IMO… if all you have is the “wooden box” then you need to rethink even coming to the field. Your pride in yourself should keep your dead bot off the field.
I agree with this rule change!
To the builders of the “wooden box” well think of it as a learning experience.
Just cause you drive a car don’t mean your ready for NASCAR.
Yeah, yeah… I’ve seen the YMTC. :rolleyes: Poor choice in phrasing on my part. What I meant to say was, just because it is in contact with a game piece, wouldn’t necessarily negate the end game bonus.
Sometimes, you need to swallow your pride and do what’s best for your teammates.
Nothing frustrates me more than when a team has simply accepted that their robot is broken or doesn’t work well and makes no more effort toward improving it. There are people at these events who’re relying on you and have some expectation that you’ll do everything that you can to field a robot – and when you’ve done all that you can, you ought to go find someone else who can do more.
There is no rule against having tube manipulators either. So you are saying it would be OK for the GDC next week to outlaw those? And ramps the week after?
The GDC is setting a dangerous precident here by stating in the Q&A that there is no rule against it (therefore tacidly accepting the strategy) and then outlawing it 3 weeks into the competition AFTER a team successfully used the strategy.
Personally, I think Wildsatg and their alliance partners should share the Xerox creativity award for useing such a unorthodox strategy successfully.
But thats JMHO.
This should only be considered after all other options have been exhausted. There should never be any distinction based on robot design that should keep a robot from taking the field. Every team should make it one of their top priorities to make sure every team can play and have an enjoyable weekend. That goes double for rookies. An event should be a learning experience coupled with fun or this won’t work. We must say to ourselves “leaving a robot in the pit is not an option”.
One thing that the GDC has designed into the game is the ability for any robot design to have a function in this game. Whether it be purely defensive, purely offensive or a full up, does everything, robot. No robot can win alone for the majority of the matches. The GDC has made a good game for all robots and human players alike, and I think we have to applaud them on this account. Once the game is chosen, modifying it for all of these factors is the real challenge.
Whats next?
[SARCASM]
Team Update # 19: No defense allowed. You must get out of anyone’s way to let them score. The game isn’t going how we wanted it, so we are changing things half way through so people will play the game the way we want.
[/SARCASM]
Oh, wait, that almost happened in 2005.
Most probably true.
It is clear that the intent of the game is for the bonus points to be scored by the action of the robots, not by humans stacking them before the match begins.
IMO this rule change is mostly benign, and only serves to preserve the “intent” of the game.
Then why didn’t they preserve this intent of the game back in January when the question was asked?
Most here are upset only because their feathers were first ruffled by the TU#16 fiasco. I would agree that was a serious mistake by FIRST which would have had a devastating impact on many teams … but fortunately has now also been corrected.
You’re right. Without the uproar from a couple weeks ago, this would be only a small tempest in a teacup.
We should all let this go, and MOVE ON …
Unfortunately, if we just move on, it will be business as usual. Others have pointed out absurd rulings that the GDC could make at any time - and I don’t believe they ever would make such rulings. The point is that they can, any time they want. And issue it without any explanation except, “Because I said so.”
Rules can be tweaked to make them consistent with other rules. Updates can be issued for important issues - Banebots, IFI radio. Teams can be reminded of best-practice issues, such as how your ramp contacts the floor in Update 11, which didn’t change a rule but amplified the existing rule. They can correct obvious misprints (parts lists) or unclear wording (ringer direction through the chute). Even in the first half of build season, I’d be accepting of a new rule that changes game strategy or robot build, due to an oversight that created a huge loophole.
The argument everyone is having is that FIRST is making these arbitrary decisions so late in the season. FIRST isn’t big enough to be a bureaucracy - why do they act like one?
Most probably true.
It is clear that the intent of the game is for the bonus points to be scored by the action of the robots, not by humans stacking them before the match begins.
IMO this rule change is mostly benign, and only serves to preserve the “intent” of the game.
Then why didn’t they preserve this intent of the game back in January when the question was asked?[/quote]
I can’t argue with that logic, however I feel that was the mistake … TU#18 is how it was fixed.
Remember, it is explicitly stated that the Q&A is NOT official. I will concede there is a problem with that since all answers are signed “GDC”. I fully agree with those who would ask what good the Q&A system is if the teams can’t rely on the GDC answers. But that is a completely separate issue.
