Blockading Rule Reform

FIRST General Forum
#47

I have become convinced that blockading means that two (or more) robots on one alliance prevent all three robots on the other alliance from having access to a major part of the game. Two robots blocking one opposing robot is not blockading.

Here is my reasoning from the examples given in the rule:

The first two examples they give in the rule of blocking both portals simultaneously or blocking ALL access to power cubes would mean that all three opposing robots would be prevented from having access to those power cubes.

The final example they give in the rule is quarantining all opponents to a small area of the field. The rule specifically says all opponents (not just one). Again, this would prevent all three robots from accessing the scoring opportunities on the rest of the field. I believe they inserted the words “all opponents” into that third example for a reason, which was to emphasize that blockading meant preventing the entire opposing alliance from scoring. It appears that the OP agrees with me on this point. I do not believe that two robots ganging up on *one robot *to block them off or quarantine them to a small area of the field is blockading per the way that the rule is written.

Given this interpretation, I cannot see how what happened in CC F3 was blockading. So, clearly, the refs considered that blockading could be applied if only one robot was blocked access.

I have read the 3 major threads on this topic since the CC call, and I have not seen any real discussion on this interpretation. Even with the OP pointing it out, this thread has focused on other (very engaging and important) aspects of this rule, but there has not been any discussion on this point.

In the interest of keeping an open mind and learning something, I would like to hear an argument as to why, given the wording of G12, we think that this rule could apply in a situation where only one robot was blocked off by two opposing robots as ruled by the refs in CC F3.

In addition, if it is the general consensus that this rule does apply to blocking off a single robot from scoring power cubes, would this also apply if 2 robots quarantined a single robot to prevent them from getting to the scale for the end game climb?

Bonus round: If my interpretation is correct (that you have to prevent all 3 robots from scoring in some element of the game play for it to be considered blockading), what would the ruling be in one robot (and only one robot) on the alliance had ramps to lift the other two robots for the end game, and that one robot was quarantined behind the switch by two opposing alliance robots and prevented from getting to the scale? Would that be considered to have prevented the entire alliance from achieving the end game climb scoring element? Would that, then, be considered blockading?

#48

I would disagree that they were blocking one robot. Sure, they were “only” blocking one robot from getting away from the Portals. HOWEVER… That robot has a Power Cube (can’t pick up another without penalty), AND the other two robots would have presumably been blocked from getting IN to the Portals. Portals are useless now. Also, blocking an alliance from the End Game bonuses… could call that one though it’s tougher

Would you be more comfortable had that been called as a Pin? I know people who would make the argument that that was a Pin, for long enough to draw a yellow card even.

#49

I have to agree with you that G12 is meant to apply to blocking all three robots. The interpretation that as long as one robot from an alliance has access to a game component that component is not isolated or closed off is consistent with the wording of the rule and all the examples given over the past 2 years since the wording was changed.

I am not sure why the make up of alliance is something the referees should consider. In your example the other two robots are still free to park so the alliance can do the end game. They just can’t do it anywhere near as well as they want to.

The issue I still see is major component of match play is not defined. I would use this list for Power Up: cubes, Portals, near switch, far switch, scale, exchange, vault, and platform.

Someone could argue the robots are major match components. I feel by definition the robots are playing the game made of components so the robots can’t be components themselves.

Someone could also argue that paths or actions in the game are major match components. Such as getting cubes from portal and delivering to scale. I would argue those are major match mechanisms. Mechanism and Component are defined in the glossary in terms of robot parts but roughly a mechanism is defined as an assembly of components. The match components are the portal, cube, and scale - the match mechanism is getting a cube from portal and placing it on the scale.

#50

The main illustration that point was attempting to make is that if you call blockading on 2v1’s, there is an inherent unavoidable downside if you have a good driver, and that if you are weak driver, you will get those calls all the time. Even if it’s something like a pin count, the opponent is forced to get out of the way. The example was not meant to represent the majority of cases when defending. I would argue however in the majority of the cases, the offensive robot does make it through in less than 20s.

