If YOU were the GDC...

[Doug Frisk]

Originally Posted by notmattlythgoe

There is a difference between building a robot that is difficult to tip over and removing tipping violations that allow robots to actively attempt to tip other robots (ex. a ramp specifically for tipping).

Even building a short robot does not mean that you won't get tipped, look at 836.

Building a tall robot doesn't mean you'll be tipped either. There are plenty of examples where it seems the intent was to jostle a robot to mess with its aim, but the robot tipped.

[CloakAndDagger]

Originally Posted by DareDad

Building a tall robot doesn't mean you'll be tipped either. There are plenty of examples where it seems the intent was to jostle a robot to mess with its aim, but the robot tipped.

What would your opinion be on the flip in this video then?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cReB8jw-ccI
We were defending them too hard, and as a result as soon as one robot drove underneath our bumpers and got us up, they both kept hitting us until 3536 made a concerted effort, and we fell over. This was not a result of us being too top heavy, or accidental hits from opponents, but a clear, sustained effort to flip and incapacitate our robot, which irreparably bent our arm, requiring us to punch a new one out before worlds.
I say that it was intentional not only because of what the video shows, but also one of the FTA's claims to have heard their drive coach yelling "Flip them".
We are lucky enough to have great sponsors, one of those being Russels Technical Products, who allows us to get custom-made aluminum and steel parts for reduced prices, but imagine if this had been a new team. Our traveling costs for St Louis are nuts, as are many other team's, and new teams or teams with less sponsors could very well have been permanently crippled because of lack of funds to both make it to competition and make new parts. And you want to make it legal to flip.

This was not an accident, not a misunderstanding, and not in the spirit of FIRST, and it should not be permitted.

[cbale2000]

I like most of the ideas people have posted so far, here's a few of mine:

• Remove the limitation on how many balls robots can carry, and have more balls available on the field (see 2006)
• Remove the limitation on how many balls can be crossed over the defenses at once.
• Limit the bumper-zone range more to prevent wedge/tipping situations while flat on the ground with normal bumper contact.
• Allow attackers to shoot balls from the neutral zone (I have mixed feelings about what this would do to gameplay, but it might be interesting; perhaps just limit shooting in the zone to "passing" balls over defenses, but don't allow them to be scored directly from the neutral zone.)
• Add a defender starting position in each teams secret passage and allow defensive autonomous (maintain existing rules protecting robots crossing defenses though)

Originally Posted by CloakAndDagger

What would your opinion be on the flip in this video then?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cReB8jw-ccI
We were defending them too hard, and as a result as soon as one robot drove underneath our bumpers and got us up, they both kept hitting us until 3536 made a concerted effort, and we fell over. This was not a result of us being too top heavy, or accidental hits from opponents, but a clear, sustained effort to flip and incapacitate our robot, which irreparably bent our arm, requiring us to punch a new one out before worlds.

This is probably the first video I've seen this season that was clearly an intentional tip deserving of a red card. This is the sort of thing that should be penalized, however, there are also many instances of accidental tipping that are penalized far too harshly.
I can understand a foul and maybe a yellow card as a warning to the team, but an automatic red card for a momentary contact tip is overkill. This video is an example of the standard that should be applied to red cards for tipping IMO.

[DanKein]

In order to achieve a breach, there should be two options: 1. cross 4 of the defenses 3 times. 2. cross 5 of the defenses 2 times.
This would incentivize the crossing of a difficult defense.

I also like the idea of a defending robot in their courtyard to be able to shoot balls out of the courtyard. I think this adds more than it detracts.

I think there is a difference between running over a ball and controlling a ball. Penalties being called for running over a ball while controlling one, don't make the game better. Yes, this may allow the occasional ball to enter under the low bar. However, herding or pushing a ball under the low bar, or a strategy of a human player jamming up a low bar should be penalized.

I also think the tower strength should increase from qualifications to eliminations, and with each level of eliminations.

[Citrus Dad]

There might be tweaks like the ones suggested, but the GDC got this one right. Funny after the snoozer last year.

I like that the capture has to happen with all 3 robots in place. I still would like the GDC to send out a notice in September that a game will require that ALL 3 bots will need to accomplish a task to gain significant points. That would encourage teams to work together in the preseason.

[Zebra_Fact_Man]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

I still would like the GDC to send out a notice in September that a game will require that ALL 3 bots will need to accomplish a task to gain significant points. That would encourage teams to work together in the preseason.

I disagree. If FIRST needs to put out a disclaimer to get teams to work together, there's a culture problem that needs to be addressed. Teams helping each other should be the default.

[DaveL]

I would like to see more motivation for teams to build shooting robots and to gain points for passing between robots.
The way to do might be to allow shooting boulders over the barriers in both directions and to have more visual targets for robots to use in auto mode. Plus larger targets would motivate more teams to build shooting robots.

