Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryVoshol
A ROBOT is carrying a BALL and commits an offense that results in the ROBOT being DISABLED. I don't want to seem heartless, but really, why should the alliance get another ball in play? They should have encouraged their partner to play correctly and not get DISABLED.
A ROBOT is built to carry a BALL, but sometimes the BALL gets stuck in the ROBOT. Again, tough luck. That's the way you designed it.
A ROBOT unexpectedly stops running while carrying a BALL. Unless it can be shown to be a field fault (comms) and the match replayed, then it's another case of "too bad".
A BALL gets stuck on the TRUSS - I'd rather see the TRUSS redesigned so that a ball can't get stuck, but that raises the height of the top of the TRUSS. So I could see a "semi-field-fault" called here, with a unique remedy of introducing a new BALL. The one on the TRUSS is declared debris. It will make it a little harder for the refs to track the POSSESSIONS, but that's why we get the big bucks. 
So we're left with E-stopping. I am wary that if a ROBOT is acting sluggish (low battery maybe?) the team will E-stop. That's not what it's for. In the past, there were even rules for a red card for E-stopping when it's not an emergency. For a true emergency, I can see introducing a new BALL or declaring a replay of the match. But I don't want to be deciding if the E-stop was required or not. And I don't want to tempt teams that are having less than desired performance to push the red button. If the GDC can figure out that problem, then they can decide what the remedy will be for an E-stopped ROBOT. |
I understand the sentiment of "too bad" as a design challenge but I think it is unfair to punish so harshly teams in qualification rounds for the design failures of their randomly selected partners.
In most FRC games, having bad partners is part of the game: If someone doesn't move, they can't score points and your alliance can't reach it's maximum potential. However, if the combined power of your alliance's two robots is better than the three of the opposing alliance, you will still win. This is how it should be and leads to mostly accurate rankings.
In this years game, if your randomly selected alliance partner fails to move at all like so many excellent teams have done in the past, even on Einstein, none of the other alliance robots are allowed to play the game through no fault of their own.
This is not fair. Many teams only get 8 or 9 matches per season to play. How can you take one away from them due to the fault of another robot? Not only will they lose but they don't even get to play.
Now, in eliminations, I would argue that "you failed, too bad" as a design challenge is fair. You pick your partners and you shouldn't have picked someone who isn't reliable. That said, I don't think it is a good gameplay element. As we've seen in Einstein 2011, 2012, and 2013, robots very often become incapacitated before or during matches even at exceedingly high levels of play. For teams it is already discouraging enough to have an alliance partner not working, should we put the nail in their coffin by saying "sorry, you aren't allowed to score any more points by yourselves either"? And to spectators, it isn't fun to not watch one robot move but it's even fun to realize that an entire alliance is not allowed to score points anymore due to one failed robot.
My proposition:
Add a new button with a different connotation from E-Stop, call it E-Disable or something. When it is pushed, it disables the robot connected to it for the rest of the match and specifies that anything that the robot and anything it is possessing is considered field debris for the rest of the match. Restart the cycle by entering a new ball into play immediately as if a ball had just been scored. No penalty for using other than robot is disabled for the rest of the match.
Put a blue box underneath the rule specifying that this should be used in cases where teams believe they will be unable to restart their robot and wish to declare it dead in the water so their alliance may play on. Utilizing it in cases to gain a competitive advantage otherwise is prohibited. Violation: Red Card.
If "you failed, too bad" is the challenge the GDC was going for then don't allow the use of this button in eliminations. My personal opinion is they should allow it, because it makes it a more interesting game for everyone involved.
As for the truss, construct a very slight incline (maybe 1") with the same material used for the incline in the low goal so a ball rolls off. Don't make a new rule for what happens if the ball gets stuck because it won't.