|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#31
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: *4 multiplier? *8!??!?
The FIRST manual and Dave Lavery both mention to look more at the intention of the rules and not so much the nit picky details. From that perspective, my interpretation is that the game designers wanted a single 2X ball to cap a goal. The 30" ball is larger than the 28" diameter of all the goals, and would normally allow for only 1 large ball to be placed on top.
"CAPPING - A LARGE ball is considered to be CAPPING a goal if it is SUPPORTED by the goal poles and/or SCORED SMALL Balls. ..." This part of the definition would stand to reason that a large ball touching another large ball would not count. Yeah, yeah, I know that a large ball could be stuffed in the goal, several more small balls placed above it, and then a second large ball could be placed on top. Technically this second ball isn't touching the first large ball stuffed in the goal, but it certainly is not what the game planners had in mind. Common sense approach should help in determining this year's game and objectives. At least this year we don't have to deal with "What constitutes a STACK?" ![]() |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: *4 multiplier? *8!??!?
Now here's the big thing, what happens if they allow this to occur, and while your pushing a big ball into the goal and times runs out while touching the large ball...according to the rules, the ball is an extention of your robot...does this mean anything touching after that is an extention?
|
|
#33
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: *4 multiplier? *8!??!?
I think we should all use common sense and interpret the FIRST rules how they were meant to be interpreted rather than looking for obscure means of cheating the system.
|
|
#34
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: *4 multiplier? *8!??!?
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#35
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: *4 multiplier? *8!??!?
we discussed this last night also and from the video and a little mini playing field we bult last night it seems like you wouldnt be able to fi more than one on a moveable goal,but the stationary goals have that extra two feet of back board and if the fist yellow ball (the one placed first) was fit the right way then just maybe a second ball could be placed, i dont se the third ball being able to fit with out altering it or the goal in the way where it would be against the rules. its more of a blancing act then.
|
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: *4 multiplier? *8!??!?
It still doesn't matter. The big ball multiplier only multiplies the small ball score...not the small balls multiplied. Two large balls in one goal will do nothing.
|
|
#37
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: *4 multiplier? *8!??!?
say if you had 3 purple balls in the stationary goal, with 1 multiplier ball on top
2 * 15 = 30 but if you had 2 multiplier balls then this could be counted twice. making it 60, because it would still be on top of the point balls, I'm not saying this is what my team is planning on doing I'm just curious on how the other teams are thinking because the game always ends up being defensive |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: *4 multiplier? *8!??!?
The rules say that caping is the large ball being supported by only smaller balls(purple or yellow) and the pvc goal. It doesn't say it can be supported by the other large ball. Also it says that the 2x multiplier ball only multiplys the score of the small balls. It doesn't say it can multiply the small balls already multiplied again.
|
|
#39
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: *4 multiplier? *8!??!?
but it would be supported by the pvc, you cant balance one large ball on top of the other without the support of the pvc, and yes the rules dont say it could count the balls twice nor does it say it will, this is what i have been questioning from the start.
|
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: *4 multiplier? *8!??!?
"CAPPING – A LARGE ball is considered to be CAPPING a goal if it is SUPPORTED by the goal poles and/or SCORED SMALL Balls."
"The rules say that caping is the large ball being supported by only smaller balls(purple or yellow) and the pvc goal. It doesn't say it can be supported by the other large ball. Also it says that the 2x multiplier ball only multiplys the score of the small balls. It doesn't say it can multiply the small balls already multiplied again." -353Pobots I completly agree with 353Pobots. The 2X ball serves as a CAP, meaning you cannot put more in, unless you took the cap off. Remember, they said use common sence. I asked the same question in our teams meeting, and the idea was shot down quickly. |
|
#41
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: *4 multiplier? *8!??!?
I feel they are using words to their real meaning this year as they pointed out with straddling the line at the start. They intend to mean by caping is covering off, stopping anymore points from being scored in that goal. Like you put a cap on a bottle, would you put 2 caps on one bottle? No you wouldn't. This game isn't as deep as most people are hoping for to play around with.
|
|
#42
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: *4 multiplier? *8!??!?
For people who are asking why bother. Because it would be cool is a good enough answer for. Also, because it is hard.
For those who are saying it can't be done, people also said that 4 balls couldn't be done in 2001. http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/pi...&quiet=Verbose. As for the rules, I think the intent with the term "capping" was closing it. When you cap something, you cover it. To apply the finishing touch to; complete To cover, protect, or seal with a cap It also is specificly said that it can not be supported by more then one goal. SUPPORTED – If the “supporting object” is removed, the ball would not remain SCORED or CAPPED and/or the ROBOT would not remain HANGING. So I would make the intent to be stick them on top to finnish it, but nothing about 2 caps. But if you remove the first large ball, if the second would not be scoreing, then it dosn't count. So if you shove one down with another on top, they both have to be supported by the goal. As to what the score would do at that point, I think we will need either an update from FIRST, or wait to see what the refs at the first regional this happens at do. Wetzel |
|
#43
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: *4 multiplier? *8!??!?
the diameter of the goals is 28", and the diameter of the 2X balls is 34". Since the goals are made of pvc, and it can bend, you might be able to shove one big ball down into the goal, and balance another on top, but it could be hard to get the first ball down into the goal far enough. also, this wouldd leave less room for purple balls in the bottom...
|
|
#44
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: *4 multiplier? *8!??!?
even if they dont count it, it would be a good tatic becuase the way the stationary goals are placed, i just want to know the final rule so i can figure out what other teams might do during the game. last year First clearly stated that you could not break the boxes and my team designed for this, and as anyone who went to any competion knows that the box breaking was over looked, i dont want this to be a repeat.
Last edited by Amanda 179 : 12-01-2004 at 17:26. Reason: addition |
|
#45
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: *4 multiplier? *8!??!?
Note that even though it doesnt say that it cant be supported by a large ball it says the small balls it is supported by must be SCORED small balls, therefore they can only be supported by other SCORED small balls and the goal, so you cant sandwhich them between the yellow balls. If you did you would get 2x(4x...)0, which is still 0. Also the balls are 34" diameter inflated to only 30". so they might be squishy enough to be forced into the pvc, although it wouldnt matter because it doesnt count as capping. And to all those who rate dave below any1 other than dean and woody.....
well my opinion may be biased because im his son and the more glory he has, the more reflective glory i have. ![]() |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Bringing Rules Back | Andy Grady | General Forum | 39 | 06-01-2004 10:00 |
| *** Improtant Rule from FIRST *** | ttedrow | Rules/Strategy | 0 | 28-01-2003 15:15 |
| Team Update #1 is out | Bill Gold | General Forum | 32 | 08-01-2003 07:55 |
| Bottom line analysis from KSC | archiver | 2001 | 17 | 24-06-2002 01:41 |
| ???Bridge??? | archiver | 2001 | 3 | 23-06-2002 22:35 |