Game Manual Updates Discussion

I’m moderately concerned about the sizing rule of 36" diameter, but that’s mostly because I haven’t started building enough to be sure that that’s enough space for one of our robot ideas. I’m rather ambivalent about the two robots in tandem rule, though that’s hinging on something I’m not sure has been clarified: the rule states two robots cannot do those actions, but can a single robot by itself still do those actions? I hope that a single robot is still allowed to play defense in a “1v1” sort of fashion, because I think defensive elements will make this game very interesting.

I’m moderately concerned about the sizing rule of 36" diameter, but that’s mostly because I haven’t started building enough to be sure that that’s enough space for one of our robot ideas. I’m rather ambivalent about the two robots in tandem rule, though that’s hinging on something I’m not sure has been clarified: the rule states two robots cannot do those actions, but can a single robot by itself still do those actions? I hope that a single robot is still allowed to play defense in a “1v1” sort of fashion, because I think defensive elements will make this game very interesting.

  1. As tabor pointed out this makes things really difficult for VEXU robots. And besides that, why does the GDC dislike defense so much? It makes the game more interesting and promotes creativity and better strategy. I would LOVE to have a chance to play against a 127C style robot this year. It would be a really high-risk-high-reward strategy and would encourage me to make more versatile mechanisms.
  2. I agree, how the heck is this to be enforced? And also, once again, why does this need to be prevented? Such a strategy would not score many points and would only really block off one portion of the field, thus allowing the other alliance to score points. IMO this only reduces the creative strategies that are legal, while not preventing anything bad…
  3. I don’t like this. Having competed in FTC where there are similar rules it is simply not fun to drive a robot while constantly in fear of being penalized for simply driving. In theory it’s easy to determine intent, in practice not so much.
  4. I like this, though “interact” needs more clarification. For example can I make a claw that grabs a stack? What if the weight of the stack is no longer supported by the base, but is still nested?
  5. Meh. Though I like creative designs, I think this rule was necessary because I’m pretty sure the GDC wanted a vertical stacking game, not a horizontal one.

What he means by 127C-style robot:

So you already couldn’t expand to block off most of the field (which was my initial thought after seeing the game reveal but not yet being able to go through the rules).

Thanks, should have linked that in my post. I was more talking about defense overall. I know a 127C style robot wasn’t possible since April.

Seems like the manual update kills any chance of defense and makes the expansion limit even smaller by making it a diameter :/. Also, rip vex u

Agreed. How is VEXU supposed to have outriggers?

Oh gosh… lightning do strike twice!!
Our 48" wallbot… 2 days before singvex… :frowning:

Are you sure you have to abide by these new rules instantly? I would assume vex would include a buffer period allowing teams to adjust to the new rules before they are fully enforced…

RIP

Would have been nice if they could have given some indication of their plans with an answer 5 weeks ago . . .
https://vexforum.com/t/answered-sg14-expansion-67-diagonal/41510/1

I am disappointed but not surprised.

The 36" rule totally changes the game strategy, especially offence. With the old rule it would have been possible to have a robot with a very long arm that could pick cones off the feeder (and much of the field) and then place them onto any mobile goal in the scoring zone, without moving the drivetrain. With the new rule, that’s not possible. You won’t even be able to have an arm that can reach the 20 point goal without driving into the 10 point zone.

The 48x48 rule would have led to interesting robots and really challenging arm designs. It’s great when the GDC comes up with games that force teams outside of their comfort zone. Creating extremely long arms that don’t fall apart would have pushed the thinking. It would have been nice.

sigh… we really thought this time round we will be safe to just build a 48" wallbot :frowning:

anyway, i will see if the team can take a simple video of the wallbot before dismantling…
It is actually pretty cool - it blocked the access to the zones totally plus the stationary goal as well.

That really sucks. And the second time in a row too…
Come on GDC, pay attention to these types of things. Changing major rules two days before a national championship simply isn’t fair.

Wow, 2 years in a row. That really sucks, especially 2 days before nationals.

The four biggest problems I see in the rules in general are:

  1. A tendency to restrict the design space and force design convergence.
  2. A tendency to limit interaction between opposing teams.
  3. A tendency to limit offensive and especially defensive strategies.
  4. A tendency to make rules that are impossible or harmful to enforce.

Many of the rules for this game and VEX games in general are important and necessary. It isn’t much of a game if it is a free-for-all. But rules should be minimized as much as possible to allow the competitors to explore as many design and strategy options as possible, and in so doing, learn as much as possible.

