Looks like GDC just broke this game breaker with an answer to Jared's question:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Q&A
Q. In a Q&A response from 01-17, you said that the Bridge consists of all components included in GE-12017. These drawings include the ball ramp. Between [G40] and Section 2.2.5, it is possible for a robot to be "fully support" simply by driving onto this ramp. Is this this intended interpretation? FRC0341 2012-02-09
A. Our mistake and our apologies. The former response will be corrected. No, that was not the intended interpretation.
|
[EDIT] I see now that this Q&A answer was already referenced in this thread but I am leaving it here so that future people who search the thread rather than read every post (like I did) can find it. I wish they would timestamp Q&A answers again[/EDIT]
Nice strategy, Jared. Way to look through the field construction docs, I read that answer and moved onto next Q. However, just like most game breaking strategies it is not what the GDC intended (some they leave legal anyway). I had a great deal of fun going for the game breaker in '02 (grab 3 goals), and tried to go the 469 route in '10. I understand the that if a strategy is dominating a game, it is natural to want to level the playing field (or lower the pitcher's mound). Unfortunately, the risk of the strategy becoming illegal (190 in '08) outweighs the reward for all but the most daring teams when considering game breaker strategies.
I personally didn't like that form of bridge manipulation (jam ball ramp), but I love what Swampthing is doing. While I see strategic value in a class of small 3rd bots (cRIO in wheels) for balancing 3 during, I don't think it will be very fun to watch them during quals (since 3 bot balancing is worthless).