Team Update #7

[Racer26]

@EricH: Your analogy to the Supreme Court is not a fair one.

Q&A rulings that contradict the rules do not the rules make. This has been hashed out MANY times over the last few years. The GDC themselves have said on several occasions that the ONLY way for them to change the rules of the game is through TEAM UPDATES.

[JesseK]

I'm going to side with MrG on this one, but only to an extent. The littany of information we have to sift through is quite exhausting during the build season. I've barely had time to read all of the Q&A myself. Of course, we're also not trying to walk the line on anything with our strategy so I don't feel I really need to.

However, MrG, just because you didn't read it doesn't mean it won't be enforced as true. It's like speeding tickets, jaywalking, and all of the other 'annoying' rules with purposes and penalties that the common person hasn't bothered to read. If it's possible, have another team evaluate your design or get a mentor/student dedicated to reading the forums in addition to what he/she is doing.

I'm ecstatic about the <R75> update. That was the only rule I had a question about in regards to using a custom keyboard with a virtual joystick emulator in order to make a really nice COTS button board that we can re-use year to year.

[Mr.G]

Originally Posted by ZonChau

I find this overall a pleasing team update. Good clarifications and removal of the possibility for a very dubious strategy that to me, goes against Gracious Professionalism. (Moving one tube around and it counting before Update 7.)

How can you call it a dubious(?) strategy? It was written plain as day in bold letters that once a game piece is scored it is scored for the remainder of the match. Also there was nothing in the rules that states that you can’t move your own game pieces.

Here is the deleted rule: Once a GAME PIECE has been released by the POSSESSING ROBOT (even momentarily) and is HANGING (e.g. it is fully supported by the PEG), it is considered to be HANGING until the end of the match.

The GDC needs to stop changing the rules in an attempt to get the game to be played how they think it should be played and let the game be played how they originally wrote the rules. I think it isn’t GP on GDC’s part to make changes to the rules that affect the design of robots this late in the season. They are saying we don’t care about the time and effort you put into this program “we want the game played this way”. I am fine if they want to clarify rules, but to completely delete them is not right. Also making changes with 3 weeks left is not acceptable. Thanks for wasting my time GDC.

[Paul Copioli]

Kevin,

Rule G68 (now G67) was there from the beginning. The scoring counts at the end of the match. If you designed a robot completely disregarding that rule, then it is your own fault. At best, it was unclear and the addition of the Q&A clarification should have made it crystal clear. I think you are laying blame in the wrong place.

Sorry man, just call them like I see them.

Paul

[Mr.G]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

Kevin,

Rule G68 (now G67) was there from the beginning. The scoring counts at the end of the match. If you designed a robot completely disregarding that rule, then it is your own fault. At best, it was unclear and the addition of the Q&A clarification should have made it crystal clear. I think you are laying blame in the wrong place.

Sorry man, just call them like I see them.

Paul

Yes Paul, with all due respect.

<G67> Scores will be assessed when the MATCH ends and all objects in motion come to rest, or 10 seconds elapses, whichever comes first.

That is the standard rule that has been there forever.

The section 1 rule "Once a GAME PIECE has been released by the POSSESSING ROBOT (even momentarily) and is HANGING (e.g. it is fully supported by the PEG), it is considered to be HANGING until the end of the match."

This was a new rule this year and states the tube will be considered hanging at the end of the match even though it is not.

Both those rules can work together. They went into great detail of what they wanted in the section one rule and I interpreted it exactly how they stated it. I do disagree with you. Thanks though.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Mr.G

Both those rules can work together. They went into great detail of what they wanted in the section one rule and I interpreted it exactly how they stated it.

I agree. The original "once HANGING, always HANGING" rule was not in conflict with the "scores assessed at the end of the MATCH" rule.

However, I also agree that the removal of the "HANGING in perpetuity" provision is a very good thing. Sitting in your scoring zone moving game pieces from peg to peg was permitted by the letter of the law, shouldn't be a valid way to play the game, and now isn't.

[Eulipian]

Originally Posted by nitneylion452

The Q&A is an OFFICIAL RULING by the GDC. Whatever they say in the Q&A becomes the rule regardless of what the manual says.

If this were correct, there would be no need to amend the rules. The rules have been amended to reflect clarifications explained in the Q&A. The Q&A are not rules.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Eulipian

If this were correct, there would be no need to amend the rules. The rules have been amended to reflect clarifications explained in the Q&A. The Q&A are not rules.

