|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Rules that I think should be changed.
Quote:
I suppose what really is at stake here: Is the rule a measure of safety or strategical limitation? That is, is the rule in place solely to discourage hanging defence, or is it more the issue of robot + gravity = bad? Perhaps Q&A will have an answer... |
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Rules that I think should be changed.
"The rule should indicate that the tower is not to be interfered with ...so that robots can hang... a simple touch of the tower is not interference ...especially when no robot is even trying to hang..."
But where do you distinguish between a tap and a push? An accidental tap, for some teams' hanging mechanisms can cause disaster. The rules are for the safety of all robots, and are extremely needed. Hanging is already hard enough to do, so why would you add this extra obstacle? Some team could tap the tower "accidently" and say, "It was just a tap, we didn't mean it..." but it still could result in serious damage. Staying away from the tower is a good idea in my opinion. |
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Rules that I think should be changed.
It's quite clearly both.
|
|
#4
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Rules that I think should be changed.
The bottom line of this one is simple, either you stay the heck away from the tower starting at ~25 seconds or you are playing with fire.
$10 says that 1114 thought of the fact that it would be much more difficult to defend their hang (in addition to other benefits) if they hung from their near zone and factored that into their design decisions. I know it was a factor in my mind when we designed our hanger. Defending a hang in the far zone is an extremely risky proposition, without camera input I would liken it to Russian Roulette. |
|
#5
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Rules that I think should be changed.
The best way to deal with an opponent who is going to hang is to go and hang yourself.
Er... maybe that sounded a bit odd... but it is clear that, from time to time, the GDC will add rules to promote offense. That is because defense is simply easier to do. Defense, for the most part, increases entropy... offense has to reduce it. Thermodynamics says that offense is harder than defense. Jason |
|
#6
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Re: Rules that I think should be changed.
Quote:
I believe the rules regarding tower contact should be preserved as written; however, I hope referees take a sensible approach to applying them under certain situations, especially if a defensive robot is pushed into the tower by a would-be hanger. People absolutely love to cite that "devil made me do it" rule to protect offenders; last I checked, that protection is built into the rules for ALL robots, regardless of what strategies they are employing at the time. Sure, it would be great for robots to be able to hang to counteract the opponent's hanging; however, many robots were simply not designed to hang from the start, or they decided to abandon hanging later in the season, and I see no problem with that. I don't see 63 or 3138 or 217 hanging around anywhere, and they are doing just fine. Many teams made a conscious effort not to hang because they didn't see the reward - 2 points - worth the risk and application of weight/time/resources/higher CG relative to their drivetrain and kicking mechanisms, which are far more critical to affecting the net score of the match. You hang for show; kick for dough. Apparently, this type of tower defense is quite the challenge - not easy at all, otherwise, teams wouldn't be asking for rule changes to make it easier. Sounds like quite the marketable skill for an elimination round alliance for those who can master the practice. It is agreed by many that both hanging and defense are more valuable in the eliminations; being able to block hanging while applying effective defense without penalty requires true practice and skill, just like any other offensive endeavor. I say go for it, but be ready to accept the consequences if your execution lags behind your passion for the strategy. Last edited by Travis Hoffman : 17-03-2010 at 07:37. |
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Rules that I think should be changed.
The reasons for the harsh penalties in these two rules are plain and simple to me:
Last edited by JesseK : 17-03-2010 at 08:24. Reason: Firefox has spell check?! |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Rules, changed by the ref, or correct interpretation? | martin417 | Rules/Strategy | 37 | 09-03-2010 02:13 |
| Should the requirements for President be changed? | Billfred | Chit-Chat | 31 | 21-09-2004 17:33 |
| Has FIRST Ever Changed Rules During Nationals? | IMDWalrus | General Forum | 2 | 08-04-2003 15:29 |
| Class That Most Changed Your Life | Joe Matt | Chit-Chat | 19 | 09-03-2003 22:04 |
| Should anything be changed? | Jamiepatt | General Forum | 5 | 27-06-2001 09:04 |