Are you concerned about games where points scored is the ranking metric rather than RP? FRC seems pretty dedicated to RP as of late. The 2RP are far more value than the ~2 pts/match their average would be affected for tiebreaking would be.

This is fair. I can see how the penalty probably ins’t required.

I agree with your interpretation. I believe what others are trying to argue is that it should be called as a blockade anyways, even though in both of our interpretations, it should not (under the current rules). The debate has shifted more towards what the ideal purpose of the rule should be.

I would agree with you perhaps if the other two robot were to try to access the portals. You shouldn’t be penalized for blocking something that your opponent isn’t using.

Would you be more comfortable had that been called as a Pin? I know people who would make the argument that that was a Pin, for long enough to draw a yellow card even.

Agh pin rules since 2016 are also on my list of “need a rewording”

This also seems like a good idea. Defining these terms can clarify some of the issues with this rule.

#51

I wanted to stay out of this thread because it’s kind of a disaster, but I really couldn’t resist sharing this idea I just came up with:

It would be cool if the GDC were to design a game where all of these issues being discussed were eliminated. I think it would have potential to be one of the best FRC games of all time, and probably be discussed favorably for years afterwards, even after every kid who actually played have left the program.

No blockading, no preventing teams from scoring, every team gets to show off how they solved the engineering challenge without being stopped in a potentially non-GP way.

Maybe they could make a game where each alliance had separate and protected scoring and pick-up zones, so that every team would have an equal opportunity for success.

The game could be balanced so that a 10-1-1 skilled alliance would have the same average score as a 4-4-4 alliance.

This would allow for some really cool game objectives that aren’t traditionally possible due to the prevalence of defense.

You could even put a physical barrier on the field to really keep scoring and acquiring areas for each alliance separate.

The blue alliance wouldn’t be able to cross into the red alliance’s area’s and vice-versa. A clever GDC might even be able to configure these barriers so that blockading access to the zones wasn’t possible, avoiding that issue entirely. With such a game there would be no opportunity for ref’s to make split second judgement calls that potentially decide the winner of the match.

With truly protected zones you could have robots doing really cool things like stacking game pieces into tall towers, perhaps a few game pieces of different sizes and shapes to make the towers visually interesting. This would only be possible if the other alliance wasn’t able to knock them over.

Maybe the GDC could eliminate other contentious rules like pinning, tipping, contact in the bumpers, etc. by just making the barrier around the protected zones stretch across the field.

Then there would be no blockades, no pins, no defense, just wholesome robots scoring points the best that they can. If you want to beat your opponent, you just have to score more points than them your own way! No non-GP strategies and stuff.

They could create a blue side and a red side with a platform or step or something in the middle. Then each alliance could show off how they solved an engineering challenge like stacking differently shaped game pieces without any negative interference from the other alliance. Whichever alliance scored the most points, straight up, would win the match.

Everyone gets to play the full 2 1/2 minutes of every match. No team would be able to force another team into a corner where they can’t do anything for a whole match just because their drivers or robot design isn’t as good.

Anyway, hopefully the GDC has addressed these issues and has something like this planned for the 2019 season. I wouldn’t even mind if they RECYCLE my ideas so they can RUSH and change next year’s game to address the complaints in this thread.

#52

Ramp robots that have no wheels/never are turned on as 3rd robots :’(

#53

Maybe they could even come up with a way to cooperate with each other during the competition to earn extra points for both alliances.

Of course you know how this works. They will probably find some way to diminish the opponents ability to earn points. I mean if they can they will. It’s war out there.

:smiley:

#54

Is the “face the boss” ranking point a major component of match play?