Others mentioned the divider on the batter, I would go one step further and add some tint to the dividers on the barriers, to make it easier to line up and drive thru a barrier opening.

[BeardyMentor]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

There might be tweaks like the ones suggested, but the GDC got this one right. Funny after the snoozer last year.

I like that the capture has to happen with all 3 robots in place. I still would like the GDC to send out a notice in September that a game will require that ALL 3 bots will need to accomplish a task to gain significant points. That would encourage teams to work together in the preseason.

It has been two consecutive years where 3 robots are required to score some points. I would just assume that next year will be similar. Let's see how long it takes teams to figure out that they should be helping other teams during the preseason.

[Coach#3536]

Originally Posted by CloakAndDagger

What would your opinion be on the flip in this video then?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cReB8jw-ccI
We were defending them too hard, and as a result as soon as one robot drove underneath our bumpers and got us up, they both kept hitting us until 3536 made a concerted effort, and we fell over. This was not a result of us being too top heavy, or accidental hits from opponents, but a clear, sustained effort to flip and incapacitate our robot, which irreparably bent our arm, requiring us to punch a new one out before worlds.
I say that it was intentional not only because of what the video shows, but also one of the FTA's claims to have heard their drive coach yelling "Flip them".
We are lucky enough to have great sponsors, one of those being Russels Technical Products, who allows us to get custom-made aluminum and steel parts for reduced prices, but imagine if this had been a new team. Our traveling costs for St Louis are nuts, as are many other team's, and new teams or teams with less sponsors could very well have been permanently crippled because of lack of funds to both make it to competition and make new parts. And you want to make it legal to flip.

This was not an accident, not a misunderstanding, and not in the spirit of FIRST, and it should not be permitted.

Which FTA? Look at the video all 3 were on the right of the field. We were in the center window. I know I did not say flip.
We apologized and I personally explained what happened to your drive team. It was a misjudgement from our side I didn't react fast enough and you seem to be trying to inflame the situation. The penalty was valid and we do not contest we messed up. It effected us severely in our rankings. We are sorry that your robot sustained damage as it was honestly not our intent. We are glad to hear your team is okay.

[GeeTwo]

I thought my earlier post sounded a bit Polyanna, so I went through the entire thread. Most of the recommended changes would have clearly messed with the game balance. I'm not going to comment on the equipment issues; they're not really the GDCs provenance. Based on the takeaway from our drive team, I suspect that (as inspectors have said for years) most of the disconnects are on the robot side. I'm going to consider the game as the Q&As treated it, not as it was in January.

Here are the few suggestions I felt were at least worthy of comment; the others would have (IMO) wrecked the game balance. The two adjustments that I actually endorse are in red, and another that I like but can't work around is in orange..:

• Eliminate audience selection: I get that it's silly, but its also relevant. The marketplace is fickle, and we need to recognize it. Keep it!
• Transparent drawbridge and Sally Port: they were a problem, but they were a symmetrical problem. I wouldn't be against changing it, but it's not really an improvement.
• Dead robot fouls: If a robot dies or is disabled where it may repeatedly cause foul points, that's a problem for the team/alliance that has the dead robot. If the opposing alliance were to push the dead robot into a place that will be a foul, that should have been a G11. Perhaps a change in implementation, but not in the rules.
• Make tipping legal: I would be in favor of the following rule, or more likely exception to G24: If a robot is tipped as a result of bumper-to-bumper interactions, and the other robot's bumpers are within the bumper rules, G24 is not applicable.
• Make dividers between the defenses and batter thirds more visible: OK, provided they're still clear enough to allow the referees to do their jobs.
• Allow a driver station clamp (or suction cup to the front screen): I don't see in the rules that it's forbidden, so unless it's been enforced as illegal no change is required.
• Reduce the bumper zone window: The bumper zone is 8" high, and bumpers are required to be 5" +/- 1/2" high, resulting in a minimum of 1" overlap. This is probably a tiny bit too small, though I don't think this was the cause of most of the tipping we saw this year; I saw very few bumpers with a lower edge below 6" off the carpet on level ground.
• Field Reset is too difficult; timing is too tight: Yes, I get it. I don't know what to do about this one without modifying the game beyond recognition.
• Have dedicated scorekeepers in addition to referrees: in my mind, this falls on the "game execution committee" side. Sounds like a good idea, but (IMO) a bit outside the scope of this question.
• Eliminating rules based on intent: That would be a great place to take things in theory, but living in Louisiana (one of the two states with criminal code law, and the only one with civil code law in the U.S.), and having a brother who was killed by violence, I know directly that while rules based on objective conditions sound like a great idea, the results are less than stellar.