Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

That's for outward protrusions. Can you extend downward?

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

thats a good question for the Q&A

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

That is true. I was hoping someone had figured it out, but I also forgot that CD is not the GDC. (Otherwise we'd be better at getting the game hints! ;))

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

Extremely high complexity resulting in limited value.
To get points? Yes. And balanced.
Note that there is no mention (and therefore no score value) for an unbalanced alliance bridge.
The coopertition bridge is a different rule.

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

Maybe he didn't understand what I meant or you didn't but i mean to put a robot on another robot and then get on the bridge and have it balance. As for him I think he wants to know if my idea is against the rules but I don't see where it says that you can't.

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

We do not have a Ramp yet to test balance but what about getting creative. Three robots could fit easier under an angled configuration...

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

quote:Lesson learned: No matter the end game, it's important, and you shouldn't rule it out. - ninja bait


I agree. My team won two regionals last year, partly because of programming and good alliances. But the real reason we won was our minibot, which was lightning fast and easy to deploy. It is important to play the game right, but the endgame is where the match is decided, and especially with a 20 point difference in elims, it is gonna be really important, especially once people get through the first two regionals.

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

(emphasis mine) I see the "must be balanced" rule for the alliance bridge (G40), but where's the "must be supported" rule? It's mentioned in G41 w.r.t. the coopertition bridge if that bridge isn't balanced. No where I can find does "balancing" either type of bridge required any robot to be "fully supported" by said bridge. Did I miss a definition or something somewhere?

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

The intent of G41 is clearly to prevent robots from claiming coopertition points by driving up the bridge halfway but still be half on the carpet. G41 doesn't even prevent another robot from going to the coopertition bridge to aid balancing (obviously, as long as it doesn't break other rules) by supporting the bridge itself. I think aided balancing is a perfectly valid strategy.

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

Yeah, I dont know what prevents you from taking the 111 approach in 2001...

Seems ok

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

I am not super familiar with 2007, my rookie year was 2009. If I have two ramps, supporting two robots, will I still be able to drive up the bridge, or am I pretty much stationary? Also, on 111 in 2001, robots drove ovr their entire robot. A similar bot this year would seem impos--, sorry, improbable if you wanted to be able to shoot basketballs.

Any hints on how to build these ramps?

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

The initial portion of your ramp could only extend 14" beyond your frame perimeter. Given the more flexible bumper rules this season, it's definitely possible, but not nearly as easy with the size limitations. Your ramp would either have to be much narrower or much steeper to co-exist with the bumper and extension limits.

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

If a team decides to go like 111 in 2001 does that still count if the bridge is balanced? I thought the rule said that the bridge must fully support all the robots. I think it should be fine but I'd just like to check.

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

Bridge supports Robot 1.
Robot 1 supports Robot 2.
Bridge supports Robot 2 by transitivity.

Alternatively:

Robot 2
^
Robot 1
^
Bridge


therefore,

Robot 2
^
Bridge

Re: Going for 3 robots on Ramp?
 

The only mention in the rules of robots being supported by bridges is when the coopertition bridge is NOT balanced. A balanced bridge is balanced and scores points whether or not a robot is fully supported on it, at least with the ambiguous rules we have now. Read the manual, and expect clarification in the Team Update tomorrow.