|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Should this have been allowed?
Quote:
However, you obviously need to be careful about strategies that "incidentally" damage an opponent's robot. There that whole rule outlawing strategies solely intended to damage or disable an opponent's robot. Your intention should clearly be defending the robot in some fashion. As opposed to aiming directly for its arm to damage and disbale it while it doesn't even have a tube near it. |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should this have been allowed?
Quote:
|
|
#3
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Should this have been allowed?
Going a little off topic, since i think the original question has been answered, has anyone tried "spamming" the opponets zone by throwing tube after tube into the zone until the teams cannot score? seems like a fun strategy for the human player
|
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should this have been allowed?
Works great until you realize that they can floor load.
|
|
#5
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Should this have been allowed?
So that's what that human player was doing when they were throwing all those tubes in the opposing zone. And here I thought they were just terrible at their job.
|
|
#6
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Should this have been allowed?
Quote:
Speaking of which: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I52nJ5bJYkU But i mean like so many that it would take them a while to get all the tube out of the way |
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Should this have been allowed?
Quote:
This strategy does work with some select robots at the Feeder Station, but only because the Lane Divider keeps them from simply plowing the tubes aside. By the Grid, you've got a lot more room and Pegs that stick out rather handily. You'd probably run out of tubes before you blocked some of the better scorers, especially those with arms. And even if it takes a bit, once they scored the one they came with, they've got a whole slew at their proverbial fingertips. |
|
#8
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Should this have been allowed?
Quote:
|
|
#9
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Re: Should this have been allowed?
Interestingly enough, our Human Player was Yellow Carded at FLR for throwing a tube that hit an opponent robot that was in its zone. If I remember right, the robot didn't even have a tube.
I believe <T06> was what it was sited under, although that's a very general all encompassing... refs can make decisions needed type rule... Being that it was a week 1 event, my guess is that it just wasn't clear whether it was legal and within the spirit of the rules or not. Im glad to see an actual ruling (at least by the Q&A). |
|
#10
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Should this have been allowed?
Unfortunately the calls like that have been extremely different throughout the regionals. There is no rule that specifically forbids this (please correct me if im wrong), but it is clearly some sort of intentional non-gracious professionalism act, at least from the story, since the opposing human player is on the same side as your robot in the zone. 461 has gone through even worse luck than that, so i know how you feel.
Good luck in the future, Duke P.S. The only rule you could bring up is intentionally trying to hurt another robot. |
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Should this have been allowed?
That's some good aim and distance if it was intentional. At the LA regional I saw some throwers that looked like they'd practiced their technique for weeks...and they still threw about 10% of their tubes out of bounds.
|
|
#12
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Should this have been allowed?
If team A is trying to score in their zone, then Human player on team B is right next to them....
|
|
#13
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Should this have been allowed?
There is nothing FIRST would do about that situation. A referee's call is final.
Your team showed up to the 10000 Lakes competition and did a great job. Our team played with you in the qualifiers, and your people were great alliance partners. I'm sure that your match could have gone either way, and I think both alliances deserved to advance to the next round. When alliances are closely matched, that's part of the deal, and one does not need to feel bad about oneself when the luck doesn't come through. Having said that, it's also true that any team that loses a close match could have won it comfortably (even with some poor luck) if they had built their robot that much better. But none of that is the reason I wanted to respond to your post. I would invite you to look at this endeavor in a different way. A lack of awards does not equal failure. The whole difficult process of this competition is the important thing here. Running a bunch of students and mentors through that gauntlet is what is changing the world for the better, not the act of bringing home a trophy. |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should this have been allowed?
Quote:
I must confess that I did not pay a lot of attention to feeder activities during the regional I just attended. I did see several more hand excursions through the slot than were penalized, as some were. |
|
#15
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Should this have been allowed?
I was FTAA at the Connecticut Regional. As one who was really in the heat of things, I can tell you that human players were not perfect in throwing the tubes. In fact there were many times that a human player threw the tube & it went in a completely different direction of the intended throw. Being on the sidelines as FTAA is not all fun & games. There were a lot of throws that went outside the field, hitting FTA, FTAA, Refs, scorekeepers & scoring tables. So many hit the minibot towers I thought the lights would break right off. I agree that I can't see how a human player could throw a tube & hit a robot about to place a tube on the rack. I suppose he could hit the end one on the top, but nowhere else. I saw no players able to throw the entire length of the field in the air. The aerodynamics of the tubes are lousy.
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|