Blocking the lane with an ubertube in autonomous

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Billfred

This sounds like an easy fix, though: remove from play any released ubertubes in the lanes at the end of the autonomous period. I don't see much need for a penalty here.

I see no need for this 'fix'.

There is no penalty for (nor rule against) putting the Ubertube into the lane during autonomous, so why change the game now? ... unless you can't deal with the tactic?

[MagiChau]

Using uber-tubes for the lane I find a bad idea. Instead, a good human feeder could throw a logo pieces into the lane accurately with a reliable method to get a tube where you want. I find the 6 or 9 points resulting from hanging an uber-tube top row outweighing the benefits of using such a strategy. Good manipulation of game pieces by human players or the robots during teleop could create some hazardous obstacles. At Traverse City I noticed a lot of tubes getting in the way of robots already without purposeful rearrangement. Now imagine those tubes are purposely being pushed to get in the way of robots that are not allowed to pick up another tube.

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

I see no need for this 'fix'.

There is no penalty for (nor rule against) putting the Ubertube into the lane during autonomous, so why change the game now? ... unless you can't deal with the tactic?

A change would mean the GDC never intended for the tactic to be used. In the same way that placing a tube into the lane would cause slot-loaders to adjust to the tactic, a rule change would cause the teams employing this tactic to adapt.

The tactic is a cheap shot against slot loaders that are already at an inherent disadvantage this year, imo, though it probably didn't effect even 1% of qual match outcomes. Furthermore, it probably significantly increases the frustration due to improbable success of slot loaders this year -- slot-only pickups are already disadvantaged (in practice) due to the early design decisions to NOT pick up off the floor. So why keep allowing the tactic if it only serves to frustrate those who have no other option, rather than actually impeding good robots that really NEED good tactics to play effective defense against? I think we all make mostly logical decisions in the beginning that we're inherently 'punished' for due to better decisions being made by competing designs.

[AllenGregoryIV]

I think this a perfectly fine strategy and one of the major reasons we made sure we could floor load.

I also think it should be fine for a robot to toss an unhung ubertube into the lane after autonomous. Failed ubertubes can block the rack for robots on your alliance why not just toss it into the lane next to you. As long as you are not holding on to it when it breaks the plane, it's not in your position and there for not a penalty. We never got around to doing this at Alamo but there were several times when our drivers should have cleared ubertubes into the lane just to get them out of our way.

[martin417]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

I see no reason why a game piece in your lane would be any different nor do I think placing a game piece in the lane would count as forcing you to take a penalty.

<G38> ROBOTS and HOSTBOTS may not intentionally deflate GAME PIECES. No violation will be assigned for unintentional deflation. Violation: PENALTY plus RED CARD for intentional deflation. Repeated unintentional deflation may result in a YELLOW CARD.

I believe the important distinction here is "intentionally". The root word is intent. If you act intending to pop a tube, you get a penalty and a red card. If you act intending to get to your feeder slot, and inadvertently cause a tube to deflate, you are not intentionally deflating a tube, and should not receive a penalty or red card.

[Gary Dillard]

I guess it surprised me when I saw that this was legal since it seems to contradict the intent caveat on G33

<G33>allows ROBOTS to retrieve LOGO PIECES from the FEEDER without being hindered.

It certainly seems like a hinderance. Also the note in this rule regarding strategies is interesting

G61 does not apply to this rule, however strategies aimed at taking advantage of this exception will result in a PENALTY PLUS A YELLOW CARD.

I could see them extending that to other rules which contradict stated intent.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by JesseK

A change would mean the GDC never intended for the tactic to be used. In the same way that placing a tube into the lane would cause slot-loaders to adjust to the tactic, a rule change would cause the teams employing this tactic to adapt.

The tactic is a cheap shot against slot loaders that are already at an inherent disadvantage this year, imo, though it probably didn't effect even 1% of qual match outcomes. Furthermore, it probably significantly increases the frustration due to improbable success of slot loaders this year -- slot-only pickups are already disadvantaged (in practice) due to the early design decisions to NOT pick up off the floor. So why keep allowing the tactic if it only serves to frustrate those who have no other option, rather than actually impeding good robots that really NEED good tactics to play effective defense against? I think we all make mostly logical decisions in the beginning that we're inherently 'punished' for due to better decisions being made by competing designs.

So you believe that week 1 regional teams should play a different game than all the others? Thanks, I enjoy being a guinea pig.

I don't believe that this tactic warrants a change in the rules. Just because some teams decided on a strategy that did not consider this tactic does not mean that we should change the rules.

