G9 states that when on the opponent’s side the robot must be inside the frame perimeter, but doesn’t specifically mention height restrictions. Does this mean that you could have a robot with a lift play defense against the rocket by raising the lift and simply sitting in front of an opponent’s rocket?
Yes that is legal. Just don’t bump their ROCKET in the last 20 seconds. Also expect them to ignore you and fill their other ROCKET as you sit there watching them.
4 Likes
I’ve thought about this, as well.
To my understanding, your height is different to your frame perimeter. There is no limits on how tall your robot can be other than its starting position and it being under the alliance wall when climbing. That means that the rule where the robot can extend up to 30" outside the frame perimeter doesn’t apply. Using that logic, it may be legal because technically you are not extending outside the frame.
I was talking about guarding the rocket. If you block the front holes, the best they could do would be attach hatches to the rocket unless they can move you out of the way or shoot the balls over your lift.
There are 40 spots for GAME PIECES to be scored in a match. I wouldn’t spend the entire match trying to stop the opposing alliance from scoring their last 6 while allowing them free reign to score the first 34. Very few alliances will be capable of scoring more than 34 GAME PIECES anyway. If you mean waiting until they complete part of the ROCKET then coming over to defend it causing them to switch to the other rocket I think that will be a common strategy. Teams that are unprepared for that will waste time trying to fight through defense.
2 Likes
Depends when you start defending the Rocket and who you’re against… If you wait to defend until the opposing alliance is heavily committed to it, they have a large incentive to try to score around your defense. If they’re smart they’ll ignore you and score elsewhere, but I have a feeling a lot of teams will fall into that trap.
Edit: Beat me to it.
Isn’t it a bit strange to consider them scoring 34 while simultaneously acknowledging most alliances won’t be scoring such numbers?
It looks like you realized the error in discussing sitting in front of one rocket and watching them fill the other. That’s quickly remedied by swapping to the other rocket once they’ve invested in it a little.
Yes, they have access to the other 34 game pieces. But, they’re unlikely to score those. Unless they score a specific set of 12, they lose the RP. Defense of this style is meant to limit the alliances access to the RP while your alliance partners score points at a level you expect/hope to be greater than the other alliance is scoring. You’re also able to hinder scoring to more than the 6 without much effort using that same strategy. (They need to place panels before placing cargo.)
There’s only so much preparation an alliance can do. You’re looking at 12 second cycle times for a single team to fill a rocket. If you have two teams filling it, you’ve got more time. But, you lose time if you’re invested in a rocket and the defensive robot blocks access. If you don’t have the time to fill the other rocket, it’s not a matter of “wasting” time to try to push through the defense. It’s a question of whether you’ll likely affect the outcome of the match. If you’re losing badly, the 1RP is more important than trying to score points elsewhere. If you’re winning easily, the 1RP is more important unless things start getting close. If it’s a tight match, the 2RP for the win likely take priority. In many cases, it’s a waste of time to switch rockets rather than fight through defense.
I don’t think it’s strange at all. That is my point. Since most alliances can’t even score 34 game pieces your main strategy should not be pointless defense until they hit 34 (which they likely will never do).
I’m certainly not discounting defense. I believe our team generally does very well at considering different strategies and the game theory behind them. We have won events because of it. I think smart defense will be extremely valuable this year. I was just challenging the OP’s assertion that it would be beneficial to do so by “raising the lift and simply sitting in front of an opponent’s rocket” and “If you block the front holes, the best they could do would be attach hatches to the rocket”. The OP made it seem like that would be a winning strategy.
I suggested that a better and more common strategy would be “waiting until they complete part of the ROCKET then coming over to defend it causing them to switch to the other rocket.” And if they don’t switch they may “waste time trying to fight through defense.”
It’s fine if you agree with the OP and not me. If our team were to facing a similar alliance all 3 of our robots would try to outscore the 2 opposing alliance members while their defensive robot was " simply sitting in front of an opponent’s rocket". Hopefully we would win the match because we have 3 scoring bots, we would complete the 1 undefended ROCKET since as stated above they are sitting in front of the other one, and we would get 15 HAB points for 4 RP. The opposing alliance would get their Rocket because we would not risk sending a defensive robot when we have 4 RP locked up if we just play offense.
1 Like
Can confirm. They beat us all the time with superior strategic play! @pntbll1313 is spot on in my opinion. The only thing I would maybe change/add is depending on the composition of my alliance, I might have my weakest cycler focus on pushing your defensive robot into our HAB. At that point it would be 2 cyclers for each alliance but your defensive robot is significantly more likely to incur penalties on my side of the field.
Defense will be a huge part of this game… but so will counter-defense. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are 2nd round picks chosen solely for their ability to “fullback” as I’ve heard a number of Texans say.
You don’t think this is a TAD unfair way to read their original post? Do you REALLY believe they’d sit in front of a single rocket, watch the other rocket being filled, and not switch rockets?
Your strategy only works if that is the action they take. If they take any reasonable action, you’re engaging in a straw man argument that doesn’t really further the conversation. Similarly, I could make another unrealistic scenario where your team scores 0 RP. But, that’s not doing your thoughts or comments justice.
You didn’t actually challenge their assertion without placing unrealistic restraints upon it. It’s not that I agree with OP or you. It’s that you haven’t really joined the conversation.
1 Like
I think some of us are overestimating the average team’s ability to make well thought out/on-the-fly decisions while playing defense.
2 Likes
I’m not sure if they would or not. I’ve coached our team for the last 7 seasons and probably close to 500 matches. I think you’d be surprised what teams think is a good idea in our pre-match strategy discussions. Sitting in front of one of the ROCKETs for an entire match to shut it down would not be the worst idea that has been brought up.
I can see it, even at world’s.
1 Like
I wasn’t suggesting that a team should sit in front of a rocket from the moment the sand storm ends, but rather when they see that the other alliance has a rocket partially completed they could go and sit in front of the rocket blocking the team from scoring. A team could block either hatch side or the ball side and be effective in stopping a team from completing their rocket I believe.
Is it worth not having that robot scoring points FOR their alliance? That would be a discussion to be had with their alliance. I think the defense will be interesting this year regardless of the strategy.