<G14> - ya win some, ya lose some

The GDC has responded: http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=10994

The assessment of the conditions under which Rule <G14> may be invoked will be determined before any penalties are assessed. This is to prevent any ALLIANCE from intentionally getting a PENALTY to impose the Rule <G14> conditions on their opponent.

Rule <G14> is assessed for every MATCH, regardless of the score.

If an ALLIANCE ends a MATCH with zero (0) points, and their opponent has any non-zero score, then the opponent has out-scored by an infinite factor. This is logically more than triple (3x) the lower score. Thus, the most strict effects off Rule <G14> will apply. Therefore, it is always to your advantage to make sure that both ALLIANCES always score at least once.

At least it’s pre-penalties.

So, it may be in our best interest to not win by an infinite factor. Perhaps they’ll also amend <G14> to increase the penalty, up to where the alliance loses all it’s playing pieces for a match…:smiley:

In an extra dose of bad luck, you scored 45 points, and the other team scored only 10. Unfortunately you have 40 points in penalties from throwing all the super cells out, or … Not only do you loose, but then you are all penalized in the next round.

Good to know. Let’s not plan on doing that.

Still think they should of made a minimal point cap on it, So one alliance has to have at least like 15 or 20 points before the 2x or 3x rules apply.


Oh well, the games must go on!

This restriction is going to make pre-match alliance communication even more important.
Needless to say, things are now a little more complicated…

I believe that this makes for a more challenging game and supports gracious proffesionalism. We might half to score on ourselves once and a while so what. It also limits the chances of teams relying on super cells

2 purely defensive alliances, one team scores 2 points by a human player mistake and they get a <G14>. [SARCASM]WOW thats fair[/SARCASM]

I think this reminds us that to excel in this year’s game, you have to think about more then just being able to score and avoid being scored on…this year, if you want a high rank, you have to allow yourself to be scored on while making sure that you make more points yourself.

Looks like the GDC is digging in its heels on this one. How about we just treat it as another challenge unique to this game, strategize/design for it and move on?

I’ve got this sneaking suspicion that Chris Fultz and Andy Baker designed this rule purely so they could dispose of it at IRI. Same with <G22> last year.

Somehow, I was kind of expecting this to happen. But, for reasons I don’t understand, I still really like <G14>. I think it’s going to make match dynamics really interesting. What if we get matches with no super cells at all? Hmm…

Anyway, since it’s here to stay, you might as well embrace it. Whining didn’t help anything, and now that we know absolutely for sure the rule means what it says, more whining is completely pointless.

I don’t understand this point of view.

You’re telling me that your alliance cannot have 1 person (one of the commanders… maybe?) watch and (approximately) count points and alert the drivers and payload specialists that you’ve only allowed ‘X’ points and to stop at your payload specialist to toss a few in your own trailer (by accident, OFC :stuck_out_tongue: )?

Seems to me that a minimum point cap is fairly useless, and that the more difficult situation is a ~20 to 10 score where the game could change on a single throw (supercell).

Also, TBH, I do not believe that the loss of a single empty cell or supercell will tip the balance of many games and, in fact, this adds a bit more strategy to the pre-match alliance choices.

Well the good news is, this simplifies our strategy a bit. We can give the defensive moves a lower priority, and we don’t have to worry about going nuts in autonomous to keep the PS from scoring too many. All we’ll do for now is score while avoiding being pinned.

That was the entire point in suggesting a minimum score. At low scores the number of points that a supercell can give will very much change the result of the match because double is less than 15.

I agree with this completely. I think a lot of people (especially those who are complaining about how it’s unfair to “punish” teams “for being successful”) are not thinking hard enough about how this rule is going to play out. There are other empty/super cells available on the field. Also, with three teams on each alliance, that’s three chances for each alliance to lose empty/super cells- think about it, a lot of matches could have both alliances starting without all of their game pieces. Plus… this is only the subtraction of one or two game pieces which have to be exchanged and scored in the last 20 seconds of the game. Are most teams really going to be able to score a full four or more in that short of the time period? Probably not. Are they going to make that big of a difference, especially to alliances which are already strong? Probably not.

Well, there goes my strategy of blowing out the opponent and then committing flagrant safety and sportsmanship violations to keep the margin close :smiley:

Is it important whether or not it’s “fair”? That hypothetical team obviously isn’t going to be affected by a missing super cell.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but according to this rule a team could go 0-12 (or whatever, depending on the number of matches) and play every match with the exception of their first one down 1 or more empty cells because they happen to paired with at least one team from an alliance who doubled up their opponets in the previous match. I’m not suggesting this will happen (I’m sure the odds are against it) but it is theoretically possible.

More likely, scenario - Team A’s alliance gets tripled up by Team B’s alliance. Next time through Team A is on an alliance with team B and get’s penalized 2 empty cells because of it.


You also have to build a robot that doesn’t depend on using super cells because more than likely you will lose a few because of alliance pairings.

And this is a bad thing because ?

Learn to be adapatable. If you are missing a empty/supercell then adapt your strategy and move on. It’s like playing chess without your queen (queens gambit?), most people are loath to do so because it takes them out of their comfort zone … just like a lot of things in this years game (and in life)