... and since when is a tactic that is well within the rules 'cheap'?

[IndySam]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

... and since when is a tactic that is well within the rules 'cheap'?

When it causes the posters team trouble.


The rule should stand as is.

Potential troubles with the narrow lane should have been part of a teams strategy discussions early on. If they weren't then why change the rules to correct their mistake?

[Gary Dillard]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

So you believe that week 1 regional teams should play a different game than all the others? Thanks, I enjoy being a guinea pig.

Too late for that precedent - the GDC changed several rules last year after seeing what happened in week 1 was not meeting their intent (added points for winning, allowed incidental ball intrusion for example). See Team Update 16 from 2010.

[MagiChau]

The tactic I see it is perfectly within the rules. that <G33> allowing robots to grab tubes without being hindered seems to imply the hinderance being an actual robot or a game piece held by such robot. I cannot find anywhere an intent that using an unpossesed game piece being an obstacle is against the rules. I believe you are stretching the meaning of the rules if you say unpossesed game pieces cannot be obstacles.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Gary Dillard

Too late for that precedent - the GDC changed several rules last year after seeing what happened in week 1 was not meeting their intent (added points for winning, allowed incidental ball intrusion for example). See Team Update 16 from 2010.

Believe me ... I know. We only go to BAE GSR (unless we win).

Last year we designed our robot so that the balls could never intrude ... If we went to a regional other than a week 1, all that work would have been for naught.

Lets hope there are no such changes this year.

[WizenedEE]

Last year we just threw some surgical tubing to bounce balls away. I guess that did take a lot of work though, because people kept wasting time "stress testing" it by playing pinball.

I don't particularly like the idea of changing the rules mid-competition, but this really is unacceptable. We're supposed to be graciously professional -- we have build workshops on kickoff so that everyone can go to competition with something, and we all try to help each other out as much as we can.

However, if an experienced team makes the (flawed) design decision to not floor-load (which happens, we thought that no tubes at all would be on the floor), they would just waste all that work they did to make an arm completely? Seriously, it's a real shame if a team spends a ton of work on something and then can't use it, and because of this "cheap trick," it might have all been for naught (of course, not all teams will do it...)

Also to the people that are saying that this strategy is legal: Yes, that is the point of the thread. The author is saying that it IS legal and it SHOULD BE illegal. No amount of saying that they made a less-than-perfect design decision can negate the fact that they deserve to get something.

[martin417]

Originally Posted by WizenedEE

...However, if an experienced team makes the (flawed) design decision to not floor-load (which happens, we thought that no tubes at all would be on the floor), they would just waste all that work they did to make an arm completely? Seriously, it's a real shame if a team spends a ton of work on something and then can't use it, and because of this "cheap trick," it might have all been for naught (of course, not all teams will do it...)

Flawed in your opinion. Don't assume that a non-floor loading bot is an inferior bot. Many people on CD are saying that if a bot can't floor load, they can't win. I still think that it is possible for a bot to do very well as a slot loader only. Time will tell

[GaryVoshol]

The number 2 alliance captain at Kettering not only could not floor-load, but they had no tube carrying capability (no arm). They played a great game - defense, herding tubes on the floor, Minibot. Floor loading is not essential to the game. Desirable perhaps, but not essential.

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by WizenedEE

Last year we just threw some surgical tubing to bounce balls away. I guess that did take a lot of work though, because people kept wasting time "stress testing" it by playing pinball.

I don't particularly like the idea of changing the rules mid-competition, but this really is unacceptable. We're supposed to be graciously professional -- we have build workshops on kickoff so that everyone can go to competition with something, and we all try to help each other out as much as we can.

However, if an experienced team makes the (flawed) design decision to not floor-load (which happens, we thought that no tubes at all would be on the floor), they would just waste all that work they did to make an arm completely? Seriously, it's a real shame if a team spends a ton of work on something and then can't use it, and because of this "cheap trick," it might have all been for naught (of course, not all teams will do it...)

Also to the people that are saying that this strategy is legal: Yes, that is the point of the thread. The author is saying that it IS legal and it SHOULD BE illegal. No amount of saying that they made a less-than-perfect design decision can negate the fact that they deserve to get something.

What in the world are you talking about? No team "deserves" to get anything during a competition. If the opposing alliance manages to implement a strategy that prevents their opponents from scoring, then they fully deserve to implement all the benefits of that strategy. This strategy has been legal within the rules since the beginning, and if someone gets taken advantage by it, then they failed to understand the game well enough.