Team Update #18

[Eldarion]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

And the e-stop button only makes it partially more safe, by preventing those 2 teams from causing the "Stack" to tip. There are still 4 other robots and 6 human players introducing energy to the field that could potentially cause a robot to fall from the other one or the whole "stack" to fall over, even if not intended.

I must ask, how is this different from a robot deciding to go up another's ramps before the match is over (if an arm broke or someone's ramps deployed early, etc.)?

[MikeDubreuil]

Can someone provide a video or a lengthy description of what happened during the Wildstang match?

My personal feeling is that this is quite an unbelievable rule change. On one hand I think it is insane that the legality of the strategy could be deemed legal on January 14th and then made illegal 2.5 months later. On the other hand I can understand why the rule changed. A veteran team could pressure a rookie team to just sit on a ramp for the entire match because, "you can't score points anyway."

As Lil'Lavery said, if 1 out of 1500 matches happened this way was it really necessary to make the change? From what I understand it would have basically been 3 on 1 without this strategy resulting in a predicted defeat for Wildstang.

[JackN]

Everyone is saying that this is like 2002, but it reminds me more of 2005 when they banned capping incorrectly and preventing the other tetras from counting. This was an unused strategy to my knowledge and the stacking of robots is a only used once strategy. This gameplan is not even remotely viable. Who wants to play a match only having one robot driving on the field. I get that it could be a safety hazard but it feels like the GDC is saying that if you come up with an inventive and indefensible strategy, you can't use it.

[Spider-Man]

Originally Posted by Eldarion

I must ask, how is this different from a robot deciding to go up another's ramps before the match is over (if an arm broke or someone's ramps deployed early, etc.)?

At least one robot, a lifter or liftee, must move in the match. As Lil' Lavery was suggesting, this should be the goal, not a stack.

[Eldarion]

Originally Posted by Spider-Man

At least one robot, a lifter or liftee, must move in the match. As Lil' Lavery was suggesting, this should be the goal, not a stack.

I agree with you, but I was asking this question from a safety point of view.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by JBotAlan

Think about this: FIRST leaves a loophole in the rules saying that teams may use a, for instance, radio jamming device. They are not aware of the hole. Now, a team exploits that. FIRST becomes aware that *on one occasion, a loophole was used to create a safety hazard*. Sound familiar?

Unfortunately, this doesn't really sound familiar at all. The GDC was aware of this potential gameplay strategy since at least January 14th, when they posted a Q&A that validated this as legitimate. It was certainly no surprise to the GDC when Wildstang successfully pulled this off. To describe these events using words like "loophole" and "exploits" is just plain wrong. The GDC explicitly allowed it very early in the build season. This wasn't a goofy answer like the questions about slip rings or tube inflation... it was perhaps the most straight-forward answer I've seen on the Q&A all year. They knew what was up, they allowed it, now they don't like the outcome, and they're changing their minds midstream. This is the source of frustration for many posters in this thread.

(On a side note, trying to paint this as a safety hazard is also specious at best. There is absolutely nothing inherently less safe about being on top of a robot at the start of a match as there is about being on top of a robot in the middle of a match.)

[Spider-Man]

Originally Posted by Eldarion

I agree with you, but I was asking this question from a safety point of view.

Ah, I see. For safety, wouldn't hitting the e-stops prevent the teams from affecting anything for the rest of the match, leaving the robots in what should be an undesigned-for, precarious position? Teams deciding to lift can assess what is happening in the match and how to handle defense. If a robot defends a lift before the end-game, the other robots are not usually voluntarily disabled in advance.

[Stu Bloom]

Originally Posted by 1derboy

... I get that it could be a safety hazard but it feels like the GDC is saying that if you come up with an inventive and indefensible strategy, you can't use it.

THIS is not an indefensible strategy ...

The opposing alliance might easily determine that it is worthwhile to get that stack out of the home zone to eliminate the 30 bonus points. If you allow the stack to be created you certainly cannot prohibit the opponents from trying to "defend" against this strategy. Is that a safe situation?

Also, please don't forget ... the Q&A answer ONLY stated that there was nothing in the rules that prohibited this strategy. I guess now that oversight has been "fixed".

[Brandon Holley]

Does anyone remember the stretchers from 2001??? This strategy to me is like having a stretcher handy.

For those who are unfamiliar...if your robot was down for a match, you could place it (or any part of it) on this wooden cart with casters on teh bottom. Your teammates could then drag you around to score points.

If you have a dead robot on your alliance, than why not go for that 30 pts by just placing it on top of a willing partner.

Major kudos to wildstang for this one....


and P.S...bring back the stretchers!

[Eldarion]

Originally Posted by Spider-Man

Ah, I see. For safety, wouldn't hitting the e-stops prevent the teams from affecting anything for the rest of the match, leaving the robots in what should be an undesigned-for, precarious position? Teams deciding to lift can assess what is happening in the match and how to handle defense. If a robot defends a lift before the end-game, the other robots are not usually voluntarily disabled in advance.

Good point, thanks.

[Tim Delles]

Originally Posted by Cory

It's got nothing to do with whether or not you agree with the substance of the rule.

The issue here is that for the second time in two weeks, FIRST says one thing, and then turns around and says something else, when the time for rule changes is long past.

For everyone who keeps debating whether or not this should be done. Cory simply answers it all with this.

The issue here is not if it is right or wrong, the issue is that the GDC needs to give us rules that are solid throughout the 5 weeks of competition.

[Lil' Lavery]

To expand upon the difference in a safety perspective:
this
vs.
this

You make the call on which is safer.

[Arefin Bari]

I don't look at the rule as anti-veteran or anti-rookie. We never had a game in the past where one robot had to climb on top of another, hence as always the rule stated that the robot must start behind the line in the homezone (not pointing out how exactly it should start). The GDC most likely assumed that we already know that we are going to start behind the line in the beginning of the match (and not on top of each other). One thing they have missed was the fact that we have a Raul in FIRST who comes up with a crazy strategy to win a match with two robots that isn't capable of moving. No one has used this strategy (to my knowledge) in the past. Maybe, the GDC didn't think that it will ever happen, but it did. Next thing you know, we get a rule update.

Rules are rules. Let's play by them. It's given that not all of us will be happy with the same thing since we all think very differently. Please scroll up and read all the posts in this thread and you will realize how different everyone thinks. Some are okay with the rule, some aren't, some don't care. I can go on and on about what happened at the Florida regional but that is not going to get me anywhere. What counts the most is the kids worked together for 6 straight weeks, came up with a beautiful machine, went out there on the field and had fun.

... thats my opinion.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by Arefin Bari

Maybe, the GDC didn't think that it will ever happen

To everybody who keeps insisting this, please stop spreading misinformation. The GDC very clearly considered this as a possibility on January 14th, and saw no fault in it.

For those who missed it, here's the link again (thanks Richard):
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=1280

Originally Posted by Arefin Bari

Rules are rules. Let's play by them.

Agreed. Let's pick one set of rules at kickoff, fix them in the first week of build, and then play by them. Let's not play by different rules every single week.

[Steve W]

As I have said many times, " make the rules before kickoff and DON'T change them for that season". First is the only place I know (except if I make the rules) that the rules change as you go along. This has got to stop.

I would also like to know from the "unsafe" crowd, how placing a robot on top of another is 1: unsafe and 2: who is going to get hurt? If you are worried about the robots look at the number of robots that have over shot the top of the robot or fallen from the sides of the ramp.

BTW there was an instance in Detroit were 1 team wanted to stack on another and the Ref said no.