I highly doubt they will add anything because there are already too many cones in my opinion
I suggest looking at my posts over on this thread, paying most attention to the last five posts (my last four in there):
One thing to note is that maximizing the change in vertical height of the 4-bar is not the same as maximizing the angle. That’s because to get a bigger angle you want the bars spaced farther apart, if the farther apart they are the less the lower bar can reach up (which tells you the height change measured from the floor). So there is a trade-off. 4-bars want to be somewhat close together (ballpark 4", though it does vary with set-up), while 6-bars want to be somewhat far apart (ballpark 8.5", again varying).
The whole point of the clause in the manual is to ensure that there will not be down time at worlds, as there was in Nothing but Net. I think that the GDC learned from Nothing but Net, and thought of this as a potential solution to that same problem this year. If the math is done out, each robot only has to average ~6 seconds per cone, which in my opinion is entirely possible, and I’d go as far as saying will be achieved by November/December-ish. I definitely expect the GDC to add more cones. Maxx from 400X gave a convincing argument in another thread about why you only need to be able to do 13 cones on a mobile goal, and I personally will be designing my robot to be able to do at least 16 cones for comfort’s sake and so that I don’t get screwed by the GDC when they add more.
They don’t need to add more cones.
All they need to do is to allow descoring of one cone at a time. This will Ensure there is no down time.
A much easier and elegant way to solve the problem.
Even if all the cones are grabbed, there should only be down time under two situations:
- One team has so many Stacked Cones the other team can’t catch them in any way at all.
- One or both teams don’t understand game strategy.
Otherwise there should be a lot of re-stacking going on.
That descoring could happen very quickly, though. Imagine a double flywheel spinning upward working its way down the mobile goal, flinging cones one at a time (but very quickly) off the stack. Or a spinner that catches the lip of one cone at a time. I could destroy a whole stack in about ten seconds, one that took 45 to build. It seems like Sack Attack all over again.
EDIT:
Here’s why it’s a bad idea (and I bet a robot could do it faster):
And then imagine a situation where a red robot is descoring cones like that, and a blue one tries to push him to make him stop, but that leads to the whole stack going down, which I assume is still illegal… Is red penalized for knocking over the whole stack, or is blue penalized for making him do it? It’s a total mess.
I personally hate descoring and hope that they never add a descoring element to this game. I feel that descoring just ruins the game because I like when the game requires complex engineering. I feel high lifts require more engineering and stimulate more learning. I don’t know though. I really do want them to add more cones to be added to the game. It would make the game more fun.
Thank you. I will look at this in a bit.
@Aponthis ; @The Electrobotz ,
Descoring will always be faster than scoring - that’s why you will never run out of cones to stack 
But in any case, en-masse descoring (eg sack Attack) is easy and fast. But descoring one cone at a time requires precision and speed as well (else you risk dq). It can be technically challenging too.
In fact, a good and effective defensive robot requires a lot of planning and also certain amount of technical expertise 
I know how much a defensive robot can take (my brother likes to brag that this had 2000 lines of code, plus many mechanical problems to be solved). But that big of a change at this point in the season would ruin every robot that anyone has right now from competition compared to a robot that is designed with this rule change in mind. That’s not to mention that VEX likes to avoid tough refereeing decisions on a regular basis, which this would introduce.
Definitely not for the august updates.
But maybe they can just add in this descoring rule for worlds, and they will eliminate all the potential down time, without the need to add in cones.
Besides, descoring adds another layer of unpredictability, which makes for good TV viewership
Respectfully,
NO. If the GDC made such a huge change, it would need to be as early as possible. Adding 20 cones a month and a half before Worlds when they reserved the right to do so? Fine! Entirely shaking up the game a month and a half before Worlds? Not okay! The robots will certainly not be polished at all because making big mechanical changes will be the only way to compete.
I’m all for descoring if it works well with the game (Toss Up being a great example), but this game is not good for descoring, especially after the season has been going for two months or more.
Guess our focus is on different issues - we need to look at the logistics as well. Not sure how many teams can get their hands on the extra cones required if it is too last minute.
And honestly - there isn’t any big mechanical change required to descore… unless you are intending on doing a specialised descorer.
Besides, adding cones at the last minute will also make a big impact on skills runs and autonomous too. Point being - there is no way that a change in rule that will not impact or effect the game.
I never thought about all the effort that goes into making a defense bot. I just always imagine some giant contraption that takes 0 effort expand and just ruin the game or something that keeps throwing stuff back and rapidly lowering scores so that the game looks like nothing happened. Just my crazy fantasy. LOL
That being said, I guess even I can think of some great examples of wall bots. @LEER 's wallbot last year looked complicated.
My impression is that they would add them as matchloads. If you are practicing on your own, you don’t need 80 cones or more. If you are practicing in a group, and able to use over 80 cones, the four teams should be able to scrounge together 20 more cones or so. Auton is the same if it’s matchloads. Skills won’t be affected at all by extra matchloads because it will be mostly mobile goals, no time for more than 10 cones.
Even if the cones are added on the ground, better to disrupt autonomous runs than mechanical design, which in turn ruins programming… There is no way a robot built before a major change to the game can compete with one that takes that change into account. Even if a specific descore mechanism is not needed, perhaps a pneumatic brake or more motor power would be optimal… Which in turn requires other tradeoffs. It’s a whole new game with descoring.
True… I have never consider adding the matchload. but overdoing it and you risk having the situation like nbn, with too much focus on matchload.
And honestly, mechanically speaking, there is no real need to make any changes or additions to the descoring rule.
Descoring rule will only make changes to the gameplay, you can use the same mechanism for scoring to do descoring. And you don’t even need to have more motor power, etc.
As for increasing the number of cones - it is going to be more difficult and time-consuming for teams to increase the lift height, etc.(then to practice descoring).
And before you thought of using the argument of - you should have prepared for this shift in goal-post of 13-cones (the current mathematical sure-win height) to 15 or more; then the same argument can be used for descoring too - you should have prepared for it.
Anyway, it doesn’t matter what we say here… GDC holds the key and make the decision at the end of the day.
And… well… think my teams should have enough practice in ri3d to adjust to any last minute change in rules… haha
You SHOULDN’T be prepared for a change to the descoring rule because it isn’t specifically written into the rulebook that they may change that.
Also, I don’t know why we are taking the 13 cone game analysis as gospel… Maxx said to do your own analysis, and 52 cones to an opponent’s 28 is quite absurd.
Yes, you can definitely descore with normal scoring mechanisms, but the difference between a purpose-built mechanism and a normal intake would be astounding. I don’t think it makes sense to say that a robot built with the descoring element in mind would not be better at both descoring and protecting against descoring.
Looking at how they changed from 48" to 36" and even clarified a q&a about the dimensions before the rule changed… I don’t know.
I’d rather be prepared for anything that gdc might throw at us.
And I am not saying that gdc should insert descoring rule over adding of cones, and I know they didn’t mention this in the rules. My original intention is just to suggest that adding cones is not the only way to ensure there is enough cones and there is no down time.
Anyway, as I said, I don’t see the point of continuing this discussions - gdc decides.
Yeah, definitely. But that change was less major than a descoring rule (well, maybe not for you guys 0_0).
It might be interesting to have started out with permissible descoring, but it seems we are too far in for anything like that. It’s like a whole new game.
Hope to see you at Worlds.
It’s highly unlikely that one would ever reach that number, but it’s a good point to reach for (not only because many other strategies can be achieved with 13 or fewer cones)
Eh, no. You might want to go back to that thread and read my post. I showed that this 13-Cone height proof is incorrect.