated as "Lunacy"), I assume that the GDC wished to make the game a real shootout, which I enjoy.

Lunacy was hard to keep track of scoring, but everyone cheered when there was a mass dumping of balls into the trailer, or the super cells got in in a close match. The fact that the tally was too hard to keep up with caused so much suspense. It was borderline impossible to play defense in Lunacy; while in Breakaway a team always defaulted to a defensive position. Also, 2010 could really get lagged down by the penalties, specifically the return penalty. There seem to be more penalties this year than there are pounds on the robot, so I fear that.

Offense was encouraged already because your secondary score (Qualifying Score?), which operates as a tiebreaker from your Ranking Score, is based off of the losing team's unpenalized/penalized score, depending on which side of the match the team landed.

However, I don't know how much tubes will factor in to final scores when compared to the minibot race. The Best FIRST Game Ever and Breakaway were able to remedy this issue. I just get this feeling that a close 40-35 minibot race will be outdone in the qualifiers by tube scoring.
---
On another note:
It sounds odd, but I have been waiting for the minibot race to go 25-20-15-10, or something even smaller. The tube score, I believe, will be rendered almost meaningless in the qualifiers.

Re: Team Update #10
 

This is somewhat of a repeat of how stack attack played - the end game was more important than the game preceding it. I suspect the minibots will be 80% of the game this year. After all, a GOOD robot with no defense will likely score 3 tubes during a good game. A mobile minibot will score that in every match.

If anyone hasn't figured it out, that minibot is far more important than hanging in 10, the supercells in 09, putting the balls up top in 08, and I'd say more important than '07's ramps as well.

Re: Team Update #10
 

with you saying Lunacy was the best game ever...Have youve seen Aim High being played? (not on the computer)

Re: Team Update #10
 

I'm with John, I don't see how they will call this. It would make more sense if they had more specific zoning restrictions, a la 2006 with the offensive and defensive periods (which was awesome btw). But as the rule stands, does a red robot coming out of its lane with a tube, and a second red robot playing defense, count as "blockading the FIELD"?

A vague rule week 5 of build, ugh. Here we go week 1 regionals, guinea pigs for sure!

Re: Team Update #10
 

'10 hanging, '09 supercells are barely even comparable. Hanging and Supercells would contribute in a range of 15-30%, in extreme cases, of the match. Minibots can contribute 45-65% of the final tallies. Being a junior and having those two experiences to look at, I find the minibot scoring ridiculous. A really good rampbot in 07 would get propelled into the Einstein field, while a minibot race victory, which can come down to chance, might keep a high-quality bot out of regionals.

I know this isn't the place to talk strategy, but I feel that the field will be chaotic with zone and lane lines intersecting and the polebases and innertubes scattered around the ground. Scoring on a peg also requires higher precision for the standard scoring than any of the last three games--even our buddy Overdrive.

Throwing a ball over a rack, dumping balls in a trailer, pushing balls into a wide hole, and now we have "Hang the tube on the thin peg--oh wait, no, take the higher one--no, make the logo!" Scoring will be low before endgame.

Wish I could have. It draws a lot of parallels to Lunacy, chiefly being high-scoring chaos. There were some odd scoring rules, but I never saw Aim High in person. :/ Looks like it would be loads of fun.

Re: Team Update #10
 

The robot section changes are sensible. (I still wish teams could use smaller tubing if they wanted to, provided pressure ratings were met.)

As a practical matter, the change about enforcing the robot rules will recalibrate the way refs call <G30>, and will probably affect the way inspectors and other watchful volunteers raise robot issues with the refereeing staff. There's always an element of discretion involved in identifying robot violations outside of the initial inspections. When is a robot in violation in such a trivial way that can wait until the end of the next match—and when is it in material violation warranting an immediate response (up to and including disqualification)? I think this will encourage more open communication about these issues—because the refs' newfound discretion will ensure that the question is no longer solely about whether disqualification is appropriate (in equitable terms) for a given violation.

As for the new blocking rule, it's pretty awful. The "flow of the match" is hopelessly vague as far as definitions go. Although I trust that the head referees will be briefed as to what that means, to ensure uniform enforcement, what about the teams? Who's planning to explain how to distinguish flow from non-flow gameplay? I think FIRST meant something along the lines of "ALLIANCE ROBOTS may not work together to blockade the FIELD in an attempt to prevent an opponent's ROBOT from possessing game pieces, scoring game pieces, or transiting between locations where game pieces were available and locations where they could be scored"—but if so, why not just say that? (And in my opinion, that's not even a good rule to have in the first place. Defence is useful and strategically interesting.)

Re: Team Update #10
 

Have you seen first frenzy played? Now that game was epic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvDGWd1IhZs

Man do I miss 2v2, back when you could tell what was actually going on in a game.

Re: Team Update #10
 

We won a regional in 2004 solely on a hanging robot. All it was was a scissor lift. Now THAT was a game heavily weighted towards the end!

Re: Team Update #10
 

Too late to make rule changes like this.

I wonder what would happen if there was no Chief Delphi. Do you think the GDC is reading what teams are planning to do? or do you think they are basing most of it on Q&A questions...

We won a Regional and a Division Championship with a consistent hang.

Re: Team Update #10
 

TechnoKats won a Regional and came within six inches of winning a Division with a robot that never tried to hang.

Re: Team Update #10
 

+1 for hanging then ;)