No, but they are a good indication of what the rules were meant to be, and will likely be amended to be.

Remember, the GDC tells us flat-out that the rules should be read with the spirit of the game in mind, and not lawyered to squeeze every possible potential advantage. They tell us this, right in the manual.

So cut 'em a break.

I've done some freelance game design in the past, and I've never had a such a large group of incredibly smart and motivated people set out to break the games I've designed... And yet I've still had to go back and clarify, and re-clarify, and re-write, so that the game in my head matches the game on paper.

Overall, given the complexity of the framework they design every year, I am incredibly impressed by the GDC's ability to put out what is a quality (if not perfect) product year after year.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by 1075guy

@EricH: Your analogy to the Supreme Court is not a fair one.

Q&A rulings that contradict the rules do not the rules make. This has been hashed out MANY times over the last few years. The GDC themselves have said on several occasions that the ONLY way for them to change the rules of the game is through TEAM UPDATES.

For cases where two rules are in conflict, or seem to be in conflict, the Q&A chooses which one takes precedence. That is what happened there.

Also, note the minibot welding. They allowed it by Q&A. Then it was disallowed, again by Q&A, this time because a needed material was not in <R92>. When asked about this, they issued an update to support the first Q&A ruling, not the second one, even though the second one was the correct one up until the Update came out.

Incidentally, if the Supreme Court were to issue a ruling that was in violation of the Constitution (for the sake of argument, that privately owned guns were illegal--Second Amendment), how long do you think their credibility would last? Right, it wouldn't.

If 99% of people looked at that rule and Q&A combination and saw that they would not be able to move game pieces around and have them count for more points than the peg they were on at the end of the match, the 1% should not complain that the ruling was unclear. The Q&A explained that a piece could not count on two pegs, effectively.

[mathking]

Whether or not Q&A rulings are official rules, there was a Q&A ruling early on that indicated you could not hang, remove, hang, remove, etc... with the same tube and have it count for multiple scores. So teams should at least have been aware that this strategy might be disallowed by a future update.

I completely agree with MrG's interpretation of the rule as originally written. A couple of our students brought this up during brainstorming on January 10. I told them we should be ready to play as if it were an allowable strategy, but that I bet it would be disallowed.

In game design, play testing is one of the most important and most time consuming parts of the process. Unfortunately for us, there is no real way to completely play test the game before they release it. So there are going to be rules which are unclear, or in this case say something not intended. I always try to plan on the spirit of the rules being enforced, but pay attention to the Q&A and updates. More so if we are looking at strategies that are unorthodox.

[Alpha Beta]

Originally Posted by mathking

Whether or not Q&A rulings are official rules, there was a Q&A ruling early on that indicated you could not hang, remove, hang, remove, etc... with the same tube and have it count for multiple scores. So teams should at least have been aware that this strategy might be disallowed by a future update.

We should all be aware that the rules of the game can change after week 1 regionals as well. In 2007 we saw the prestacking of robots disallowed. This eliminated a useful puropose for dead robots. Last year we saw the ball under robot penalty go away which benefited poorly designed robots. I believe last year the 469 game breaker strategy was officially asked in Q&A and allowed. While it is tough to let a secret strategy out of the bag, if it is questionable it is better to ask Q&A before it affects your whole design path.

You can win a week 1 regional with a questionable strategy but you cannot win a world championship with it if it is subsequently disallowed. Precedent says this can hapen (often).

[rick.oliver]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

I agree. The original "once HANGING, always HANGING" rule was not in conflict with the "scores assessed at the end of the MATCH" rule.

However, I also agree that the removal of the "HANGING in perpetuity" provision is a very good thing. Sitting in your scoring zone moving game pieces from peg to peg was permitted by the letter of the law, shouldn't be a valid way to play the game, and now isn't.

Completely agree, well said.

[sgreco]

Originally Posted by Mr.G

How can you call it a dubious(?) strategy? It was written plain as day in bold letters that once a game piece is scored it is scored for the remainder of the match. Also there was nothing in the rules that states that you can’t move your own game pieces.

Here is the deleted rule: Once a GAME PIECE has been released by the POSSESSING ROBOT (even momentarily) and is HANGING (e.g. it is fully supported by the PEG), it is considered to be HANGING until the end of the match.

