For those of you who haven’t seen this years FTC game here is the animation:
Now we constantly bring up the similarities between games such as Aim High and Rebound Rumble. But it seems like Ring It Up is just Rack n’ Roll without the moving Rack in the center but everything else is the same from a game design standpoint to name a few:
Autonomous game pieces are the only ones who stay scoreable in the line
The raising of the robots in the end game
The round individual colored game pieces
I may be wrong but what is Delphi’s opinion of this game and it’s similarities to Rack n’ Roll ( if you haven’t seen that game here is a link to that animation as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khTGSKvDyS4)
The scoring system isn’t even remotely close to how scoring was operated in 2007. Just because it has rings and a rack doesn’t mean it’s a similar game.
There weren’t line “bonuses” in 2007, you only got points for rows, and the scoring progressed exponentially. A “row” of one tube was worth 2 point, a row of two was worth 4 points, a row of three was worth 8, etc. These bonuses are much closer to the tic-tac-toe style of 2005 than they are to 2007, though the highest tetra placed awarded control of a goal in that game rather than the largest quantity of scoring objects. In 2007, scoring on a peg guaranteed you ownership unless the peg was spoiled. The opponent couldn’t place more ringers on that peg to attempt to negate it, unlike this FTC game or FRC in 2005.
Lifting robots in the end game only had two scoring levels in 2007, and didn’t reward you for lifting further beyond that threshold.
There may be some surface level similarities, but in terms of game theory these games aren’t very similar.
The scoring is more like 2005, since points are given for the relative positions of the game pieces as well as their presence. This seems like an interesting game (and a hard one). I think many robots will barely be able to score, but the good ones will be very impressive.
The scoring system is very different (and more complicated), but it’s more than just rings and a rack. White autonomous keepers, owning pegs (total tubes instead of spoilers), tic-tac-toe-like completion vertically/horizontally/diagonally, playing on the other side of the rack… make match approaches between the two much more similar than, say, LogoMotion (which really is mostly a surface similarity). It also resembles Triple Play perhaps more closely, especially in terms of scoring and grid layout. However, this misses some critical strategic aspects like swinging around the rack, that are better exemplified in Rack 'n Roll.
As for the elevation, I’m not into FTC kit (or even VEX now) but I’ll be interested to see what sorts of liftee robots the exponential rule creates. By and large, a fully-equipped robot could be lifted to maximum point bonus in Rack 'n Roll. I picture some really small box bots for rookies to be lifted the way the FTC crates were last year.
I suspect that question, and many others, are answered in the Game Manual. Read it first, and if you still have questions read it again. You’ll ask much better questions, and waste much less time overall, if you do it that way instead of the other way around.
I’m sorry if my question didn’t meet your minimum requirements. Before posting the question though I did read the game manual. In fact, I’ve read it a few times so far and will probably read it quite a few times more before we reach competition. Lifting was not defined.
You obviously know not the answer to my question and could have saved everyone some time by not replying at all.
James, Thanks for a straight forward response, but that rule only talks about the final position of the ‘lifted’ robot and not how the robot became ‘lifted’. If we interpreted that rule as meaning anyway we could get our robot supported by a partner’s robot is acceptable, than making a robot able to jump onto another robot would be acceptable, no? (not that I am suggesting this solution. ::ouch:: ) Usual lifting implies an active role and lifted implies a passive role. This view is supported by this line in the same paragraph you quoted:
During the End Game (and not before), Robots may lift their Alliance partner’s Robot above the Playing Field floor to receive Lifting Bonus points.
Supplying a ramp seems more like a way to enable a partner’s robot to lift itself and not actually doing the lift.
As an FRC referee for many years, I have seen the rules used and abused, interpreted and skewed in many ways. I refereed the match when Wildstangs stacked one non-functioning robot on top of another non-functioning robot at the beginning of the match in order to get the lift bonus. While legal at that point in the competition, a new rule was added by the next week detailing that all robots must start each match touching the floor.
This years FTC rules prevent such by not giving the Lifting Bonus if the lift started before the End Game. Assuming that a ramp is acceptable, does this mean if my Robot deploys its ramp before the End Game to allow my Alliance partner maximum time to roll up on it during the End Game that my Robot started the lift before the End Game? Is that different than deploying, let’s say, a fork lift mechanism prior to End Game? The fork lift mechanism would not actively be lifting until it was placed beneath the Alliance partner’s Robot and made contact with it where the ramp deployment would immediately enable ‘lifting’ as soon as it is deployed.
Yes, I tend to look at rules and their interpretations closer than most people. As a referee for many years I looked at them to see how the rules were going to be abused by the teams. Finally, as a second year mentor, I get to look at them to see how my team can make the maximum use of the rules. Raul has taught me well
That rule defines the conditions for receiving the Lifting Bonus. It does not specify method, and neither do any other rules I saw. It doesn’t even say that the partner’s Robot must actually “lift” the lifted Robot; it says only that it must fully (and exclusively) support it.
If you still don’t believe that a passive ramp applies, you’re apparently assuming something that isn’t in the rules. That box you think you see is only an illusion.
I think the reason this came up is the actual use of the work lifted vs elevated. Lifted implies a result of being lifted (verb) and elevated is typically translated as a position of something relative to other objects.
I am not saying that a ramp is not legal, but if you drive up on a ramp, to the top of a bot, you were not lifted there, even though you are now elevated above the playing surface.
Makes me wonder why the GDC chose the wording they did.