Battle O' Baltimore RULE CHANGES!

[Stephen of REX]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

Interesting changes. The trailer rule might screw up a few teams that designed their robots around it, though (many wide body teams put their center of gravity as far back as possible to make turning easier, which leaves them vulnerable to tip without a trailer). It'll be interesting to see what Lunacy's like with accidental tipping back in the picture.

With only two trailers, I can also see a lot more filled trailers and supercells bouncing out.

I suppose those teams might not volunteer to go trailer-less.

As for the filled trailers, remember that the number of moon rocks has been reduced too!

[Francis-134]

What is the purpose of removing a trailer? As stated before, most teams designed knowing that they would have a trailer on their robot. How does it make the game better, i.e. what was wrong with the original game the necessitated this change?

Similarly, a robot without a trailer will be a huge scoring threat. Imagine a top-tier team with double the maneuverability.

[Stephen of REX]

Originally Posted by Francis-134

What is the purpose of removing a trailer? As stated before, most teams designed knowing that they would have a trailer on their robot. How does it make the game better, i.e. what was wrong with the original game the necessitated this change?

Similarly, a robot without a trailer will be a huge scoring threat. Imagine a top-tier team with double the maneuverability.

Well I didn't come up with these changes, but I think that the idea was to increase the scoring threat. After all, both alliances will have one un-trailered robot. I think it will make for a more exciting match!

[thefro526]

Originally Posted by Francis-134

Similarly, a robot without a trailer will be a huge scoring threat. Imagine a top-tier team with double the maneuverability.

Arguably, it's harder to drive without a trailer than it is with one. Most drivers only know how to drive with a trailer's added weight and motion constraints which leads them to over shoot certain moves without the trailer. If anything, those robots without trailers may slow an alliance down... Just my 2 cents though.

The rule changes seem interesting, to say the least.

[wilsonmw04]

My guess is that they changed the rules to meet a physical limitation. They have a limited number of trailers and balls. If the goal was to increase scoring, why reduces the availability of the scoring devices (balls)?

[Stephen of REX]

No, I think that we are using the NASA Goddard field. The trailers were reduced, I'm guessing, so there would be more scoring action by the "free" robots. And if the moon rocks were reduced, I'd say its so that the trailers don't fill up too fast, leaving room for super cells at the end. The super cells are intended to play a more powerful role, because the "crab-super-cells" count as more.

[EdwardP]

I think what will happen is the game will turn in to all the teams bunched up on the side by the outposts trying to prevent EC collection. If there are really only 18 Moon rocks in play (how I read it, could be 3 per robot starting loaded...), one team per alliance will start with 7 in their robot, because I think they meant to, but didn't change that rule. That robot will score its 7, the human player will be even more important as it will be essential that the HP scores the 2 moon rocks that don't go into the alliances "scoring robot". From there it will come down to getting those EC through and not letting your opponent do the same.

If any team has an EC auto mode they will likely be dominant...
(EDIT: not that it would be too difficult for a team to set up counter auto modes to stop whatever teams do this...)

I think it is kind of unfortunate how they do the second alliance partner selection, as 177 will tell you the third pick can often be just as or more important than the first... (less so in regionals, but it is still very important)

In all, very interesting rules, creating a very unique experience...

... just my thoughts...

[Stephen of REX]

Originally Posted by EdwardP

I think what will happen is the game will turn in to all the teams bunched up on the side by the outposts trying to prevent EC collection. If there are really only 18 Moon rocks in play (how I read it, could be 3 per robot starting loaded...), one team per alliance will start with 7 in their robot, because I think they meant to, but didn't change that rule. That robot will score its 7, the human player will be even more important as it will be essencial that the HP scores the 2 moon rocks that dont go into the alliances "scoring robot". From there it will come down to getting those EC through and not letting your opponent do the same.

No, the moon rocks will be reduced by 18, still leaving 102 of them on the field. Its just that each team will start with 17 orbit balls instead of 20, big deal

[EdwardP]

Oops... my bad... that makes more sence...

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Stephen of REX

I suppose those teams might not volunteer to go trailer-less.

Maybe it's just me but I'm not sure there are many teams who didn't design their robot around there being a trailer. (Long body robots just became rather helpful alliance partners now!)

[Adama]

I don't think enough balls have been removed from play. You lost two trailers at 20 balls per trailer and I can only assume you would want to lose that many balls for each trailer lost. So take out 40 balls total and you should avoid the possibilities of running out of space to score. On that note with three scoring robots and only two targets per side I see the trailers filling very fast and the last bit of tele being all about positioning for the super cells. I think this was far too large a change for what was a perfectly OK game to begin with.

[Chris is me]

Each trailer can actually hold somewhere around 30 - 35 balls in "real world" competition scenarios, regardless perhaps his modified Lunacy isn't designed for trailer filling? Perhaps the risks and rewards of power dumping in both trailers 10 seconds into the match versus the last 10 seconds are something for the drivers and coaches to weigh. I dunno if that was the intent of the designers though.

(This reminds me... sometimes it might be best to take a 3/4s full trailer when the rest are empty and "bait" a dumper into capping it off, allowing you to use that robot with their trailer for less risky defensive action. And less Supercell scoring targets?)

Originally Posted by EdwardP

I think it is kind of unfortunate how they do the second alliance partner selection, as 177 and 971 will tell you the third pick can often be just as or more important than the first... (less so in regionals, but it is still very important)

Thought that'd be worth adding, you know. That's actually my favorite part of this year; where last year the third pick had a good chance of making little difference in a lot of matches, in Lunacy it became vital consistently.

[Stephen of REX]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

Thought that'd be worth adding, you know. That's actually my favorite part of this year; where last year the third pick had a good chance of making little difference in a lot of matches, in Lunacy it became vital consistently.

Well the third partner lottery is kind of a Battle tradition, since 24 teams compete total, it helps make sure that no-one is picked last.

[Athleticgirl389]

This technique of eliminating 1 trailer per alliance worked at BR^2 and it turned out to be pretty interesting. It put more strategy into the game because it made the teams figure out which of their robots would be more defensive. This element really added a nice twist to the game and it should add a nice twist down in Baltimore as well

[Stephen of REX]

Thanks! And I'm so sorry, but what is BR^2, an off season event?