UPDATE #3

[Tetraman]

I wonder if there is going to be a signal, beep or ring of a bell at the "20 seconds left in the match" mark...like the shutdown sequence call

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Tetraman

I wonder if there is going to be a signal, beep or ring of a bell at the "20 seconds left in the match" mark...like the shutdown sequence call

If they've kept the 2007 effects (like they did in 2008), there will be one at 20 seconds and another at 15 seconds.

I hope they keep that sound set.

[Justin Montois]

Originally Posted by EricH

If they've kept the 2007 effects (like they did in 2008), there will be one at 20 seconds and another at 15 seconds.

I hope they keep that sound set.

I think if you listen closely to the game animation you can hear the sounds at 20 seconds, not sure about 15 seconds.

[Jimmy K]

Originally Posted by 340x4xLife

I think if you listen closely to the game animation you can hear the sounds at 20 seconds, not sure about 15 seconds.

Of course, the game animation is not always the most accurate source for game procedures. It forgets to mention the required use of tongs, shows the human player trading cells with a ref, not the rack.

In Rack&Roll, since you had to stay out of your opponent's home zone thing during the last 15 seconds, they played both a 20 seconds left warning (so you could get out) and a 15 seconds left noise.
So, I'm fairly certain that they will use some sound to indicate the last 20 seconds since there is a critical rule referring to that time.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Jimmy K

Of course, the game animation is not always the most accurate source for game procedures. It forgets to mention the required use of tongs, shows the human player trading cells with a ref, not the rack.

The game animation, as Dave explained elsewhere in the last day or so, is done in parallel with the "tweaks" to the rules. Some of those tweaks come too late to do anything about them, so it may be that the tongs and the cell racks were included in those.

Of course, then there's that one from last year... The animation showed something that was illegal until the first update came out (on a Monday). The manual just hadn't had that rule removed yet.

[MrHero]

Regarding the no-show rules, I don't see this as being much of a strategic plan.. my experience is that it is *very* rare that a robot doesn't show up to a match, and dedicating any time to planning this as a strategy would rob your team of the effort applied to strategies that would affect 99+% of your matches..

That being said, I agree that clarification of this situation should be posted in the team updates, but more in the spirit of 100% disclosure of the rules.. not because it should drive team strategies in any way...

[Vikesrock]

Originally Posted by MrHero

Regarding the no-show rules, I don't see this as being much of a strategic plan.. my experience is that it is *very* rare that a robot doesn't show up to a match, and dedicating any time to planning this as a strategy would rob your team of the effort applied to strategies that would affect 99+% of your matches..

Here's the thing, if they don't put a trailer out there in some manner for a missing robot 100% of matches will consist of 0 robots and will result in 0-0 ties.

As much as I wouldn't want to waste all our hard work spent on the robot, I also wouldn't want to lose because the other alliance fielded no robots and we put ours out on the field.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by Vikesrock

Here's the thing, if they don't put a trailer out there in some manner for a missing robot 100% of matches will consist of 0 robots and will result in 0-0 ties.

As much as I wouldn't want to waste all our hard work spent on the robot, I also wouldn't want to lose because the other alliance fielded no robots and we put ours out on the field.

If the other team wins a match because;

1) the GDC announces absent robot = no trailer (which I doubt).
2) Teams then exploit this and field no robots.

They didn't win anything. Well, maybe something, the eternal loss of respect from anyone in the FIRST community who's opinion matters.

How could anyone be happy to win a robotics competition in which they never fielded a robot.

Some people are ridiculous.

[Vikesrock]

I agree with both of you (Adam and MrHero). The GDC will almost certainly clarify this, and I would almost certainly expect that the trailer's will remain on the field (no inside knowledge to base this on however).

The GDC is probably concentrating efforts (appropriately) on clarifying rules that are more likely to effect design and overall strategy decisions before they focus on any issues like this that should not effect team's designs.

[MrHero]

Hmmm.. so would it be too idealistic to assume that they won't let this happen, and whether they've announced it or not, wouldn't it be fair/reasonable to assume that all 6 trailers will be on the field regardless of no-shows?

(I guess my point is that this is probably a loophole that's useless to spend much time thinking about.. sooner or later they'll close it or else we'll end up with the scenario that you proposed..)

