What do we think of the game manual update today?

VEX V5 Robotics Competition VRC > Tipping Point (21/22)
41

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 oneā€™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.

Iā€™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, Iā€™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.

42

Yes please
No more only mogo bots

43

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 ā€œdā€ 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 ā€¦ under the opposing Allianceā€™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 ā€¦ 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 ā€œdā€ 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 ?

44

GDC has already updated a previous Q&A asking this:

https://www.robotevents.com/VRC/2021-2022/QA/816

Under this new verbiage, the answers to this question are as follows:

  1. 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?
  2. 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 Opponentā€™s Platform as ā€œThe Platform of DQā€

45

Wow, I was hoping my interpretation was wrong. Thatā€™s going to be fun,

I think I will start referring to it as the instant death zone.

46

It definitely rivals (and, I think surpasses) the danger that the Tower Takeover ā€œProtected Zonesā€ had (with the angled tray-bots that would enter the volume when turning).

I think itā€™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 didnā€™t track the stats, but Iā€™m pretty sure at one of the tournaments Iā€™ve ref-ed this year, at least 8 of about 30 teams were DQd from at least 1 match for SG3 violations.

47
  • My team hasnā€™t had any SG3 violations (and weā€™ve played at least 8 matches)
  • My team has had 1 SG3 violation
  • My team has had 2 or 3 SG3 violations
  • My team has had 4-6 SG3 violations
  • Weā€™ve been DQā€™d from every match weā€™ve played
0 voters
48

SG3 is very harsh but is also easy to avoid if you are careful. If you are getting multiple SG3 violations then it is probably your fault that it is happening.

49
  • My team has been DQā€™d in an Elimination Match because of SG3
  • My team has won an Elimination Match because the other team DQd becaues of SG3
0 voters
50

I think the fact that one stray ring can get you DQed is a little out there ā€“ yes, stay away from the platform, donā€™t do things that will cause the opponent to not have a balanced platform, weā€™ve been over this song and dance countless times.

Say your opponent has a neutral goal with rings on them on the border of their alliance home zoneā€¦ you go to take the goal and bring it back to your side because well, why wouldnā€™t you, thatā€™s a bunch of points right there. In your haste to get it to your side before someone tries to stop you, one of the rings slips off and rolls to rest against the opponentā€™s platform. Well, thanks for playing, enjoy the DQ, best of luck next match!

Obviously, thatā€™s an extremely specific (and probably unlikely, I donā€™t really see rings rolling like that too often) example, but it goes to show that in the attempt to just play the game, just the slightest error can end in catastrophe, mainly for just playing the game. Obviously, itā€™s not going to change now, but I have a feeling this game is going to unfold into a game where no one is going to want to risk going past midfield after auton because of how unbelievably easy it is to get DQed off of this rule alone.

51

The big question with this will judges and teams notice and ask/give a dq for the probably hundreds of situations that happen.

52

Guys I have a poll to solve this whole dispute

53

ā€œJudgesā€ decide who receives judged awards (Excellence, Design, Amaze, etc.). Referees observe matches, apply rules, and score matches. Referees issue DQs, not judges. From matches on YouTube, and matches Iā€™ve observed live, they do issue DQs largely correctly. There are some cases where they may not have seen something, but by and large, we do our job.

54

I actually almost led to my sister team receiving a DQ in their last qual match, as they had pushed a mogo into my allianceā€™s platform during endgame, causing the platform (and the mobile goal on it) to become unbalanced.

The referees were originally award us a 30 point balancing bonus, but I corrected them on the rules. They did not end up getting a DW because my team mates and I came to the consensus that since we already won the match the DQ was a little bit extra (especially for it being their 1st VRC tournament)

55

As a referee, I was really liking this game manual update; it seemed like it was going to make things much more clear to both teams and referees, but nowā€¦ this. Iā€™d really like to hear some kind of explanation from @Sidoti or another GDC member on how me DQing a team who accidentally allowed a ring to roll across the field and end up under their opponentā€™s platform is really the best way for these rules to read.

And this isnā€™t even considering how this is even going to be enforced. Previously, as a referee I had to keep track of where 4 robots and 7 goals were at all times on the field, and who had touched them last. Now, I have to keep track of 4 robots, 7 goals, and 72 rings (and a partridge in a pear tree) at all times on the field, and who touched them last. Frankly, itā€™s rules like this that put me off from refereeing at all. Amazing.

56

Why wouldnā€™t they? Especially if you know youā€™re behind/lost the match, thereā€™s no way you donā€™t at least bring it up. The ref may or may not rule it a DQ every time because you wonā€™t see it every time, but unless Iā€™ve won by a considerable margin Iā€™d absolutely at least bring it to the attention of the ref.

57

Sometimes a DQ might not be necessary (in the opposing teamsā€™ eyes), especially if you are winning the match or its the first tournament of one o the teams in the match. Also if it a borderline DQ (the refs might not have noticed it, or it may be too close to call), teams might want to get the match over with and not draw it out via a lengthy discussion with the referees.

Now just because it might not be necessary does not mean it should not be dished out. I strongly believe that each referee should try to catch and hand out as much DQs as they can (within reason), even how ridiculous or far fetched they may be.

58

oops forgot the correct terms

59

Hence why I specified being behind/losing.

Iā€™d argue otherwise, Iā€™d want to have the borderline call be handled early in the tournament as opposed to having to have that discussion later during semifinals or finals if possible. The more things that can be called during quals to set precedence for later, the better IMO.

60

Iā€™m glad I tracked this quote directly in my Drivers Notes document because they seem to have dropped it entirely from the Q&A. One of the previous responses to one of

https://www.robotevents.com/VRC/2021-2022/QA/842
https://www.robotevents.com/VRC/2021-2022/QA/816
https://www.robotevents.com/VRC/2021-2022/QA/813
https://www.robotevents.com/VRC/2021-2022/QA/815

Said:

ā€œFurthermore, it would not be feasible for a Head Referee to track which Alliance was last in contact with all Rings and Mobile Goals around the field.ā€

So we are apparently now expected to track every Scoring object and 4 Robots. Awesome.