Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamHeard
Okay, based on update 2 and 5, I see that no mention of impeding exists in hybrid mode.
Still, I don't like that high speed ramming is called, when it is clearly an unintentional act, and impeding is. Also, I will be very upset to see any team get called for ramming in hybrid after they hit a robot that drove 3 feet to impede traffic in hybrid (that would not be illegal, as the 3 foot drive is attempting to get hit, and you can't draw penalties). It's a shady strategy overall.
I understand it is legal per the rules now, I'm just venting.
|
Vent away, sir. I can understand your contention about waiving high speed ramming for hitting those who obviously intend to get hit. Waiving it for ramming/tipping robots numerous line crossings down your path that are stopped on the field because their auton is over, or they just happen to be jammed into a wall, or they never moved in the first place, is another story, IMHO.
Attaching the negatively-connotated words "shady" and "blatant" to any hybrid blocking strategy is going a bit far.
NO alliance is OBLIGATED to give ANY team a huge advantage in hybrid just because their robot is "cool" and can cross 48,000 lines in auton.
Blocking in hybrid is a smart, effective, legal (??....sigh), and SIMPLE strategy. I do believe you should only employ one bot for this effort (1504 did it expertly), as blocking the entire lane seems to bring the bump to pass rule into question. If there's a lane for the oncoming robots to move around the blocking robot, they have no beef.
There is nothing wrong with simple - I feel people tend to glorify the complex and put it up on a pedestal a bit too emphatically sometimes, at the expense of the more "boring" strategies. There is a place for both in FIRST.
And if the uber-hybrid bots don't like being blocked, they are welcome to use their programming expertise to add some collision avoidance code and move around the obstacle. Use it as an opportunity to "wow" people even more with your adept engineering skillz.
Qbranch and 1024 already outlined a constructive way to respond to this new challenge with additional strategic programming. I see this as yet another instance of "raising the bar". Quite literally getting a "free pass" does not accomplish this objective nearly as effectively.
DARPA Grand Challenge planners don't dilute the accomplishments of event participants by telling big rocks and obstacles to get out of the way of an oncoming autonomous vehicle (there's a funny thought). It's fairly safe to say we are amazed at the way that event "raises the bar" - why can FIRST not employ and permit similar tactics in their challenge design - the addition of defense simply adds "unexpected" disturbances for which robots must compensate.