Since the face the boss ranking point is officially defined as all 3 robots completing a hang, or two robots completing the climb and the alliance playing the levitate power up, then blocking one robot might be considered to be closing off that component of match play (regardless of whether that robot is the one that is capable of lifting the other 2).

I noticed several matches this year where there was one robot on an alliance that was capable of lifting at least one other robot so that the alliance could earn that 4th ranking point (when you include the levitate power up) and the opposing alliance intentionally played defense against that robot during the final portion of the match to deny that robot the ability to get to their own platform to complete the hang. None of those instances resulted in a blockading penalty. I would have to go back and review the match videos to see how many of the opposing robots were involved in the defense. But usually, it was when that one robot got caught down at the opposing end of the field and all of the opposing alliance members would be down at that end anyway to complete their own end game tasks. So it would be difficult to say whether they were actually blocking or not.

I honestly don’t believe that this situation is blockading. But it seems more likely to meet the criteria in the rule than the blockading call that was made at CC F3…

#55

Recycle Rush jokes aside, I think that this post (and this thread as a whole) details exactly what I loved about Stronghold- it presented an opportunity to play defense, but there were clear (and reasonable) limits to how it could be executed, and there were distinct ways of scoring that allowed robots of varying technical capabilities and driver skill to have a strategic purpose at practically any point in the game.
You can shoot boulders? Cool, but be sure to watch out for your opponents trying to snipe them away from you.
You can cross obstacles? Cool, but be careful not to get stuck, and be ready if your alliance partners need help.
You can play defense? Cool, but make sure to follow the rules, and don’t get yourself trapped on the other side of the field when it’s time for the endgame.
There was enough contact between opponents that it felt exciting to watch, but it never seemed like there were any ways to blatantly abuse poorly designed elements of the game to make it actively unfun for any team. Great robots were able to demonstrate their ability without getting completely sat on by defense, but they still had to work around it in a way that posed a legitimate challenge.
I don’t think anyone is arguing for absolutely zero defense- it just needs to be clear what is and isn’t allowed as a defensive strategy.

#56

Answer: It depends. For the CC incident, no. There are no ranking points in Finals. For quals, on the other hand, it could be. How much of a major component may depend on the teams on the field, but I would say, personally, that completely cutting access to a ranking point should be a violation regardless of the teams on the field. (That the alliance doesn’t get it isn’t the issue, in my mind–it’s that they get denied the opportunity to try.)

#57

Emphasis mine.

I think that totally negates the argument that blocking only one robot prohibits the alliance from achieving the RP. It’s not stopping them from getting the levitate. It doesn’t stop the other two robots from making a climb. The rule doesn’t take into account if they can or not, and it shouldn’t.

Making a robot that can climb\lift others\or some other form of game-play that enhances your alliance is part of building a strategy that not every team does, or can do. I think the word access is the key here, and restricting access can not be defined differently according to which robots are on the field.

Therefore I think because the rules specifically include a way to access the ranking point with only two robots, as long as two robots are free to play you have not shut down any of the game-play.

#58

I would say no. I think of components of match play to be the physical features of the field rather than a scoring goal - basically section 3 of the manual. Major ones are a subsection of that.

Two robots putting cubes on the scale are trying to close off scale ownership from the opposition. Obviously that can’t be a G12 violation.

#59

I would say no. I think of components of match play to be the physical features of the field rather than a scoring goal - basically section 3 of the manual. Major ones are a subsection of that.
[/quote]

OK, well then is the rung a major component of match play (specifically during the end game)?

If only one robot on the alliance can grab the rung and climb, but the other two robots (or at least one, if the levitate power up is played) can transitively climb on that one robot, then does blocking that one robot that can climb close off this major component of match play for all the robots on the alliance? Therefore, if two robots are engaged in blocking that one robot, does that constitute blockading?

Let me just say, that up until a week ago, I would have said no to this question. But with our attention laser focused on Blockading as a rule, I am beginning to think that this might, in fact, rise to the level of blockading if you are denying the entire the alliance the opportunity to participate in a major component of match play.

