Guess this is the outcome.
An unlimited amount of 1/8”, braided, nylon rope
Guess this is the outcome.
cool, i guess
I should add that it’s not my team.
I’m not sure what to think of this…
Did it work?
I am guessing that this does not work very well. It takes the robot completely out of the ability to score and cannot do a very good job of preventing scoring. There is no defending objects getting pushed under the fence and it looks like throwing a cube onto the net would likely tip the weak side over causing even more problems for the other robot in this team’s alliance.
It was an interesting idea, but it certainly is not a design that breaks the game.
If both sides covered the bottom of the fences and the robot had a way to stop itself from moving backward when in this state, then that possibly could break the game.
Add “if their partner could score” and “if there are no robots that can shoot over it.” And there’s also the problem that stars tangled in the net would count as scored. I’m not sure exactly how it behaves based on the picture but, while I appreciate an attempt to break the game, I don’t see how this could be changed to be workable.
It is definitely an impressive feat of engineering, and I commend those involved.
Catapults be like:
“You have no power here”
I have some concerns about a wallbot which contains nylon rope:
- With the rope Boeing inwards in the middle, you can still dump in that area, so the wallbot isn’t fully protecting your area, so that’s kinda useless.
- How would such a design pass inspections because it’s a violation of the entanglement rule?
- It relies too much on your alliance to score rather than you.
If it were Eliminations, and I was on the red alliance, I’d get myself entangled in that net. DQ on blue.
Well crossing the net to deliberately entangle kicks in another rule methinks:)
OK, “If it were Eliminations, and I was on the red alliance, I’d accidentally get myself entangled in that net. DQ on blue.”
Sweet! I was hoping someone would make a net with this game!
Only change I would make is have the main robot still be a dumper/catapult to be fed from the partner. That way you can still score.
From what I understand, if it’s not on your side of the field it’s your fault, and that could even be construed as you obstructing the net robot. You’re treading on dangerous ground whenever you talk about touching an opponent’s robot on their side of the field, accidental or not.
I am still a bit confused by the SG6 and SG6a rules in these regards. Override is generally an offensive game and entrapment in a knotted net with big holes seems easily snared so marking it defensive. A tighter mesh may not be as much of an entrapment bait. @Rick TYler strategy all the way!
Threads like this one below were about making sure your points stay scored by cutting off zones on the other side, not a net on the side where you operate.
A net seems like an entrapment thing but you should be on the other side of the fence for the most part and be in control of your robot. But a net by definition is supposed to trap things. (as well as divide)
I was (mostly) joking.
OK, then, how does this robot not violate <R3>?
*<R3> The following types of mechanisms and components are NOT allowed:
c. Those that pose an unnecessary risk of entanglement.
A net is, practically by definition, “an unnecessary risk of entanglement.”
If the red robot violates <SG6>, this does not mean that the blue robot is not also committing a violation of <R3>. The DQ of red does NOT automatically mean that blue would not also be disqualified.
There was a ruling some time ago that I’m too lazy to find atm that a design that would, in a normal game, be considered to pose a risk if entanglement would be legal if it stayed on its side of the fence.
I’m paraphrasing from memory, but it was something like that.
I was concerned about <SG7> violation of your suggestion. But you amended it to be “accidentally…”
The wall net is not necessarily a strategy of intentional entanglement, but rather a good defensive strategy on their side of the fence. In this game, it may not be a “unnecessary risk of entanglement” since the offensive team would have to opt to cross the fence and get wrapped into the net.
All speculation until a Q&A looks at that specific scenario.