What do we think of the game manual update today?

AlecMiller · December 9, 2021, 4:42am

Yeah, in any elim match a DQ on both sides is treated as a tie, so it gets replayed.

Xenon27 · December 9, 2021, 4:43am

and what if the platform is tipped? if we take “under” the platform to mean a vertical projection of the surface of the polycarb going straight down perpendicular to the earth, then if the platform is tipped the area of floor “under” the platform will shrink slightly.

and now we’re back to using a projection to penetrate the entire earth and disqualify some poor team playing a match on the exact opposite side of the planet.

Mentor_355U · December 9, 2021, 4:49am

I did not know that!

Unionjackjz · December 9, 2021, 7:59am

I’ve gone through all of the Q&A’s and made a list of all of the ones edited with 2.2. It’s very possible I missed some, so take this with a grain of salt.

These were unanswered Q&A’s that were answered with the release of 2.2 that the new manual addresses.
https://www.robotevents.com/VRC/2021-2022/QA/898
https://www.robotevents.com/VRC/2021-2022/QA/930
https://www.robotevents.com/VRC/2021-2022/QA/932
https://www.robotevents.com/VRC/2021-2022/QA/938
https://www.robotevents.com/VRC/2021-2022/QA/939
https://www.robotevents.com/VRC/2021-2022/QA/947
https://www.robotevents.com/VRC/2021-2022/QA/949
https://www.robotevents.com/VRC/2021-2022/QA/958

Mentor_355U · December 9, 2021, 12:49pm

Amazing job!

The way the Q&A works, it does not make it easy to tell when a previously answered question is updated. In general, the Q&A user experience is pretty bad, which is a shame considering it is “an extension of the Game Manual”…

Zack_Helgesen · December 9, 2021, 1:46pm

I’m not in love with the new rule change, simply because it is going to cause a lot of inconsistencies with officiating. Even as we have seen from some of the conversations on here, some will ignore the rings under the platforms, some will intentionally “not see who pushed them under”. Will they issue a DQ if the rings actively prevent a team from parking (sometimes they do)? Then you go to another event, and the referee’s follow the letter of the law and call it every time.

Since there are a few GDC members on the thread I would suggest this update to the rule: Game objects that are in contact with the platform or would be in contact in the platform if it were unbalanced in either direction, are in violation of SG3. That way if a ring or MOGO branch is under the platform, but completely unaffecting the platform, there would be no violation.

I like the idea that SG3 violations occur whether or not a team tries to park or place MOGO’s on the platform, but I don’t like that there are violations of the rule when scoring objects have zero bearing on the platform.

9MotorGang · December 9, 2021, 2:45pm

@Mentor_355U , is there anyway to see the current percent of matches with a DQ using http://vrc-data-analysis.com/? I am curious to see how this weekend’s DQ percentage will compare to the average before SG3d was introduced.

LuxembourgIsACountry · December 9, 2021, 2:55pm

I wonder how heavily it’ll be enforced this weekend… with the update being less than a week old, and the ref certification probably not being up-to-date unless teams are really on the ball, I’d think the rule maybe won’t be enforced as heavily as what it should be.

RoboCatz · December 9, 2021, 3:00pm

I doubt that DQs are recorded in the data available in Robotevents. They could count all 0s as DQs, but then again some teams genuinely do not score any points in matches.

seenSeal · December 9, 2021, 3:30pm

Only one dedicated team and to that extent only one team member has to bring up the game manual update at the driver meeting and ask about it. Once someone brings it up at a comp I bet there will be a lot of confused teams who don’t keep up with the manual updates

Mentor_355U · December 9, 2021, 3:50pm

Unfortunately not. The RobotEvents API only lists scores; unlike Tournament Manager which has the full view of the match.

The only reasonable proxy would be to look at Elimination Matches that have an alliance with a zero score. There are false-positives here (there are legitimate, non-DQ matches that are shut-outs).

Xenon27 · December 9, 2021, 3:52pm

I feel like in the process of trying to clarify <sg3>, the gdc has mutated it into a incomprehensible mess with devastating implications if followed exactly.

