In Q&A 14 ( FIRST FRC Q&A System ) it states there is nothing preventing a robot from blocking either the Rocket or the Cargo Ship form the entire match (except the las 20 seconds) this strategy seem viable but only to prevent the other alliance from getting a ranking point not from winning the match.
What is your opinion on this strategy from both sides being applied to you or applying it.
The defense has a place in any game. The problem with a dedicated defender is they are not scoring themselves usually so its 2 v 3 on offense if the defender can take out 1 then its 2 v 2 if the defender can take out 2 bots then its 1 v 2 and the odds shift in favor of defending
2 Likes
I think that if you play defense of the rocket it should be on the 2nd and 3rd levels where it takes more time and skill to place. If you delay a placement it could help out.
1 Like
I think it’s reasonable to have a week one chassis bot spend some time parking in front of the rocket. Teams that can’t “launch” cargo and hatch panels will be disabled. Defense is palyed linearly and will Ben pretty effective in this regard.
Mobile defense is better than static defense, especially when you are limited to one defender and have two vulnerabilities.
That said, I’m thinking even more that the best use of your one defender is to slow down the fastest-scoring robot(s) on the other alliance, independent of whether it’s on the rocket or the cargo ship. In quals, getting a rocket is a big deal to the offensive alliance, but not really a big deal to the defensive alliance. As a defender, I’d rather slow match point scoring as much as possible to improve my alliance’s chances at the zero-sum victory RPs; denying a non-zero-sum RP to the other alliance is definitely secondary.
3 Likes
Don’t forget, there are two Rockets and two Loading Stations available to an Alliance to work with. Blockading might slow things down, but parking an Alliance’s robot in front of one of the other Alliance’s Rocket is only going to hurt the blockading Alliance, IMHO…
As others have mentionned, an effective defense will require mobility to disrupt not the access to a Rocket, Loading Station or Cargo Ship, but the opposing Alliance’s traffic flow itself.
Robots with 120" frame perimeter, with upto 30" extension all around, hmm…
Presumably you’re talking about the scorer, as the defender must remain in his FRAME PERIMETER on the far side of the field. Note that many defenders will have a “bumper perimeter” in excess of 144", allowing them to be 36"x36" or 30"x42" or a hair larger at the bumpers.
Edit: Oh, and remember that the scorer has to reach 3+" beyond the frame perimeter before reaching the bumper perimeter of the defender!
Got me on that one.
Match scoring wise, yes, there are plenty of alternative locations to go to.
But a smart defense bot in the mid to late match could easily disrupt ideal scoring. Ex- hatch panel is placed by offense bot, offense bot goes to get cargo, defense bot sits in front of that bay to prevent cargo delivery.
The more serious concern I see is it seems very easy to prevent an alliances ability to get the rocket RP by letting them start working on, and commit to, one rocket and then just go and sit in front of the middle of that ship for the remainder of the match, either slowing them down to the point of not finishing it or more than likely forcing them to go score elsewhere to ensure the win.
My point is - what is the value of preventing the rocket RP of the opposing alliance? Sure, It’ll bring up those teams’ averages a sixth or seventh or eighth of a point, and bring up the event’s average a few percent of a point, but going after enough match points to win is more than worth giving up a “stray” ranking point that doesn’t mean much to you.
1 Like
Certainly depends. But I can imagine a scenario of two top 8 teams competing for positioning playing against each other. Is it not viable to consider, pretty easily, to make sure that the opposing alliance does not secure the extra ranking point while trying to win?
Depending on the strength of the alliance, just 20 seconds of having a partner block the opposing alliances rocket that they commit to may be enough to keep them from being able to complete the cycles needed to finish it.
I’m not trying to say this makes the game broken. I was just trying to say, In my opinion, it’s a little too easy to stop the completion of a rocket ship.
Just extend out 30” either side and make a wall around the rocket and sit there the whole match so they only have 1 rocket which will create a lot of traffic around the opposite rocket and feeder station between 1-2 robots trying to fill the rocket and another 1 trying to fill cargo ship
This is illegal per G10 because you cannot extend outside your frame perimeter if your bumpers are completely beyond the cargo ship line (line down the middle of the field). While defense on the rocket is perfectly okay, your method is not.
3 Likes
Initially, you’d need to follow the opposing alliance hatch robot to whichever one they are going to and badger them to delay attachment. Then start defending the one they are actively working on. You can safely ignore the other rocket until it reaches equal amount of completion.
Cargo only robots will be expected to play defense in the first 30-45 seconds until hatch panels are on. The obvious thing is to delay deployment of any arm until after defending.
So at T-minus 30 your robot rams the rocket and a hatch panel that’s not fully secure falls off. I believe this is fair play even though you are not allowed to de-score, you’re not directly hitting the hatch and it was in fact never properly secure. Unlikely to work during elims but might work during quals depending on the quality of hatch attachment mechanisms.
Defense is a always a tricky proposition. Consider how a defensive robot could do better than a net-sum-zero contribution to an alliance. With two rockets available you might have to get pretty creative.
What about the danger of incurring a G4 violation while playing defense against a rocket while your opponents attempt to score over top of you? Specifically thinking of ball-shooters which aren’t restricted on shooting distance. It’s harder to aim and score from across a defending robot, so there’s a non-zero chance of getting a cargo lodged from above. And if there are hatch-bots with the right reach, a non-zero chance of a dropped hatch falling into the defender. There is a rule against intentionally placing pieces in an opponents robot to get them to incur a violation, but it would seem fair to lay the blame on a defender in a situation where the offensive robot is trying to score. That could make a sit-and-defend robot of limited use if that strategy starts to incur yellow cards. Thoughts?
This is where rules may be up to interpretation from the referees. The referees may argue that one team was try to cause the other to commit fouls, or they may say that it was all with intentions of scoring and dismiss it. IMO launching a panel 2-3 feet trying to land it on a 2 inch sweet spot with any level of accuracy may be unreasonable from a scoring standpoint and may draw a yellow card if the robot does not try to re-position the defending robot beforehand. As long as you show some intention of scoring and not just rush straight to place it on the defending robot you should be fine.
As for the effectiveness of blocking the rocket, you have to play your cards correctly. The trick to playing defense as for blocking points here is not to fully block your opponents. Let them dedicate to one rocket over the other, and then choose to defend on the one they dedicated to. Block them from scoring on the rocket but let a few points slide here or there. This will cause the opposing alliance to keep going for the ranking point and allow for effective defense for the entire game reducing as many points as possible. Play defense too easily, they will get the RP and leave. Play defense too hard, they will give up and leave. A good driver will be able to balance these extremes and block a large number of points.
Don’t take any game pieces with you when you go to defend. The likelihood of two game pieces falling into your control before you can get rid of the first is pretty low, unless the other side is violating C8 (Don’t expect to gain by doing others harm),
1 Like
Well sure. I do think the defensive strategy posed by the OP does run a greater risk of a G4 violation over time even if C8 isn’t being violated as well. If the likelihood of 2 pieces being accidentally lodged is low in a situation where robots are releasing pieces over top your robot for the purpose of scoring, then the whole discussion over G4 violations in the Update 03 thread would seem silly 
It seems like a risk that teams should evaluate before attempting to do so, but may depend on a lot of factors.