|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: The Chokehold Strategy of 2016?
Quote:
The current meta doesn't involve teams diving into the secret passage for balls when the human player can bowl them into the neutral. So yeah the strategy would kinda work but it isn't a choke hold. And as stated before you got G21 flipped around. If you ran this you would actually pull fouls because a robot has the right of way in their own secret passage in regards to an opposing robot. Also I'm agreeing with Rangel if that isn't clear dude knew his bidnizz in Arizona North |
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: The Chokehold Strategy of 2016?
All I can say right now is that it is challenging to pull off without drawing penalties, but still definitely possible.
It's not a chokehold, per se, because if your opponents know how to react to it, they can still get boulders - albeit much slower. You need to make sure your team playing defence knows exactly what is allowed and what isn't, which is difficult to convey during Saturday lunch, without ever having practiced it. You also need to invest the time in explaining to the refs what you are doing so they are going to call it as expected. Some things can be subject to interpretation. Are you allowed to position yourself at the end of the opponent's SP and let opposing boulders bounce off you so they stay in the SP? You definitely should. Should you be able to play defence in the neutral zone to prevent your opponents from getting balls that are outside the SP? Yes, of course, but if there are balls near the opening of the SP that you are defending, things get murky. I also agree that you should be able to box opponents in to their own SP based on how the rules are currently written. You need to tell the refs exactly what you expect to happen as well... and what penalties should be called in what circumstances. Our attempt in SF2-1 at GTRE was not really well executed, but enough to prove the concept and learn how to improve on it. We held the opponent to 6 boulders scored, but there are a lot of penalty calls, so it's still very debatable. It wasn't a very close match when you see all the penalties. I think it will catch on more as the weeks go by, however. Not too many will try due to the penalty potential, but those who can successfully do it will be able to pull some upsets. It might be interesting to see 2nd picks at Champs focused on teams who can play defense in this way effectively. Last edited by Mr. Lim : 13-03-2016 at 16:56. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Chokehold Strategy of 2016?
Quote:
|
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: The Chokehold Strategy of 2016?
How doesn't this violate G11?
Quote:
|
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: The Chokehold Strategy of 2016?
Because it doesn't force anyone to take any penalties.
|
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: The Chokehold Strategy of 2016?
G43 has nothing to do with preventing robots from traversing their own defense. It only says you can't contact the opposing robot in your own Outerworks. But you can still traverse them yourself (Alliance 4's defense robot drove through their Sally Port during the last 30 seconds of the match when they were facing Alliance 1 at Lakeview and received no penalties).
Therefore, no chokehold. |
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: The Chokehold Strategy of 2016?
Quote:
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|