[quote]Most here are upset only because their feathers were first ruffled by the TU#16 fiasco. I would agree that was a serious mistake by FIRST which would have had a devastating impact on many teams … but fortunately has now also been corrected.
You’re right. Without the uproar from a couple weeks ago, this would be only a small tempest in a teacup.
We should all let this go, and MOVE ON …
Unfortunately, if we just move on, it will be business as usual. Others have pointed out absurd rulings that the GDC could make at any time - and I don’t believe they ever would make such rulings. The point is that they can, any time they want. And issue it without any explanation except, "Because I said so."
Rules can be tweaked to make them consistent with other rules. Updates can be issued for important issues - Banebots, IFI radio. Teams can be reminded of best-practice issues, such as how your ramp contacts the floor in Update 11, which didn’t change a rule but amplified the existing rule. They can correct obvious misprints (parts lists) or unclear wording (ringer direction through the chute). Even in the first half of build season, I’d be accepting of a new rule that changes game strategy or robot build, due to an oversight that created a huge loophole.
The argument everyone is having is that FIRST is making these arbitrary decisions so late in the season. FIRST isn’t big enough to be a bureaucracy - why do they act like one?[/quote]
Unfortunately, as with many situations in life, that is entirely true. The only real recourse we have is to pack up our toys and go home. I prefer to play …
We can debate “principle” and offer “what-if’s” all day long. I know that any decision to publish a rules change is NOT taken lightly by the GDC. These are NOT “arbitrary” changes … Every imaginable scenario is discussed and hashed out in an attempt to understand the full impact of the proposed change. The problem is, as Dave has stated numerous times (paraphrased), it’s 10 brains (defining the game) vs. 30,000 (dissecting it for “loopholes”) … and 30,000 will always win …
I often think I would like to be part of the GDC … but then something like this comes along and I see how ungrateful some people are. I believe most of us share a real passion for this program … for the RIGHT REASONS. Let’s keep the big picture in focus and not forget why we are all here.
Ok, in my opinion (emphasis on the opinion part… don’t hurt me), I believe the main difference between these counter examples, and the issue at hand is that this update in all likeliness is not going to affect any team’s main strategy. Outlawing manipulators? Over 1/2 the teams would be out of commission… same goes for the other examples.
I understand that the timing of this update seems a little ‘after the fact’, but once again, I really don’t think it will affect the game play very much. I’m pretty sure the GDC is not out to get you… they just want to make sure the game is fair and interesting for you, the players and also the spectators.
I applaud Wildstang for their creativity, and any other team that attempted this strategy, but I do not thing that outlawing it will seriously impact any team’s personal strategy. Hopefully they will not be stuck in a similar position again, and if they are, perhaps they will come up with an equally creative solution.
Now i’ve kept up with most of what has been going on since this update was released. A lot of people are talking about it disrupting a teams strategy, however that is not the biggest concern here.
Everyone should be concerned with the GDC committee creating rules halfway through the season that affects teams that cannot compete in a certain match. I must once again bring up the issue of the Wildstang match. Both of their partners were ‘broken’ (i use that loosely because i do not know exactly what was wrong with them). However Wildstang and that alliance decided to place the 2 robots that could not operate onto the field in an orientation that would eventually give their alliance a 30 point bonus. Now this is not a garunteed bonus, because a robot may enter the opponents homezone at anytime before the last 15 seconds. Given that this team disabled themselves to make sure they would not move and cost them the 30 point bonus, one of the 3 teams could have easily driven over to the homezone and push them out, causing the 30 point bonus to disappear.
As far as i can see there should not be an issue of where or how a robot starts the match. FIRST is about inspiring, and if you spend one match just sitting on top of a robot and helping your alliance win just 1 match, that is more inspiring than sitting in the pits unable to fix the problems you are experienceing with your robot. (believe me i have seen it all in FIRST both as a mentor and as a high school student)
But come on, I must reitterate this once more. This is not about winning or losing, its about the GDC creating rules that a formal representative of theirs said in the FIRST Q&A did not exist. The rules need to be set up, and clarified within the first couple of weeks of the build to prevent issues such as this from happening. Rules should not be changed after Regional Competition starts.
And a note for those that think we should let this go.
We are the customer, it is our responsiblity to voice our concerns when we see something that we do not like.
