Thread: Team Update 4
View Single Post
  #11   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 22-01-2011, 00:42
Kevin Sevcik's Avatar
Kevin Sevcik Kevin Sevcik is offline
(Insert witty comment here)
FRC #0057 (The Leopards)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Rookie Year: 1998
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 3,574
Kevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Kevin Sevcik Send a message via Yahoo to Kevin Sevcik
Re: Team Update 4

LOOK, LOOK! It's a moderately on topic post that's not about the FTC debacle!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prontopwnage View Post
"<G39> ROBOTS and FEEDERS may not SCORE on opponent's PEGS or de-score opponent's GAME PIECES." LOL thought that was kinda a given.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostmachine360 View Post
Well, if the score gap was really large, and you had some extra pieces left in your feeder station, you could have (before the ruling, of course) thrown the game pieces over the feeder station wall onto one of the nearest opposing alliance's pegs to shorten the scoring gap.
You two clearly aren't thinking creatively enough. Scoring for your opponent makes loads of sense when there's 9+ points sitting on the top row in the form of a completed LOGO. All you do is have your feeder score the wrong GAME PIECE for your opponent, and you wipe out the LOGO bonus. Scoring for your opponent to lower their score! I thought it was pretty brilliant and hilarious, personally. Anyways, I posted a question to the Q&A a while back that outlined this scenario. So I'm taking credit for the <G39> rule change in this update until anyone else admits to having a twisted enough mind to think that up.

However, I'm not taking credit for this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricS-Team180 View Post
The updated clarification of <R49> is a breath of fresh air for the controls community. Kudos to Kevin Sevcik for bringing it up this morning and for the GDC to make a common sense clarification.
All I did was post about the rule change before someone else did. And show back up in the thread to nod along with everyone else and bring a little order to things. I suspect that the biggest push came from people who developed all the CAN technology and either wandered across the thread or were otherwise informed about the rule change.
__________________
The difficult we do today; the impossible we do tomorrow. Miracles by appointment only.

Lone Star Regional Troubleshooter
Reply With Quote