Quote:
Originally Posted by lineskier
I had the same question regarding crossing the midfield in autonomous to stop a double cap.
Needless to say many in the FIRST community felt this wasn't GP. You may find a similar viewpoint.
That being said, I think you are absolutely right. Grabbing a tube would definitely be worth it. But by starving teams, you're forcing them to take a 3 point penalty for each tube.
|
Being one of those who agrees that crossing the mid-line for auto is "unGP" I'd like to explain why.
First, I generally think of penalties as a dis-incentive, but nothing more. Penalties for lane infractions are just that. They take 3 points off my score... so, if I can increase my score from 6 to 18 (no ubers) or 15 to 30 (1 uber, already covered) or 24 to 42 (2 ubers, already covered), then it is worth it to pick up that final tube to get 12, 15, or 18 points - well worth it! I am not even acting in some fashion to directly damage your opponents progress by getting this penalty! I don't see anything wrong with this scenario.
Next, I don't approve of autonomous defense for this year's game. Yes, the rules don't start any larger penalty or dis-incentive for defensive autonomous modes, but do you think a ref will look at an intentional prevention of a double-uber auto the same way as an intentional lane infraction to acquire a tube? In this case, the infraction is again intentional; however, now I am writing an auto-program prior to the match to actively prevent a robot from scoring during a protected time/zone. This sounds like an intentional G32, to me:
"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."
I'd assign a red card... perhaps only a penalty and yellow card for the first offense. I really don't want to risk throwing away my RP for that match if it's a qualifier or the win if it's an elimination match! Now the analysis isn't XX points prevented vs. 3-point penalty, it's XX points prevented vs. 3-point penalty plus yellow or red card.
Let's say I could be certain I wouldn't be carded and that I could get there in time to block both their ubers... now I've brought the scores 21 points closer together (24 prevented, 3 lost for penalty)! That's a big deal, right?! Well, what if I can score 1 ubertube on my own rack? If it's the case, then it's only a 9 point difference between scoring one of my own and blocking two of theirs. If I can't get there in time to block the first uber or if I have a double-uber myself, I lose 3 points for the penalty with no score change. On top of all that, in the qualifying matches I don't want to reduce my opponents score any more than I have to to win. Really, I'm not seeing the point analysis provide much (any?!) incentive for the autonomous defense... particularly when you add in the likelihood to earn a red or yellow card.
On top of all the pure point analysis, I don't think it's a GP move to intentionally inhibit protected actions. For me, FIRST is all about people competing to their potential in a fair-as-possible competition to learn and inspire. GP is about helping other teams achieve this, often at your own expense. Does this rule out legal defense? I don't think so. Part of this competition is mastering all aspects of the game... including penetrating defense. Part of the competition is fulfilling your robot's design to play optimal defense. I don't see anything wrong with legal defense. I do see plenty of things wrong with illegal defense. First of all, it breaks the whole "fair-as-possible" thing. That's not all that big a deal... life isn't fair... I can handle that. I disapprove of the fact that it breaks the game. The game was intended to have a defense-free autonomous mode. The teams designed to account for variability in the field, potentially bumping an alliance partner, acquiring a tube, etc.... they had no reason to figure they need to shelter their protected autonomous mode. No longer is it about helping everyone achieve their potential, now it's about me achieving my potential so I can win at your expense. That sounds pretty selfish, to me.
By contrast, 2006, 2008, and 2009 all had autonomous modes designed for defensive interaction. 2006: charge across to stop the auto high scorer from getting in scoring position/knock them off-line. Teams like ours expected that and designed to auto-track the target with our turret. That was an accepted design challenge, it'd be pitiful to gripe about such defense when it was within the game! 2008: I need to tear around the track to get lines and knock off balls... obviously there are going to be 5 other robots there, only 2 of which I'll be coordinating with! Now, perhaps I'll drive forward a few feet and try to prevent their robot from getting more lines or maybe I'll just rack up my own lines, while avoiding the other teams... again, well within the challenge. 2009: now I want to pin my opponents to our HP station (or score on them), which was obviously well within the rules and expectations of the game.
Really, I do disapprove of the defensive auto on both the cost-benefit issue and on the GP issue. This may be different for other teams. Without some provided definition for GP to rule out some behavior, I can't say my GP-compass is the same as yours. Without knowing what your auto is like, I can't rule out whether or not the cost-benefit analysis works for you. I do know that we have a reliable 1-tube auto and are working on a 2-tube auto. For the 1-uber auto vs. blocking 2-ubers auto, I have a relatively low-gain (9 pts.), very high-risk situation (my defense failing to block the first tube or getting a red card both look pretty likely)... I know enough about betting to avoid those situations.
My $0.02... As I said, they're mine not yours... :-)