<G29> Robots in opposing zones.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by jmanela

you also have to remember that the balls will roll into the opposing zones of whoever scored that ball.

I know of at least 2 teams that are challenging your "will" assessment there.

There's a legal way to do a lot more than people realize in this game, including crafty defensive strategies. While only one robot can guard the goals directly, there are many points of interception for the soccer balls.

[buddyb]

Originally Posted by Ryan Simpson

That's exactly what I've been telling my team. Having two robots in the middle is the best option. If you get a bunch of balls into your zone, then the other alliance's one defensive robot can only remove them so fast. Then, once you get the majority of the balls into your zone, you could send one of the two middle bot on offense for a 2-on-1 and some easy goals. By controlling the middle of the field, you can control all of the balls and therefore the game.

I agree. Although I won't say you control 'all' of the balls (and believe that you need one robot scoring the whole time, otherwise all of the balls will be sitting in your side of the field/being shot back at you by the defender), the concept is the same.

Being able to have a good degree of control over the middle, because you can both score and get the ball to your side, assuming you miss, will make for an excellent robot. However, if two robots designed for the center are on a single alliance, then you're screwed.

I say specialize robots for hybrids; make it work very well in two sections, and functional in the third, because being paired up with 2 alliances that excel identically is rare.

[lazydude15]

I my opinion this rule kind of put a downer on the game. Think about it there are 12 balls and 3 robot on each team. If all 3 robots were to be one their opponent side, they would only score 3 point at most and then the would have to leave. The reason for this is because there is a rule that a robot can only hold one ball at a time. They can not that much of a ruckus being in their opponent zone.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

I know of at least 2 teams that are challenging your "will" assessment there.

There's a legal way to do a lot more than people realize in this game, including crafty defensive strategies. While only one robot can guard the goals directly, there are many points of interception for the soccer balls.

You can bump that up to 3. And probably a whole lot more in reality.

[Tetraman]

Originally Posted by lazydude15

I my opinion this rule kind of put a downer on the game. Think about it there are 12 balls and 3 robot on each team. If all 3 robots were to be one their opponent side, they would only score 3 point at most and then the would have to leave. The reason for this is because there is a rule that a robot can only hold one ball at a time. They can not that much of a ruckus being in their opponent zone.

You score goals in your zone, so if it was legal to have three robots in your opponent's zone, all they could do is defend. And having three robots sitting in front of two goals, make scoring impossible.

This rule's obvious intent is so that way you can't send two robots to sit in front of your opponent's goals so your opponent's can't make a score.

[mathman05]

Tetraman has it right. I should look at the intent of the rule. Although, I want to say the next few things without seeing the intended meaning:

Firstly, looking at the exact wording of the rule, "Only one opposing ALLIANCE ROBOT is allowed in the opponent’s ZONE."
Let me rewrite that, assuming I already know I'm on the RED alliance: "Only one BLUE alliance robot is allowed in the BLUE's zone."
Here, it looks like the rule limits the number of offenders an alliance can have in the zone nearest their goals (if I'm not mistaken).

Also, a clarification if someone can provide it. The rule states, "A ROBOT is considered in this ZONE if any part of the ROBOT is in contact with the ZONE's green carpet." Where is the exact boundary of the zone? From what I have read, 'green carpet' does not define the boundary of the zones. This would only apply to robots that travel through the tunnel, and I assume the "boundary" is the exact center of the bump.

Tell me what you think...

[EricH]

I would say that the GDC has chosen the green carpet because it's a lot easier than the middle of the bump to see. After all, if you're coming out of the tunnel, the green carpet is obvious. Ditto if you came down a bump, upright or not. The spec in 6.2.1 is that the bumps divide the zones, nothing about boundaries.

I think, in regards to your first point, that that is one of the few messups in the Manual. Taking it as we've been taking it, it should read that "only one robot from an alliance may be in the opposing alliance's zone at a time". Taking it as written, it means one offense vs. up to 3 defense. Update #1 will hopefully address this. (If not, I expect both Q&A and Update #2 to get to this topic.)

[mathman05]

Originally Posted by EricH

I would say that the GDC has chosen the green carpet because it's a lot easier than the middle of the bump to see. After all, if you're coming out of the tunnel, the green carpet is obvious. Ditto if you came down a bump, upright or not. The spec in 6.2.1 is that the bumps divide the zones, nothing about boundaries.

I would assume that the zone does not start until after you pass through the tunnel (because that is the same line that would determine if you are in or out if you were to go over the bump). The bumps themselves are not considered part of either zone that they separate.

[Chris Fultz]

Originally Posted by mathman05

Firstly, looking at the exact wording of the rule, "Only one opposing ALLIANCE ROBOT is allowed in the opponent’s ZONE."
Let me rewrite that, assuming I already know I'm on the RED alliance: "Only one BLUE alliance robot is allowed in the BLUE's zone."
Here, it looks like the rule limits the number of offenders an alliance can have in the zone nearest their goals (if I'm not mistaken).

I think this rule is correct as written.

If I am RED, then only one opposing alliance robot (BLUE) is allowed in the opponent's zone (RED, because the "opponent's" statement refers back to the 'opposing alliance' earlier in the sentence, which is BLUE).

So, RED can only have one robot in the BLUE zone, BLUE can only have one robot in the RED zone.

[spiffyspleen]

Is anyone thinking about defensive robots, or are they too outnumbered by <G29>?

[mathman05]

Originally Posted by Chris Fultz

I think this rule is correct as written.

If I am RED, then only one opposing alliance robot (BLUE) is allowed in the opponent's zone (RED, because the "opponent's" statement refers back to the 'opposing alliance' earlier in the sentence, which is BLUE).

So, RED can only have one robot in the BLUE zone, BLUE can only have one robot in the RED zone.

Yeah, I agree. But if that was the intent of the rule, it should be rewritten without the "opposing" in it. It would make much more sense: "Only one alliance robot is allowed in the opponent's zone."