How does 469 not violate <R19>?

[The Lucas]

Originally Posted by KrazyCarl92

Okay i get it now, but would it be feasible for a team to get into the tower on the platform and block the balls that are coming down their funnel?

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

Only if you want to risk 2 penalties per ball blocked. See <G47>.

I think he means when the ball is on 469's ramps not in contact with the ball return, so no <G47>. However, I think it would be hard to interact with ball on top of 469 without violating <G30> or <G38>.

You would have to design a superstructure such the lower half of your bot can drive most of the way into the tunnel and would the superstructure be close enough (not touching) to 469's ramps so a 9 inch ball would get stuck (on both ramps hopefully). Since your bot can't expand (not your tower) you are at a disadvantage (not sure if its physically possible). If it is possible, a major disadvantage is that as only defender you leave both goals wide open while you sit there. 469 might be able to undeploy and back up to free the balls for others to score. Although, that might cause a (few) <G45> penalties on 469 if it actively touches balls during undeploy (debatable if these penalties are caused by your defender). Thats at least something to think about. If I were on 469, I wouldn't let other teams near the ramps with a tape measure

[KrazyCarl92]

<G29> makes it clear that an alliance could have one robot in the tower, thus in the way of 469's funnel, and another blocking shots from other robots in the defensive zone.

[The Lucas]

Originally Posted by KrazyCarl92

<G29> makes it clear that an alliance could have one robot in the tower, thus in the way of 469's funnel, and another blocking shots from other robots in the defensive zone.

By "in the tower" do you mean in the tunnel? (Then see my last post). Or on the platform? Then the obvious question is: how do you get up on the platform, without grasping the opponents tower, in autonomous before 469 gets there?

[EricH]

Originally Posted by KrazyCarl92

<G29> makes it clear that an alliance could have one robot in the tower, thus in the way of 469's funnel, and another blocking shots from other robots in the defensive zone.

You know how hard it is to get onto those towers from the bumps unless you were already designed to do that, right? And if you're hanging, you're violating your normal configuration, right? It's not your tower, so no protection from penalties, right? You have to get off before the finale period, right?

And, if you're talking under the tower, I don't think there's room for 2 robots down there. <G29> gets called

Now, come up with a design that will not get a penalty, and will block 469 while somebody else is defending, and we'll talk.

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by EricH

Now, come up with a design that will not get a penalty, and will block 469 while somebody else is defending, and we'll talk.

Any robot could do this, provided a robot can get into position on a bump to block where the ball hits when it exits from 469's deflector.

Not clearly seeing from the video how 469 uses the bumps to deflect balls, the bumps are not part of the end zones - they are part of the middle zone (The Arena, section 6.2.3), so one robot defender would be free to defend one goal while another was on the bump to block the other direction. The robot on the bump would have to take care not to touch 469's end zone when climbing up there or would coordinate with its partner to get on the bump first before the partner entered the end zone to defend the other goal.

Am I missing something here?

[Thuperscout]

Dude we've got to think of something simple to stop 469's ball returning without buliding some massively complicated penalty causing bot (lol)... But how...

[Thuperscout]

Originally Posted by KrazyCarl92

Okay i get it now, but would it be feasible for a team to get into the tower on the platform and block the balls that are coming down their funnel?

And btw, even if you block their funnels, sure the balls wouldn't score, but then you've still got those balls in the teams homezone... ready to be eaten by say 217

[Jack Jones]

Originally Posted by Thuperscout

Dude we've got to think of something simple to stop 469's ball returning without buliding some massively complicated penalty causing bot (lol)... But how...

I have an idea!!! At 469's next event, the host team (Troy) could build a big wooden horse and ...

[The Lucas]

Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman

Any robot could do this, provided a robot can get into position on a bump to block where the ball hits when it exits from 469's deflector.

Not clearly seeing from the video how 469 uses the bumps to deflect balls, the bumps are not part of the end zones - they are part of the middle zone (The Arena, section 6.2.3), so one robot defender would be free to defend one goal while another was on the bump to block the other direction. The robot on the bump would have to take care not to touch 469's end zone when climbing up there or would coordinate with its partner to get on the bump first before the partner entered the end zone to defend the other goal.

Am I missing something here?

Not really, but already discussed some in the other thread. I think this OP is trying to come up with a single bot that can stop balls in both directions by jamming the Ball redirector with balls, so the other defender can just deal with the 2 bot other bots in the zone.

[Scott358]

WOW... I thought a simple angle top bot sitting under the return would be effective, but this is amazing.

The only way I can see stopping them would be to park in front of the tower in autonomous before they can get there. If they then play a more "traditional" way, mirroring them, while always keeping between them and the tower.

Scott

[martin417]

I have a tangential question. I seem to remember hearing that in 2008 team 190 (I think) came up with a novel game solution, and that the GDC made a rule change that made that solution illegal. I may be mis-remembering, or was mis-informed. Does anybody remember what I am talking about? I just went through the updates from 2008 and didn't see any game-changing rules changes, but thought someone might remember if something like that occured.

[whytheheckme]

For those of us on the Eastern Seaboard (and I suppose the Western Seaboard), does anyone have a link to a picture of 469's bot? I'm very curious to see what this thing looks like.

Thanks!
Jacob

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by martin417

I have a tangential question. I seem to remember hearing that in 2008 team 190 (I think) came up with a novel game solution, and that the GDC made a rule change that made that solution illegal. I may be mis-remembering, or was mis-informed. Does anybody remember what I am talking about? I just went through the updates from 2008 and didn't see any game-changing rules changes, but thought someone might remember if something like that occured.

If you're talking about what I think you're talking about, there wasn't really a rule change. I think there was just a pointed clarification of a particular definition (clockwise vs. counterclockwise travel) that already made the execution of that particular solution impossible in practice.

[The Lucas]

Originally Posted by martin417

I have a tangential question. I seem to remember hearing that in 2008 team 190 (I think) came up with a novel game solution, and that the GDC made a rule change that made that solution illegal. I may be mis-remembering, or was mis-informed. Does anybody remember what I am talking about? I just went through the updates from 2008 and didn't see any game-changing rules changes, but thought someone might remember if something like that occured.

There was no update or rule change. They ensured their hurdling mechanism (suction cup drop pickup) was a legal hurdle through Q&A. However, it always was a <G22> violation (as the line extends through the wall and their arm crosses in a reverse direction) and a penalty, it just wasn't interpreted as a <G22> by refs at their 2 Regionals. By Championships, it was clarified as a <G22> violation and an 8pt hurdle isnt worth a 10pt penalty.

[Wayne Doenges]

469 came up with a very interesting concept to play this game and even though they didn't violate the letter of the rules I think it violates the nature of the game.
This is MY opinion, not my teams.

Just my $.03 (allow for inflation)