Ah, okay! Possession of the two neutral mogos in the corner wasn’t clear. If they are indeed possessed, you’re correct and this isn’t a hoarding violation. Wow!
What do we think of the game manual update today?
Assuming that true, when the opposing alliance makes an attempt for these goals, as a ref, I’d probably need you to demonstrate that Possession is being maintained throughout the encounter. Though given that you clearly Possess both Red and Blue goals, you’d receive the benefit-of-the-doubt for being “offensive”. Given that there is no time-limit on Hoarding, one could argue that this robot would need to demonstrate continuous Possession of the 5 goals its touching throughout the encounter with the opposing alliance’s attempt at those goals, because it would then clearly be “actively stifling gameplay”
G3: Use common sense. When reading and applying the various rules in this document, please
remember that common sense always applies in the VEX Robotics Competition.
From the red box of SG7:
In general, unless a Robot or Alliance is intentionally and blatantly utilizing a Hoarding strategy, violations of this rule should be rare.
In your scenario, does it make more sense to say they are directly blocking Blue’s access to a mobile goal? How do you know Blue is going for the mobile goal? What if they want a Ring in the Red Home Zone? It might make more sense to say that Red is blocking Blue from entering the Red Home Zone. Thus, no penalty.
Pull this off in a match. I’d absolutely love to see it. It would be awesome.
Pushing goals into corner = Easy
Designing robot to hold 5+ goals = Hard
Doing hard things should be rewarded. If that’s broken, I don’t want to be fixed.
Capturing 5+ goals against capable opponents = Very Hard
To add on to this:
Every game that doesn’t have recycled game objects can be locked if you score all the points. This is bad when scoring all the points is very easy. I don’t believe this is the case here as long as the alliances are somewhat equal in skill level.
There’s a lot of situations when an alliance is down in mobile goals where the game is still winnable, but they can’t score rings or they can’t get on themselves or goals on the platform. Thus, “ramp camping” becomes effective.
Weird… it’s like maybe rings are more important than some initially thought…
How strange, I have only ever used rings in auton.
Guess it’s time to make my robot look more awesome!
Side note what is ramp camping?
Is that the other alliance camping the opponents ramp to try and prevent them from balancing goals?
And yet, Rings without Goals are useless, so it seems over-valuing Goals in an attempt to chokehold the game is rational. Scoring 200 points using only Goals seems far more reliable (and with “simpler” robots) than scoring 200 points with Rings and Goals. AFAIK, even the best skills-only robots focus on Goals and treat Rings as gravy points.
An Alliance controlling both their Alliance Goals and the 3 Neutral Goals can score 200 points by capturing and elevating them (without even trying to Park). Granted, this is not “easy” but the Robots can specialize in 1 function. Their opponents are left with 2 of their Alliance Goals - to hit 200 points, they need to play 20 total Rings on them (which is physically possible, but challenging) for 60 points, Elevate both (40 points each for 80), and double park (60 more points). A much more diverse set of actions to take, leaving the match to be decided by Auton and possibly stray 1-point Rings.
Sure seems the scoring of the game w/r/t Rings does not meet this sentiment.
Of course, but my point is that it creates gray area in the middle of the field now since there is no definition of space to hoard in. If the red alliance gets to neutral goals and places them in their home zone along with their alliance goals (so four of them - say the two neutral are just in front of the platform) and then they play defense on the opposing alliance to not allow them to cross the middle of the field - hoarding?
Don’t think so, I think it would only be defense. If it had the blue alliance goals in with the neutrals then I think it would be hoarding and they would have to let them through
I wouldn’t think so either and would also rule that it is just defense, but … I can see a student arguing: “Hoarding – A Robot is considered to be Hoarding a Mobile Goal if it is actively blocking an opposing
Robot’s access to a Mobile Goal without directly Possessing it”
All in all … I, honestly, don’t think much has changed with these updates - which is a good thing.
While it prevents hoarding under the platform, I actually think it will increase the hoarding in the corners. Now a robot holding two goals can camp in front of a 3rd goal buried in the corner.
Yes. You are correct. You can accumulate points faster using goals than rings. My point wasn’t that rings are better than goals. My point is that if you chose to ignore entire parts of the game, and your opponent is better than you at the part of the game you chose to play, then you deserve to lose.
