|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Major Issue in Team Update #1
There are some subtle nuances in the Team Update 1 that I'm not sure are intended. If anyone can make heads or tails of how this is supposed to be interpreted, be my guest.
Here are the 3 rules in question, as of TU1: Definition of Balanced Bridge: “A Bridge will count as Balanced if it is within 5° of horizontal and any Robots touching it are fully supported by it.” [G25] Robots may not contact or otherwise interfere with the opposing Alliance Bridge. Violation: Technical-Foul. If the act of Balancing is interfered with, also a Red Card and the Bridge will be counted as Balanced. [G40] “When the final score is assessed per [G37], Robots completely supported by a Balanced Alliance Bridge, per Section 2.2.5, earn points as follows:” The Issues: 1) "A Bridge will count as Balanced if it is within 5° of horizontal and any Robots touching it are fully supported by it." or conversely, if any robot that is NOT supported by the alliance bridge is touching it, the bridge cannot be counted as balanced. For example, your partner cannot sit on the ground and balance the bridge for you, and hold it through the end of the match. (This has been mentioned in another thread already). This doesn't apply to opponents, as [G25] would come into play. 2) The way the [G40] is now written, it's the robots which score the bridge points, not the bridge. It now appears to read that if two robots are balanced on the bridge, each scores 20 points. I have to assume this is not what they meant, since it drastically changes the value of the bridge, but it appears to be how it is now written. This means 3 balanced robots in qualifiers is worth 60 points, and 3 in eliminations is 120! 3) Going back to the [G25] penalty, let's say red robot interferes with blue getting on the bridge. Blue doesn't end up supported by the bridge because of the interference. The bridge is counted as balanced, but because of the new [G40], the alliance does not receive any balance points, because no robots are fully supported. The re-write of both the definition of balancing and [G40] seems to be redundant. If the GDC had intended for the bridges to be giving points to the alliance as 10 points for 1 robot balanced on a bridge, 20 for 2 and 20 or 40 (qualifiers vs eliminations) for 3, the addition to [G40] from TU1 is unnecessary. [G40] SHOULD still read as it did pre-TU1, that a balanced bridge gives X number of points, based on how many robots are on it, since the definition of “balanced” now requires the robots to be fully supported. Another possibility is that the GDC originally intended for the robots to be scoring those points, and 1 robots is worth 10 points, 2 is worth 20 each, and 3 is worth 20 or 40 points (qualifiers vs eliminations). This severely changes the scoring dynamics of the game. I think this is the least likely, since I doubt this could have slipped through the cracks in the original rules. The third possibility is that the definition of balanced supersedes [G40] in this case: because the bridge is being counted as balanced, the robot is considered fully supported even though it’s not, for the purposes of scoring. This would then give the balancing alliance the bridge points, even though they didn’t make it on due to the interference. If the third option is what’s being used, it opens an entirely new can of worms. If two blue robots are trying to get on, red interferes and prevents blue1 from being fully supported and blue2 never gets a chance to try…how many points does blue get for a balanced bridge? Did red prevent one or two robots from getting on? Does anyone see a flaw in my logic that would clear this up? Otherwise I think a Q&A is in order. I do not believe the intent was to change the scoring, however with the [G40] re-write it is now very explicitly stated that the robots are receiving the points. |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|