Lets establish what the gdc want’s <sg3> to accomplish. They want it to protect a team’s platform, and prevent anything from impeding their ability to use it during the last 30 seconds. They do want opponents to be able to mess with it before the last 30 seconds, but they don’t want an opponent to be able to mess with it in a way that lingers into the last 30 seconds (example: goal under platform).

So with that in mind, how can <sg3> be simplified and made possible to play with and referee?

I think the first thing we can start with is:

During the last 30 seconds, Robots cannot contact the opposing Alliance’s platform.

great, but what about pushing an opponent who’s trying to use their platform?

Contact through the platform is considered transitive through other robots and through scoring elements.

Splendid, now the platform is perfectly protected during the last 30 seconds. But what about preventing a platform being tampered with in a way that lingers into the last 30 seconds?

Placing a scoring element on or under an opponent’s platform, at any point in the match, may be considered a violation if that element is present during the last 30 seconds, and if that element is affecting gameplay.

Great, that prevents goals from being jammed under or on top of goals, but it doesn’t issue blanket disqualifications for anything inconsequential.

Here’s what I propose be the entirety of the rule:

<sg3> Platforms are “safe” during the endgame. During the last 30 seconds, Robots cannot contact the opposing Alliance’s platform. For the purpose of this rule, contact is considered transitive through other robots and scoring elements. Placing a scoring element on or under an opponent’s platform, at any point in the match, may be considered a violation if that element is present during the last 30 seconds, and if that element is affecting gameplay.

Minor violations of this rule which do not affect gameplay will result in a warning

Violations which do affect gameplay will result in a disqualification.

of course, the criteria for what is gameplay affecting is the same.

I think this is a much simpler, yet more effective and easy to follow <sg3>.
I’m curious to see what other people think of this proposed rework?

Mentor_355U · December 9, 2021, 3:55pm

Based on my experience as a ref in the Illinois region where I’ve attended 4 (and an early season tournament in Michigan), I would say DQs as a whole are much higher than TowerTakeover. Frankly, I’d say at least a third of teams have had at least 1 DQ called on them. There was at least one team at a tournament that was DQ’ed multiple times.

We do try to make DQs a “teachable moment”, and explain to both Alliances what happened, so that both the team getting DQed and the teams benefitting from the DQ understand what led to the DQ so they can be aware of the nuances of gameplay.

9MotorGang · December 9, 2021, 3:57pm

And how would I be able to find this?

I think this is a wonderfully rewriting of this rule.

Mentor_355U · December 9, 2021, 3:59pm

I am not certain we can infer what the GDC wants SG3 to accomplish based on their recent changes to SG3 and changes to responses to Q&A.

Some of the Version 2.2 changes make the Platform less dangerous than before, but the Ring Under Platform seems to undo all those and make it much more dangerous (and difficult to ref)

Mentor_355U · December 9, 2021, 3:59pm

I’ll take a look and post-back here after work

seenSeal · December 9, 2021, 4:04pm

Assuming that this is what the GDC wants to accomplish

Then I think the logical steps in creating this “rule” make sense and accomplishes the goal.

I do believe that there should be a big red box under the rule playing out a few common situations like what we have now.

BobbyfromJamaica · December 9, 2021, 4:05pm

Wait so can you not hold multiple mobile goals?

seenSeal · December 9, 2021, 4:09pm

There is no limit on the number of mobile goals that you can possess. But you can still only hoard one goal.

Possession – A Robot is considered to be in Possession of a Mobile Goal if the Robot is carrying, holding or controlling the movement of a Mobile Goal such that if the Robot changes direction, the Mobile Goal will move with the Robot. Therefore, pushing / plowing Mobile Goals is not considered Possession, however a Robot using concave portions to control the movement of Mobile Goals is considered Possession. See Figure 18.

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, such as by expanding horizontally across a portion of the field. See Figure 12a and .

sazrocks · December 9, 2021, 4:12pm

Agreed. Over the last few years I’ve been making suggestions to the GDC about how to improve the RobotEvents Q&A UX, such as allowing to sort by most recently answered/updated, but unfortunately for the most part they seem to have gone unheeded.