The GDC needs to stop changing the rules in an attempt to get the game to be played how they think it should be played and let the game be played how they originally wrote the rules. I think it isn’t GP on GDC’s part to make changes to the rules that affect the design of robots this late in the season. They are saying we don’t care about the time and effort you put into this program “we want the game played this way”. I am fine if they want to clarify rules, but to completely delete them is not right. Also making changes with 3 weeks left is not acceptable. Thanks for wasting my time GDC.

You had one rule that made your strategy legitimate, and one rule that made it is illegitimate. Why assume that it works one way and not the other? G<68> may have changed location, but the rule itself has always been there. You chose to ignore one rule by assuming that it was trumped by another. You should have sought clarification before deciding on such a strategy. If you had assume either way, at least assume the more obvious of the answers. In 2009 would you see it as a legitimate strategy to take balls out of an opponents trailer, move them to another trailer, and have their score count twice? of course not. It's the same thing here. It's pretty obvious that score were intended to be counted at the end.

It's all about intent, did you honestly think the way you were planning on playing the game was within the intent of the rules?

[gblake]

Folks,

I'm going to see if a consensus exists rather than trying to interpret the full pile of rules, Q&A and posts. Maybe, I'm lazy.

I think the conversation nets out to this:
"When scoring is done, a tube's value will be determined by the last peg it was hung upon (including 'no peg' for an unhung tube)."

Some amplifying statements that I think are true, are:
"It's the list of tubes' that were once hung, combined with the list of pegs where they were last hung (1 peg per tube), that determines score; not the list of all pegs that once held tubes."
"Woe unto the refs that have to keep track of the specific tubes that fall off or are taken off of pegs."
"Woe unto the refs that have to decide what 'momentarily hanging' means."

I remain confused about whether a single peg (top row with an uber perhaps) can have be a place where more than one tube (lets say 6 for a fun example) was hung (for final scoring purposes).

i.e. Hang a circle on a high peg that contains an uber, take that circle tube off. Hang another circle on that same high peg, take it off. Hang another circle on that high peg, take it off. Hang a triangle on that peg, take the triangle off. Etc.

If I understand things correctly, during/after the sequence outlined above, once each tube is hung it remains virtually hung (on the last peg where it was hung), so at the end the match there would be 5 virtually hung tubes and one actually hanging tube "on" that one peg; and they would all be "on" a peg that also holds an uber.

If I haven't taken a false step in this example, a specialized robot could rack up a pretty high score this way if its allies kept it equipped with a steady supply of fresh tubes.

Blake
PS: My buddies and I need to get this all figured out so that we can correctly compute scores during/after 5th Gear's simulated matches.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by gblake

Folks,

I'm going to see if a consensus exists rather than trying to interpret the full pile of rules, Q&A and posts. Maybe, I'm lazy.

I think the conversation nets out to this:
"When scoring is done, a tube's value will be determined by the last peg it was hung upon (including 'no peg' for an unhung tube)."

Some amplifying statements that I think are true, are:
"It's the list of tubes' that were once hung, combined with the list of pegs where they were last hung (1 peg per tube), that determines score; not the list of all pegs that once held tubes."
"Woe unto the refs that have to keep track of the specific tubes that fall off or are taken off of pegs."
"Woe unto the refs that have to decide what 'momentarily hanging' means."

I remain confused about whether a single peg (top row with an uber perhaps) can have be a place where more than one tube (lets say 6 for a fun example) was hung (for final scoring purposes).

i.e. Hang a circle on a high peg that contains an uber, take that circle tube off. Hang another circle on that same high peg, take it off. Hang another circle on that high peg, take it off. Hang a triangle on that peg, take the triangle off. Etc.

If I understand things correctly, during/after the sequence outlined above, once each tube is hung it remains virtually hung (on the last peg where it was hung), so at the end the match there would be 5 virtually hung tubes and one actually hanging tube "on" that one peg; and they would all be "on" a peg that also holds an uber.

If I haven't taken a false step in this example, a specialized robot could rack up a pretty high score this way if its allies kept it equipped with a steady supply of fresh tubes.

Blake
PS: My buddies and I need to get this all figured out so that we can correctly compute scores during/after 5th Gear's simulated matches.

No, you read it wrong. The FINAL tube placed onto that peg with an ubertube on it are the only tubes that count.