As you said, this isn’t an easy task. Possible? Yes, but that 5th goal is a lot harder than it appears to be on paper. So if an alliance can pull this off successfully, don’t they deserve to win?
Your analysis is correct, if you were down 5-2 on goals. In this case, you have a lot of work to do to come back from that. What I was referring to in my original post was the more likely situation of being down 4-3. In this case, the amount of ring scoring you have to do is much less. If your opponent is only balancing goals on the platform, then:
- If you can’t balance a robot, then you need to score 14 rings to win. This is can be reasonably achieved with both alliance goals.
- If you can balance one robot, then you need to score 7 rings to win. This isn’t even a full alliance goal.
- If you can balance two robots, then you tie without having to score any rings. However, if you can score a single ring, you break that tie.
This is why rings are going to be important.
Perhaps we agree to disagree on this point. Is getting 40 points from a 5th goal harder than getting 40 points from Rings? Reasonable people can reasonably disagree. I would argue that features already present on a robot that allows it to control the first goal (e.g. mobility, goal manipulator, etc.) also allow it to control the 5th goal, while features not present on the robot (e.g. systems for Ring intake and placing Ring on Goal) are needed for the Ring points.
A reasonable counter to this is that ignoring Rings limits one’s ability to play the game, especially in 4-3 situations, as you say.
So, do you try to win 4-3 situations through added complexity, or do you try to avoid 4-3 situations and try to win 5-2 outright?
I certainly appreciate that these are strategic decisions, and applaud the GDC for this, which makes for a more interesting challenge than, say, Change Up. I quibble, and maybe too much, because I think the balance here is just a bit too much towards pushing teams for the 5-2 strategy.
I’d need to think it through a bit more, but I think something along the lines of:
- Change 3-Point Rings to 5-Point
- Change Goals from 20 to 15 (Elevated 40 to 30, maybe Parked to 20 or 25)
Would give teams making the decision to skip Rings a lot more pause.
As other threads have pointed out, the High Rings are their own beast entirely. Maybe bumping those up to 15 or even 20 points each would be warranted for rewarding teams for taking on the risk and difficult challenge.
To be clear, I’m not advocating for any of these point changes now, and I am glad the Auton bonus went from 20 to 6. That would have been the time to adjust the other values, which would also have other impacts on Tournament Manager, Scoring Apps, etc.
No more only mogo bots
Just found something not fun with the new update involving SG3d. I will use the scenario of a red robot unintentionally shoving a ring under the the blue platform before the last 30 seconds. The result would be the red robot is DQed.
Point “d” applies to Robot actions prior to the last thirty (30) seconds of the Match:
The event happened before the last 30 second so SG3d applies.
Placing a Scoring Object … under the opposing Alliance’s Platform, at any point during the Match is considered a minor violation of this rule
This would constitute a violation of SG3d as the rings was moved under the platform. The rule never specified that it must touch the platform.
If the placement is … not immediately rectified then it will be considered a violation
Since the red robot drive away, it would be considered a violation.
Note: If point “d” has escalated from a warning into a violation, then it will automatically be considered a violation which has interfered with gameplay, i.e. will result in a Disqualification.
The red robot is DQed.
Is my interpretation of this rule correct @Jon_Jack ?
GDC has already updated a previous Q&A asking this:
Under this new verbiage, the answers to this question are as follows:
- The original scenario made no mention that the object under the Platform caused interference, is the mere presence of an object enough to warrant a violation of SG3 or must the alliance make an attempt to balance the Platform?
- Just to clarify, Rings are also counted as Scoring Objects for this ruling, correct? With the same question as above, do the Rings need to make contact with the Platform in an attempt to balance it to warrant a DQ, or is their presence enough?
Yes, mere presence of an object is enough. Yes, Rings are considered Scoring Objects.
Please continue to refer to the Opponent’s Platform as “The Platform of DQ”
Wow, I was hoping my interpretation was wrong. That’s going to be fun,
I think I will start referring to it as the instant death zone.
It definitely rivals (and, I think surpasses) the danger that the Tower Takeover “Protected Zones” had (with the angled tray-bots that would enter the volume when turning).
I think it’s far more dangerous than Tower Takeover because it is fair play during most of the match, but has that time-travel aspect to it. I didn’t track the stats, but I’m pretty sure at one of the tournaments I’ve ref-ed this year, at least 8 of about 30 teams were DQd from at least 1 match for SG3 violations.