#60

I agree that it gets more of a grey area the more you think about it, but I would say YES the Rung is a major component of game-play. So if you are blocking THE RUNG from at least two of the robots getting to it, yes…that’s blockading.

However, the robot hanging from the rung, does not itself transitively become a part of the Rung. Therefor blocking that robot from climbing still leaves 2 robots to use the Rung. Again, even if they do not themselves have the ability to do so.

#61

I wouldn’t argue against the rung being a major component of match play.

I think the generic question is if a component requires multiple robots to be used does an alliance need multiple robots to have access for the component to not be isolated or cut off?

If the only way to use a component is with multiple robots I think that is a yes.

A component that has differentiated scoring between use by one robot and use by multiple robots is a gray area. My natural tendency is to lean towards less calls, so I would say the alliance has access to the component if one robot has access and the component can be used by one robot even if there are tiered rewards for use with multiple robots. I can definitely see an argument the other way though.

#62

I would like to give an example of Quals Match 29 at the El Paso Regional where 1817 kept 624 from scoring a single cube for 50+ seconds. Admittedly the final score of the match was decided by fouls and it should have ended in a blue victory. However, red’s scale ownership was more than double the time of blue’s because of successful defense being played.

#63

Thanks for the match video. I think the original points stand. The facts seem to be that there are very very few examples of teams playing lock down defense on a robot preventing a team from scoring because it’s hard, and generally offensive robot drivers are far more capable than defensive robot drivers. There was counter play for the robot playing offense in all examples shown, even if it took a long time.

Both of the clips that were linked in this thread showed good defensive play, however there are hundreds of drivers who could easy outplay the level of skill displayed in the two videos that were posted, and make it around the defender in a significantly lower amount of time. All of the drivers are obviously above average and can be considered skilled, but its the gap between the defender and the defendee that matters when trying to get out of defense. If this was an easy, low skill level task, it would have been employed in far more matches, and teams like 1817 would have been able to pull off this level of success in most (if not every match they competed in) which is obviously incorrect.

#64

You can’t reach the conclusion from the premise. You’re making assumptions that aren’t true.

  1. All robots are equally capable to play defense
  2. If (1) isn’t true, teams are as likely to design defensive robots as offensive

If one of those two isn’t true, you cannot reasonably determine if a prevalence of defensive teams/robots exists. Unless they’re at least a fifth as common as offensive robots, you can’t determine the difficulty of the skill based on the number of successful robots. (Assuming 1 per every other alliance to ensure inclusion in most matches).

Also, to the point of driver skill, 624 was the 8th overall seed (and at times ranked higher) on the Newton field. With as much talent was on that field this year, it’s difficult to make the case the driver in the video was of anything other than above average skill. We can look at things they could have done, yes. But, we cannot expect the majority of drivers would take those actions.

#65

I think you have misunderstood what i’m trying to communicate.

Thesis: Defensive driving takes skill, and blocking robots for prolonged periods of time is hard to execute.

Evidence:

-Teams that have been able to do it, aren’t able to execute it every match they attempt to do so.
-Not every box on wheels can block robots effectively

Conclusion:
-There is legitimate counter play in almost every 1v1 1v2 and 1v3 scenario as long as you can get an isolated battle with one defender.

  1. All robots are equally capable to play defense
  2. If (1) isn’t true, teams are as likely to design defensive robots as offensive
  1. Not all robots can equally play defense. Wheel type, number of wheels, weight, acceleration, frame dimensions, bumper configurations, bumper material are just some of the physical things that matter when playing defense
  1. Very few people design explicitly “only defensive” robots, and even less so for the 2018 game.

If one of those two isn’t true, you cannot reasonably determine if a prevalence of defensive teams/robots exists. Unless they’re at least a fifth as common as offensive robots, you can’t determine the difficulty of the skill based on the number of successful robots. (Assuming 1 per every other alliance to ensure inclusion in most matches).