[cbudrecki]

I'm a bit surprised that they didn't do more to G14. Ok, it's the unpenalized scores, but still, what happens in the event of shut-outs? is there a low-score cap? and in what order are balls removed: do you lose the empty cells or super cells first, or is it just random? and finally, how, exactly, do these penalties get carried through the qualifiers, or will this rule be limited to the eliminations only?

would anybody be able to ask these in the Q&A for me, I don't have access to a team account in the FIRST forums.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by tb222

in what order are balls removed: do you lose the empty cells or super cells first, or is it just random?

The team affected gets to choose, as a consequence of where they decide to put their payload specialist.

[Matt H.]

Originally Posted by tb222

I'm a bit surprised that they didn't do more to G14. Ok, it's the unpenalized scores, but still, what happens in the event of shut-outs? is there a low-score cap? and in what order are balls removed: do you lose the empty cells or super cells first, or is it just random? and finally, how, exactly, do these penalties get carried through the qualifiers, or will this rule be limited to the eliminations only?

would anybody be able to ask these in the Q&A for me, I don't have access to a team account in the FIRST forums.

Some of this has been addressed in the Q&A.
There is no low score cap, and a score of x to zero where x is not equal to zero will result in the three times penalty.

Here's the link:
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread...ighlight=score

[nuggetsyl]

Here is a simple solution. If an alliance has 2 or more no shows they will be penalized 10 points for each no show over 1. That gets rid of the 0-0 tie.

[ScottOliveira]

Originally Posted by Vikesrock

Here's the thing, if they don't put a trailer out there in some manner for a missing robot 100% of matches will consist of 0 robots and will result in 0-0 ties.

As much as I wouldn't want to waste all our hard work spent on the robot, I also wouldn't want to lose because the other alliance fielded no robots and we put ours out on the field.

Hardly. You have based this assumption on a fundamentally unsound application of game theory.

Using some VERY basic assumptions: If an alliance fields no robots, nobody can win. If an alliance fields more robots than the opposing alliance, the alliance with more robots will win. If both alliances field the same number of robots, nobody wins.

BLUE ALLIANCE
3 2 1 0
RED 3 Robots (0,0) (1,0) (1,0) (0,0)
ALLIANCE 2 Robots (0,1) (0,0) (1,0) (0,0)
1 Robot (0,1) (0,1) (0,0) (0,0)
0 Robots (0,0) (0,0) (0,0) (0,0)


From a pure strategy point, both alliances will go with 3 robots, as that is the dominant strategy - that is for every scenario, 3 robots has a greater or equal outcome to any other strategy.


Now the biggest assumption is that if both alliances play the same number, no body wins. So we'll factor in X as the probability of Blue Alliance winning with equal numbers of bots (allowing for X < 0 if Blue will 'probably' lose, but X<=1,X>=-1). Let's also assume that a loss does more than not harm a team, but negatively affects it.
This gives us:

BLUE ALLIANCE
3 2 1 0
RED 3 Robots (-X,X) (1,-1) (1,-1) (0,0)
ALLIANCE 2 Robots (-1,1) (-X,X) (1,-1) (0,0)
1 Robot (-1,1) (-1,1) (-X,X) (0,0)
0 Robots (0,0) (0,0) (0,0) (0,0)

Thus, at the very least Blue's dominant strategy is 3 if X>=0, and Red's dominant strategy is 3 if X<=0, so one team will play 3 regardless.

Let's go one step further (without working out all of the mixed-strategy equilibriums that is). Let's assume that any team that fields no robot LOSES a match where the other team fields any robots(consider any sporting event, a complete no show results in a forfeit victory for the team that is there). Even if that is not a judged outcome (that is, if the judges declare no show = tie), scouting teams will be disappointed by not being able to see robots in action, and that will likely negatively affect their decisions, hurting the chances of a no show team getting picked for a final alliance.

So we are given:

BLUE ALLIANCE
3 2 1 0
RED 3 Robots (-X,X) (1,-1) (1,-1) (1,-1)
ALLIANCE 2 Robots (-1,1) (-X,X) (1,-1) (1,-1)
1 Robot (-1,1) (-1,1) (-X,X) (1,-1)
0 Robots (-1,1) (-1,1) (-1,1) (-1,-1)

This shows that both alliances will ALWAYS play 3 robots if possible.