|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#31
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Team Update #6
Quote:
I will post a circuit with 2 2way light switches in a new thread. |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
If the referee believes that it is part of your strategy to cause opposing bots to get penalties. then you get a yellow card. If, however, you have a legitimate strategic need other than that, and as a result you push an opposing bot into your zone, you will not receive a yellow card. Reaching a scoring peg immediately behind a defending robot, for example should be allowed (according to my understanding of the new rules). Since reaching a scoring peg is a legitimate strategic goal, your strategy is therefore to score, not to cause penalties. If, however, you were to do the same thing while not holding a game piece, you are quite clearly only trying to cause a penalty, and thus will receive a yellow card. This kind of judgment call is exactly what the driver meeting is for. There we can get the Head Referee's own take on rules like this and get a good feeling for when yellow cards will be given. The only problem is that you can't really plan in advance regarding this rule. |
|
#33
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Team Update #6
I'm really disappointed with the minibot ruling. I thought for sure that they would just allow teams to bring out a pole to retrieve Minibots. Is it really that big of a deal? We have found a way to consistently get 6 robots on and 6 robots off the field in a safe manner, I think that we would be able to safely retrieve our 4 or less minibots too...
As far as the defenseive rulings go, its a terrible thing to change the game this drastically this late in the build season. If the rules were written this way from the beginning it would have been clear the GDC wanted to discourage defensive strategies and all teams would have focused 100% on building a fast tube scorer and didn't have to worry about being defended against. Now teams that wanted to focus on defense are way behind the eightball and teams that maybe went against mecanum because they didn't like not being apush through a defender now regret that decision because likely that scenario won't play out nearly as often. I mean does the GDC have difficulty dissecting their own game? It had to be clear to them that straffing between the towers was the perfect location to play defense. Either recognize that early and take it out of the game or live with your decision. Don't change it in week 3. |
|
#34
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Team Update #6
I think we need to lawyer this- the English language is fraught with opportunity to be unclear:
"<G32> (a) Neither ROBOTS, HOSTBOTS, nor MINIBOTS may break the planes of the vertically projected borders of the opponent’s ZONES, including a GAME PIECE in their POSSESSION. (b) Momentary incursions by a POSSESSED GAME PIECE will not be penalized if they do not make contact with anything in the ZONE. Violation: PENALTY. (c) G61 does not apply to this rule, however (d) strategies aimed at taking advantage of this exception will result in a YELLOW CARD. (e) 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." My lawyerly interpretations... "this rule" - all of <G32> Possible interpretations of "this exception": [most likely] (b) - "Momentary incursions by a POSSESSED GAME PIECE will not be penalized if they do not make contact with anything in the ZONE." YELLOW CARD for intentionally holding a GAME PIECE over an opponent's zone. [not likely] (c) -"not getting penalized because of <G61>" If this were the interpretation of "this exception", then it indicates a YELLOW CARD. However, the sentence immediately following indicates a RED CARD for the same infraction. I think a rewrite of the rules in question to eliminate ambiguity of terms like "this exception": <G32> [a] Neither ROBOTS, HOSTBOTS, nor MINIBOTS may break the planes of the vertically projected borders of the opponent’s ZONES, including a GAME PIECE in their POSSESSION. [b] Momentary incursions by a POSSESSED GAME PIECE will not be penalized if they do not make contact with anything in the ZONE. Violation: PENALTY. [c] G61 does not apply to this rule (<G32> parts [a-b]) , however [d] strategies aimed at taking advantage of this exception (<G32> part [b]) will result in a YELLOW CARD. [e] 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. From this POV, all YELLOW and RED CARDs for this rule apply only to the intruding robot, not any robot pushing the intruding robot. I would also change the wording in [e]: "If a ROBOT enters the opponent's ZONE": it could falsely give the impression of intent and that "enters" does not include "was pushed into". TO: "If any portion of a ROBOT is in 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." Last edited by boomergeek : 29-01-2011 at 08:08. Reason: clarify |
|
#35
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Team Update #6
I agree that I don't like this drastic a change this late. And I think the penalty is too light for intentionally pushing an opponent into your zone. If the opponent definitely gets a penalty from it I think pushing them into the zone intentionally should be a Red Card. Particularly since the way I read the rule, pushing a team intentionally into an ally inside your scoring zone gives them a Red Card and you a Yellow Card.
|
|
#36
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Team Update #6
Biggest upset for me in now the NXT Brick. I'm not against completely, as cost wise we have a ton around from our Lego team we sponsor.
