Because it’s one louda?
Sorry, couldn’t resist… 
Why don’t you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?
Make it loud indeed.
I approve the last 4 posts.
Well, since you asked…
I would have replaced the boulders with totes, the outer defenses with scoring platforms, and the midline with a step.
That’s right, more Recycle Rush!!! Most exciting game ever!
jk - I think I would rather watch grass grow.
While many teams shots might not be blockable, those tall opaque robots might happen to block many teams vision tracking systems. Most of the systems are mounted down low, so maybe courtyard defenders won’t be entirely useless?
I mean you’re technically right, but if your tall opaque robot was previously a short, defense-crossing robot and you cheesecaked on a wall, you might run the issue of being called for purposely obstructing their vision from R9C.
IIRC, most refs will tend to favor the offensive robot in those calls, and your alliance risks failing inspection if the RI believes that your blocker exists for more than boulder blocking.
From the Q&A and related discussion, my understanding was that if your blocker exists for blocking shots, the cheesecaked wall would be perfectly legal.
If the cheesecake wall exists singularly to block/interfere with cameras, it wouldn’t be allowed.
EDIT-
To get this post back on topic, If I were the GDC I would eliminate rules based on intent. Things either happen or they don’t, but there’s quite a bit that we didn’t mean to do.
Your interpretation is correct, but how do you create the line between an expansive shot blocker and a wall to block cameras?
If I was to grab a 4’x4’ sheet of black fabric and create a frame for it such that it widened my blocking wall for boulders, I could make the argument that its purpose is to increase blocking surface area, but the opposing alliance could claim that your ulterior motive is to mess with their camera.
From the Q&A
A. A device which is not specifically intended to interfere with the remote sensing capabilities of another ROBOT, but merely happens to be in the way of that ROBOT sensing a desired object, while intended for other functions(such as blocking shots), would not be a violation of R9-C.
If your camera is mounted low then you knew the possibility existed for someone to drive in front of you. Its probably better if we don’t make this another intent rule, where an official has to try to figure out what your team is thinking.
The RI’s will ask the team if they intended it to block shots, or obscure the ability of vision tracking.
If they say that it is only meant to block shots, then it will be allowed.
This happened at the NEDCMP, where a team added a blocker of Lexan, but the kept the opaque protective covering on it.
It was allowed.
But I sort of agree with you assertion that if you have a vision system mounted low, it may be blocked.
We’ll see how this plays out in two weeks.
I see a lot of robots making contact initially inside the bumper zone and then getting wedged over/under leading to inadvertent tipping. I would change the bumper rules so teams can make taller than 5 inch bumpers as long as they have 5 inch bumpers within the bumper zone. Teams would be place the bumpers outside of the 4-12 inches as long as 5 inches is always within the zone. In other words, teams can stack 2 noodles to create a standard 5" bumpers. Maybe cap the total height at 5inches.
I would also require robots to have 5"inches of bumper within the bumper zone when 100 or so pounds of force is applied to each side of the robot. Inspectors can check this relatively easily. This would help in situations where robots tilt back and forth from change in directions and their center wheel drops, and then their bumper heights change.
Get rid of the audience-selected defense. Yeah, it’s fun, I know. Maybe I’m just lazy, but it’s a lot of work to make sure you’re cheering for the right one, and it cripples defense selection strategy. There’s so many things that can be done with defense selection that are eliminated by taking away the control of slot 3.
Get rid of category C defenses. Pretend the GDC never created it.
And for all events currently and in the future, the dumb white line in front of driver stations. I hate seeing DS’s flying off the supporting platform from robots ramming the wall.
Isn’t the velcro there to STOP DS’s from flying off the platforms? Or is it not effective enough?
If a robot runs full speed into the driver station wall? Not even close to enough.
The white line is there because back when auto was introduced, people immediately started thinking of ways to control their robots in auto. (There are threads on this, I’ve seen a couple of them.) So the GDC at the time put that line in. The idea is that you can reach your controls if you really need to, but the refs have a chance at seeing you do so.
And, there is NOTHING preventing you from taking actions to save your controls.
For the Category C defenses, I’d go with use different defenses. They did have other defenses on the drawing boards… Anybody want to try a rolling log or a spinning table? (One of those two was on the list, if I recall the podcast on that correctly…)
With respect to the vision/shot blocking, had a team at one event I reffed at show up with an improvised blocker: a volleyball net on a PVC frame. Great, it’s see-through, they passed inspection no problem. The next match they came out and it was covered with painter’s tape. That got the head ref asking questions. The tape didn’t appear again after that match…
There might be tweaks like the ones suggested, but the GDC got this one right. Funny after the snoozer last year.
I like that the capture has to happen with all 3 robots in place. I still would like the GDC to send out a notice in September that a game will require that ALL 3 bots will need to accomplish a task to gain significant points. That would encourage teams to work together in the preseason.