Potential issues with changes to G21

[rpaulsen]

Here is a concern I have with the recent changes to G21, though in writing them, they became to large to post to the Q&A, so I figured I would post it here to get some all of your thoughts on the matter, and maybe someone can help me streamline it to fit into the Q&A character limit. Here it goes:

In regards to the update to rule G21, is it right to interpret the "entrance" to the SECRET PASSAGE to exist as within the TOWER, and the "exit " to be directly into the NEUTRAL ZONE? By this I mean to compare the playing field to an actual stronghold. If so, then it is arguable that Rule G20 should not exist as OPPONENTS should not have any access to the SECRET PASSAGE as they cannot exit the field to enter through the PLAYER STATION, and cannot enter the SECRET PASSAGE from the NEURTAL ZONE under G20. If not, and the SECRET PASSAGE is to be considered part of the COURTYARD, than a ROBOT in their OPPONENT'S COURTYARD should have equal and unfettered access to any GAMEPLAY ACTION in the OPPONENT'S SECRET PASSAGE, as they have successfully TRANSVERSED a DEFENSE, gaining access to the OPPONENT'S COURTYARD and all there in.

This would be important because there are several valid strategies that could be seriously effected by these changes. The first and most important is in regards to Rule G34 and that no more than six (6) BOULDERS may remain in a TOWER during TELEOP. A clarification to Rule 21 would be important here because it seems that a if an ALLIANCE has any access to their OPPONENT'S SECRET PASSAGE, then it should be a perfectly legitimate strategy for a robot to protect the hard work of their ALLIANCE partners in transferring BOULDERS from the NEUTRAL ZONE into their OPPONENT'S COURTYARD, especially in instances where an ALLIANCE transfers enough BOULDERS to initiate Rule 34. Otherwise, if the intention is for HUMAN PLAYERS to be able to transfer BOULDERS into the NEUTRAL ZONE uninhibited then G21 should just be changed to fully PROHIBIT robots in their OPPONENT'S SECRET PASSAGE, and maybe even modify G34 to include BOULDERS in an ALLIANCE'S SECRET PASSAGE into the six (6) BOULDERS in the TOWER to prevent ALLIANCES from sitting on BOULDERS by dropping them lightly into the SECRET PASSAGE.

TL;DR: We either should have full access to our OPPONET'S SECRET PASSAGE once inside the OPPONENT'S COURTYARD, or no access at all.

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by rpaulsen

In regards to the update to rule G21, is it right to interpret the "entrance" to the SECRET PASSAGE to exist as within the TOWER, and the "exit " to be directly into the NEUTRAL ZONE? By this I mean to compare the playing field to an actual stronghold.

The rules do not say the playing field is meant to mimic an actual Stronghold. It's more like a theme or guideline.

The rules also don't define a particular region of the berm surrounding SECRET PASSAGE to be the entrance or exit with respect to robots. Rather, they define a region of the berm that a robot may or may not cross (e.g. a blue robot may not cross the berm between the neutral zone and the red secret passage).

I don't like your suggestions. At lower-levels of play if the opponents didn't (or couldn't) get to their secret passage then you wouldn't have any action for your side of the field because you couldn't go get the ball that was just sitting there all alone for 30 seconds in their secret passage (reference 2011 tubes for that scenario). At the highest levels of play there would be huge swings in momentum that would lead to a lockdown of the game in teleop that then would reduce the game to "who won autonomous mode", like back in 2006.

[DohertyBilly]

The change to G21 is more of a clarification of how it is affected by G11. Meaning that if you are in your opponents' secret passage trying to collect boulders, and an opponent comes in and makes contact with you, that is a violation of G21 on you, not a violation of G11 on them for forcing you to commit a G21.

As for the entrance and exit to the SP, you can only enter and exit through their courtyard. No taking shortcuts to/from the scoring zone the easy way out, you have to cross another defense.

Hope that helps.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by G20

ROBOTS may only enter or exit their opponent’s SECRET PASSAGE from/to the opponent’s COURTYARD. A ROBOT is considered to be within the SECRET PASSAGE once the only carpet the ROBOT is in contact with is the carpet inside the SECRET PASSAGE.
Violation: FOUL. If repeated, TECH FOUL

The wording of this rule indicates that entering and exiting refers to the ROBOT's action relative to the SECRET PASSAGE. Much as a person entering a house through the front door and exiting a house through the same door doesn't make the door an entrance or exit, the BERMS of the SECRET PASSAGE aren't specifically entrances or exits. That's where you're going wrong.

With that in mind, it should be clear that the effect of this rule is that a BLUE robot can freely cross whichever side of the BLUE SECRET PASSAGE it likes since it has no restrictions on entering or exiting. A RED robot, however, may only cross the BLUE BERM between the BLUE COURTYARD and BLUE SECRET PASSAGE. Crossing any other BERM would constitute RED either entering or exiting the BLUE SECRET PASSAGE from the OUTER WORKS or NEUTRAL ZONE.

[rpaulsen]

Originally Posted by JesseK

The rules do not say the playing field is meant to mimic an actual Stronghold. It's more like a theme or guideline.

I don't like your suggestions. At lower-levels of play if the opponents didn't (or couldn't) get to their secret passage then you wouldn't have any action for your side of the field because you couldn't go get the ball that was just sitting there all alone for 30 seconds in their secret passage (reference 2011 tubes for that scenario). At the highest levels of play there would be huge swings in momentum that would lead to a lockdown of the game in teleop that then would reduce the game to "who won autonomous mode", like back in 2006.

These are certainly fair real world possibilities supporting a middle ground to the rule, and I do understand that "Stronghold" is just a motif, though you must forgive a World History teacher for his excesses sometimes. I think that as the rule is written, it is a half measure that is weighted seriously against a robot in their opponents secret passage that it almost breaks the spirit/motif of the game. Maybe a better rule guiding robot actions in an OPPONENT'S secret passage would place the violation for contact/pinning on the reaponsible party, and would allow for a Robot to make a Gameplay Action one only one (1) BOULDER each time the robot crosses the BERM from the OPPONENT'S COURTYARD into the OPPONENT'S SECRET PASSAGE.