[Peter Matteson]

Originally Posted by CalTran

Alas, if only figuring out what makes or breaks a game were that simple. Particularly in the method that FIRST presents the games, it's hard to think outside the normal configuration when Breakaway was described best as robot soccer or Rebound Rumble as robot basketball. The description really drives the design, as many teams forget that Breakaway was not soccer reliant, but simply a name of the game where the goal was transport a ball to a hole in the wall.

It's not that hard to come up with the game breaking strategies. You just need some experience at approaching the game from the right perspective.

In 2006 you could win by not playing the game. If you kept the score low all that matttered was the ramp points, and pinning on the ramp was legal. Playing using these factors allowed a robot purely playing defense to control the game over scorers. Most teams didn't play this way or pick up on it but this was a way to break the game.

In 2007 the secret was to again not play the game. Don't go for long multiplier chains but instead break up the rack so the other team couldn't get the multipliers. Before they realize they're wasting time trying to get long chains they can't actually get the time ran out while you got 50 points for lifting 2 robots.

That said the GDC has been exceptionally good at blocking game breaking strategies in the the game/robot rules since 2008. That year 190 tried a game breaking strategy that many of us had come up with and discounted as illegal because as soon as they broke the plane into the previous zone it was a penalty.

Even in 2010 when the 469 robot became legal in week 2 due to a rule change it had originally been against the rules so most teams that came up with the design had already discounted it as illegal before the change giving 469 a jump on everyone else.