This situation is nothing new to many of you folks who have been involved with FIRST for more then a few years. So why the “uproar” if you could even call it that? I could see much more of a legit gripe with Update 16 issues, but this just seems to be nit picking. Its an almost non-existent strategy that has seen use in less then 5 matches in the “1500” that have been played already this year. So why can’t people seem to drop the whole discussion?
Also, their was only 1 known phone call made to FIRST about the previous update 16 issue. If it was such a hot button, why such a lackluster response from teams?
Please give some benefit of a doubt to the GDC in the Q and A. At least when I read the Q and A I assumed that a robot would be placed a reasonable distance above the ground. Say …a little over 12 inches to get 30 points, wouldn’t that be OK? What happens when a 6’ high robot sits on top of a 6’ high robot? If that combination was pushed to the side and the upper robot fell off, how far into the isles would it land? Judges table? TV camera operator? Ref? What if the upper robot were to fall over the 6’6" alliance station wall while a defending robot was trying to push 230lbs + out of the end zone? For me it comes down to basic safety. I applaud 111, 1755, 1850 for thinking outside the box. I also applaud the GDC for recognizing what could be a safety factor IMO and preventing it before something bad happens. Besides, how many teams out there said hey, we want to build a robot that sits on top of another robot for 30 points? No body is realistically going to be hurt (pun intended) by making this change.
Chief Delphi is a wonderful place for discussions regarding topics pertaining to FIRST but it isn’t FIRST. I would think that if folks want to voice complaints regarding updates, that they would contact FIRST directly.
There is nothing more depressing than finsihing below a team in the standings that never came out of the pits like what happened to us in 2002.
It was very clever to discover the loophole but it needed to be changed.Have a little pride and put some effort into your points.
It may be depressing, but its part of the game. I know i wouldn’t like finishing below nonfunctional teams, but obviously this wouldn’t even be a factor. The thing is, if at this point another update came out saying that stacking is ok, then it should never be used. So many people on CD and amongst each other have discussed the fact that this strategy is RIDICULOUSLY EASY TO STOP. You slide them out. Or even better, you drag them across the full field into your home zone, thus incurring 60 points of penalties against the opposing alliance. That, in many matches, will guarantee you at least a tie, if not a win. It’s not something to be legislated. its not required that teams have a drive train, but its something that people realize is fairly necessary. Teams will realize that stacking is not practical. It’s a last ditch effort.
Well of course, but the assumption I was making was that this was only a strategy that would have been used if an alliance had 2 dead robots and thus there would not be a third partner to push one dead robot onto a ramp/lift (assuming one of the robots had a ramp/lift).
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=1280
If this isn’t the GDC changing the game midseason, I don’t know what is. If it was a mistake in the rules they could have fixed it two months ago. If the GDC’s repeated willingness to change the rules midseason isn’t enough of a problem, the fact that they do it to prevent a situation that has happened so rarely and really hardly warrants prevention in any way…
If.
The fact that it happened so rarely isn’t the issue here. The new rule was made by the GDC to avoid having stacked robots become common. I don’t think that the GDC envisioned this as a game strategy - even after ship date. I think that getting 30 easy points by basically doing nothing is not good for the game. The GDC recognized this and put an end to it.
I’ve asked this before, but nobody has answered:
Would you put your FUNCTIONAL robot on top of another and sit there for the entire match to “earn” 30 points?
If so, then why spend six weeks building a robot that does nothing??? I could do that in a day.
I don’t see why you’d ask the question of the case of the functional robot. The nature of the game makes scoring/defending then getting on top of a bot a better choice than sitting on top the whole time, if possible.
At any rate, I find it hard to believe that the GDC couldn’t have envisioned this when it was mentioned and responded to by the GDC in Q&A days after kickoff (see the link in my previous post…)
This, like several other recent GDC decisions are changing the game for poor reasons. The rule regarding tubes under ramps is flat out lawyering and in contradiction to the spirit of several other rules.
This rule, while it would have been fine early in build season, is completely unwarranted now. It doesn’t break the game. It would probably rarely to never decide the course of elimination matches, and if a team wins a qual match on it, they deserve it for designing a robot such that there is space to do this and recognizing the usefulness of this strategy. Nothing there outweighs the negative impact of changing the game this late.