Many of the rules feel like the GDC had an idea in mind of what a match would look like in robot design and in game play, and did not want anyone to deviate from that vision. It is approaching a point where the tournament will be pointless and all that will be left is the skills challenge. I do not want to see them become the same, or for either one to take the place of the other. They are both important challenges, and the tournament needs to be allowed to deviate from the GDC’s expectations so that worlds is not a collection of 600 nearly identical robots.

I would like to see:

  1. Descoring.
  2. Hoarding.
  3. Defense.
  4. Cooperation within alliances.
  5. Competition between alliances.
  6. Wide range of design and strategy options.

Each year there are a few outstanding teams that find a design or strategy that is legal, successful and uniquely creative, and then the GDS does its best to prohibit that from happening the next year. I would love to see a competition where a match frequently consists of 4 completely unrelated designs and strategies, but adding more rules will continue to take us farther and farther away from that happening.

I am very disappointed in this years game decisions. I was excited about the game when it was reveled, but now there are words I want to call the game but cannot say in this arena.
Taking defense out of a game mood killer!
Making it to where you cannot run an alliance defense… really!!! I just can’t get over this.
I look at FTC and see an environment where the rules are forcing you to almost do ballet moves around things to be nice to the game objects.
The hoarding thing? OMG… I just don’t get it. Let the teams strategize and solve these issues themselves. So If my teams are traveling across the filed and cones get in front of the goal for whatever reason… we could be penalized… really? OMG… this is going to be bad!

Where is the creativity? Now it seems like we will all be the same again. I am just frustrated and already have a bad taste in my mouth about this game.

I also agree, the hoarding rule isn’t the greatest. I believe that the GDC wants this rule to prevent the winning strategy from being that of Nothing But Net, where most teams pushed all the balls into their home zone.

In general I agree with what everyone else is saying. I don’t think it’s going to be horrible, but starting with the Q&As and now with the manual update they have taken away a lot of interesting possibilities.

  1. How did we go from a 48" square (or at least 48" in one direction) to a 36" cylinder? I could understand a 48" cylinder, but where did those extra 12 inches go? Why did the GDC decide to make this change? Was it just arbitrary? Was 48" just a number that they threw out a few months ago as a placeholder until they came up with an actual number, or did they get some new information that caused the change? Regarding the comment about offensive robots not ever getting close to this, I’d say that’s not true and they had better make an allowance for VEXU. But if they were going to make an allowance for VEXU why haven’t they already? Did they just forget about us?

  2. Karthik warned us about this: it really was a secret rule It bothers me how vague this rule is, but I don’t think it will be too subjective in practice simply because I don’t think the situations in which it would come into play will happen that often. I could easily be proven wrong though, especially if we are given dodgy Q&A answers cough sg6a last season cough. I’m guessing it’s going to be the standard deal where if you are scoring it’s fine, but if you are obviously just sitting there to block access, then it’s not.

  3. Again this is vague and could make enforcement hard, but again probably won’t be a problem in practice. Unless you have bad referees. Then, they could blow some of these rules way out of proportion; the rules should be written in such a way to make that not possible.

  4. Ok, but what about a mobile goal tilted in a robot?

In general, like others have said, the GDC apparently has a specific vision for how they want the game play to look and they feel it’s necessary to make rules that ensure it is played that way. It’s understandable to make rules that prevent the game from being “broken” by a particular strategy, but they are going too far by eliminating strategies that are viable and interesting, but not so over-powered as to break the game.

It also annoys me that they didn’t plan this better. Many of these topics were obvious (like the size restriction and pushing cones) and I don’t know why the GDC didn’t include them in the original manual. How much longer do we have to wait until we find out whether VEXU is truly limited to 36" (because that’s huge) and what other bombshells are they going to drop in August?

After these updates, which almost eliminate interaction between opposing alliances, the least the GDC could do is to allow some sort of descoring-we deserve it. I am thinking that descoring should be allowed only on stationary goals if cones are descored 1 at a time. Also, the highest stack bonus could be worth more for stationary goals. This overall makes ITZ more strategic, makes it so the game won’t end when all 80 cones are stacked, and also spreads the action in the field out. What I mean by spreading the action out is how the game right now has almost all of the action going on in the corners of the field by having the majority of the cones and the zones located in the corners. This rule would bring the game into focus in the center and in the corners, making the gameplay spread out. With some tweaks, i think ITZ could be the best game yet, however in order to be the best, some major game rules need to be tweaked in the manual update in August.