However As mentioned before it's a lot of Extra weight that I know will drag our mini-bot design down. Also the NXT brick runs on it's own sets of batteries, so now thats double the amount of batteries you have to juggle to try to keep charged. Looking at the risks vs. benefits on the pole issue, I just see that the risks IMHO aren't strong enough to take away the benefits. |
|
#37
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Team Update #6
Defense still matters, and pinning still matters -- you just have to do it as the robots cross the field, and not up-close-and-personal. Pushing around a robot enough to double the time it takes to cross the field is equivalent to halving the number of tubes they can score.
Four-second pins, blocking lines of access without pinning, etc -- these things till matter, and matter quite a bit! |
|
#38
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Team Update #6
Quote:
Again, this is my opinion of the GDC clarification. |
|
#39
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Team Update #6
Less technically creative teams will look to solve the problem with an NXT brick; however I can think of several dozen solutions that don't involve an NXT brick. If costs and/or weight are an issue, think harder.
The rule states "without special equipment". I assume a Bazooka is special, but perhaps a 5 foot stick is not. Nonetheless, the solutions I mentioned above don't involve any equipment for retrieval. Defensive bots will just need to stay further away from the opposing Zones to avoid penalties. Especially those that can be pushed. But if your defendabot can't be pushed, that lets you get a lot closer. The yellow lines show that GDC considered this, and have now clarified and raised the ante for those who flaunt it. I'm not going to lawyer anything, BUT if you really want clarity, the GDC shall further consider sentence structure. This example is somewhat less ambiguous: Quote:
|
|
#40
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Team Update #6
Quote:
Week 1: Strafe between the towers is ok, if you get pushed into your opponets scoring zone you need to make an effort to leave. If not, you will be penalized Week 3: Strafe between the towers, if you get pushed into your opponets scoring zone you get penalized automatically. That's a BIG difference this late in the season. If they didn't want defense played between the towers then penalize it from the get go. Would you even consider this robot if the current ruling was in place in week 1? http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/36093 Quote:
I agree the GDC wanted it this way from the beginning but they didn't do a good enough job detailing it from the start and should have just lived with it IMO. I really hope 3553 decided to go with a different strategy because I can't imagine being a rookie team trying to re-tool their robot that was built to play the week 1 game in week 3. Last edited by Justin Montois : 29-01-2011 at 10:50. |
|
#41
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Team Update #6
I think 3553 will be OK. They just have to make one relatively minor tweak to their strategy and they'll be quite effective at slowing opponents down.
If you can block teams from leaving their zone, they push you into the middle of the field. No penalty there. Or they go through your lane, -3 points for them. And it slows them down just as much as fighting to get through you to the scoring grid. |
|
#42
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Team Update #6
Quote:
|
|
#43
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Team Update #6
Nah. -3, possibility of a red card (no immediate departure/contact with something in there), and maybe you get a yellow card. But when they could try to go through or around you, then that kind of removes your yellow card from the equation in some circumstances.
|
|
#44
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Team Update #6
One other thing i saw on the update that i wanted to ask everyone on CD, when they say that the red card will be given to the TEAM that gets that severe of a penalty, will that DQ the match in quals like it would in elims or does that team just not get the match counted towards their rankings?
|
|
#45
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Team Update #6
Quote:
Qual DQ won't affect partners (unless it's a <T03> DQ). |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|