It’s very easy to determine if a defender is a defender. They attempt to play defense during the match.

It has nothing to do with what the robot has been designed to do. If someone plays defense, they are the “defender” (for the period of time they play defense)

Also, to the point of driver skill, 624 was the 8th overall seed (and at times ranked higher) on the Newton field. With as much talent was on that field this year, it’s difficult to make the case the driver in the video was of anything other than above average skill.

Yes…? I agree, and already noted that. The skill gap is what matters, and by admission of a “skill gap” then clearly means that there is a level of skill that is required to be able to play effective defense.

We can look at things they could have done, yes. But, we cannot expect the majority of drivers would take those actions.

I agree. 1817 is very clearly an above average defender both through a good robot design for defense, as well as a skilled driver. Clearly good defense can be outplayed, as if you watch other 1817 match videos you see offensive robots making it around them significantly easier than 624 in that video.

#66

Given that the rest of this post just duplicates what you’ve said, I’d argue it’s the opposite. I’ll try to explain again.

You’re stating why the assumptions I posted aren’t accurate. It was rather clearly implied they weren’t accurate in my prior post. If I believed they were accurate, I wouldn’t state you couldn’t use those assumptions to reach your conclusions. The fact they’re inaccurate means you’re using a bad methodology to reach your conclusion. But, I’m glad we agree they’re bad assumptions to make. At least we’re starting at the same point.

This is where the assumptions come into play. Yes, you can look at a robot trying to play defense. Similarly, you could watch 1817 try to put a cube on the switch/scale. It was painful in most instances because that’s not what the robot was designed to do. Your “evidence” is primarily watching robots that weren’t designed to be defensive trying to play defense.

It’s generally easy to drive a nail into a board with a hammer. If you only measure the difficulty by watching people swing a screwdriver at the nail, you’d also claim it’s complicated to hammer a nail.

When you want to attempt to measure the skill required to perform a task, you need to use something that makes sense. Measuring the skill based on the performance of offensive robots attempting to play defense is a bad measuring stick. Your entire argument essentially focuses on this bad unit of measure.

This point also went over your head. Your argument has had a focal point stating the level of difficulty to play offense is much less than the level of difficultly to play defense. You’ve gone to the length that you’ve shown someone of lesser driving skill on offense will succeed versus someone of greater skill playing defense based on this skill gap between the two roles.

In the example shown, you’ve mentioned the actions 624 could have taken to avoid the defense. But, you’ve opted to ignore a quick analysis of the 624 driver’s skill. I brought that part into the discussion. If 624 has a high performing driver, as they did, that means you cannot reasonably claim most other drivers would take the actions you believe they could/should have taken. We’re looking at something a driver that was highly accomplished was doing and not a team that struggled at events. This shows an example of a highly skilled driver on both offense and defense. It shows an example of a robot designed to be offensive and a robot designed to be defensive. It shows the gap isn’t as large as you’re suggesting.

I have a feeling I’ve seen far more matches for both 1817 and 624 this season. Have teams avoided 1817’s defense? Yes. Has 1817 fundamentally altered the game play in the majority of their matches? Yes. Have they completely locked down an opponent for 30+s in every match? No. Did they hinder opponents for the entirety of their matches keeping them well below their typical production even if not a complete lock-down? Absolutely.

In an attempt to ensure your thesis is accurate, you’ve gone out of your way to set very restrictive measures. You’ve then taken bad measurements to provide evidence. And in the end, you still can’t show it to be unequivocally true. It’s not that I’m not understanding what you’re saying. It’s not a difficult concept. It’s that I’m disagreeing. The primary reason we see offense taking over defense has little to do with the skill gap and more so with teams wanting to play offense. To play defense well, the decision must be made well before the point “they’re playing defense in a match” just as to play offense well, the tool must be designed for the task.