A Recycle Rush Reflection

[Ginger Power]

I'm going to start this off by saying I don't want this to come across in a negative way, and I certainly don't want to offend anybody. My team just got done with the North Star Regional which my team has attended all 3 years of its existence. This year was just different. It was my first year as a robot inspector (last year I was a student) which I only did on Thursday (I was with my team the rest of the time).

There was no energy from the crowd. At least nothing compared to previous years. Teams left hours before pits closed which isn't uncommon. However this year a large majority of teams left very early. Pit scouting was much less meaningful and as a result I saw much less strategizing than previous years.

After speaking with Volunteers, Mentors, Parents, and Students I heard the same message over and over: "This game is boring". Now I'm going to beat what I consider to be a dead horse at this point. Sometimes you just need to make sure the horse is dead. I've been spoiled by joining FRC during 2013. I didn't realize how great the past games were until now as I've had no reference. You can look at a number of other threads for exact reasons as to why I don't like Recycle Rush. They've already been stated so I see no reason to state them again. I will however say that my least favorite part about the game is the predictability. When I saw the teams who were going to be at our regional it was unbelievably easy to tell who was going to do well. When I saw those top teams compete at their first event I knew exactly who was going to win North Star. 2826 is such a dominant team with an amazing robot. They did an incredible job at North Star and deserve every accolade that they earned. This has nothing to do with them or 3130 whom I hold in the same regard. It has to do with the fact that everybody in Mariucci Arena figured out (most fairly early) that 2826 was going to pick 3130 and the rest were going to play for their wildcard spots. At least in previous games there were things that could be done to upset the top alliance. Changing strategies, attempting suffocating defence etc. This year unless you have a noodle rocket launcher, you just have to hope for the elite team to fail (another aspect of this game I don't like).

Full Disclosure: My team stuggled mightily at the North Star Regional. We didn't get our robot fully connected to the FMS until our 7th match. In that match everything on our robot was working perfectly. Fifteen seconds into the match our alliance partner ran into our driver station wall and the communications for our robot instantly dropped. We later found out it was a field fault but it was too late to do anything about it. After the worst streak of luck we've ever had, our 9th match basically turned into our 1st match, and our 10th match into our 2nd. By this time we realized our efforts were likely for nothing because if it were me, I would have taken us off the scouting list. Anyways, this could easily have influenced my opinion of this game.

I will say I enjoyed the engineering challenge that Recycle Rush provided both during RI3D and the build season with 4607. However, when I think about the goals of FIRST to bring STEM into the mainstream, I think this game brings us in the wrong direction.

I expect Champs to be entertaining because they'll be able to avoid a lot of the major problems which occur at the regional level. I'm still a huge fan of FIRST (Working for FIRST would be my dream job) and I can't wait for offseason events and the game next year!

[audietron]

I would agree with you in some cases, this game is all about consistency, so there will be predictability. I will tell you that after seeing 3130 in a practice match at Northern Lights, I knew they were going to be hard to beat. After Wisconsin we focused on getting our system to work. We knew we could not be a good landfill robot without some major modifications. So we improved our feed station loading full well knowing that we could not work with wave with the modifications. This meant we had to focus on being the finalists which worked out nicely.
The pit scouting is useful for knowing about plans and what teams prefer to do for a match. We don't need a super extensive amount of strategy but I would still say it is just as important as ever. Teams need to know where they should be and go and not go. The complete flow of each match needs to be known to keep a consistant average if a team is not able to score more than 2 complete stacks. Coop is very important in this case to keep that average up.

We are happy with where we ended up and who we ended up with. I would definitely say that the average robot at North Star has increased in complexity and capabilities from previous years. We are incredibly excited that 5576 ended up our alliance captain and we can not wait to compete with an improved robot at worlds.

[Ginger Power]

Congratulations on qualifying for Worlds! Our team was going crazy for 967 throughout the playoffs and we wish you the best of luck going forward!

[EricAnderson191]

I agree that the game could have been a bit more interesting, but after watching matches at regionals across the country and participating in the Finger Lakes Regional, Recycle Rush is far from boring.

Watching a team move a six-stack with can and litter onto the scoring platform with the whole structure tottering back and forth generates a thrill. Knowing that dumping that stack puts an alliance in a deep hole adds to that thrill.

At Finger Lakes, the finals went to three matches with match three decided by 3 points. You should have heard the crowd!

While each year's game is all about decisions, Recycle Rush makes the implications of decisions made in January loom large in March and April. Teams that leaned too heavily on Ri3D videos probably missed chances to think outside the box. Teams that chose to build without fully understanding the game probably built competent robots that are too slow to compete well. Teams that did not bother with autonomous programming missed out on points. (That 3rd final did not have any auto points scored and it would have made a difference).

I have watched teams spend a match trying to drag totes from the landfill while the human station was ignored. You wanted some way to communicate with the team and get them to make a better choice.

All of this can be explained to spectators and team members and I think makes the game more compelling than one that looks more straightforward.

All of that said, a match with scores below 50 would send me home early.

Eric

[orangemoore]

There was no energy from the crowd. At least nothing compared to previous years. Teams left hours before pits closed which isn't uncommon. However this year a large majority of teams left very early. Pit scouting was much less meaningful and as a result I saw much less strategizing than previous years.


I think I completely disagree with this paragraph. But I think it might depend more on the event and your/my view/perception.

Most matches at the Midwest regional this year were exciting. The regional had a couple "flashy" teams but the majority of the field was trailing not far behind with my team's average of 98.2 instead of being 10th at all non-DC events except for 1 we would have been ranked high sometimes 1st. The deep field probably helped match play be exciting.

Back in the pits we could easily hear the crowd scream for either excitement or disappointment depending on what happened. It never felt like there was a really boring match but I could have missed those ones.

I'm not sure why you wouldn't strategize for every match to maximize your points. We talked every time with out alliance partners and opponents (for co-op) to get as many points as possible.

[AlexanderTheOK]

And yet I just came from San Diego, where the number one Alliance lost both finals matches to the number two Alliance,the first one handily due to mistakes on their end, and the second by a single point, with nearly perfect games played on both sides. It's not quite that predictable, notably BECAUSE of mistakes, or simply cohesion among Alliance partners.

Both the first seed and first pick were VERY good robots, as should require not much proof. The second seed and their first pick were also just really good too.

[Ginger Power]

I think I completely disagree with this paragraph. But I think it might depend more on the event and your/my view/perception.

This is completely accurate. The field at North Star was weaker than usual IMO and I'm sure this is a large determining factor in my experience with Recycle Rush. At Midwest there were 9 teams with a QA over 100, 24 teams with QA over 70 and 45 teams with a QA over 50 in a field of 53 teams. North Star had 2 teams over 100 points, 5 teams over 70 points, and 25 teams over 50 points in a field of 63... that is why we experienced 2 different games... like with all games, the flaws become more evident at the lower levels.

[MikLast]

After speaking with Volunteers, Mentors, Parents, and Students I heard the same message over and over: "This game is boring".

I am guessing that your regional had a 1114 type robot (and reading though the post it sounds so) but Recycle Rush is not really boring, especially in the elims. The PNW championship eliminations (and matches) were some of the most thrilling matches i have seen (and played) and i cant wait to watch the other district events next week. Personally, it seems if you have one or two OP robots at a event, it wont be as fun for the rest of the teams. But if everyone is about equal, its going to be a fun time for everyone.

[Boltman]

And yet I just came from San Diego, where the number one Alliance lost both finals matches to the number two Alliance,the first one handily due to mistakes on their end, and the second by a single point, with nearly perfect games played on both sides. It's not quite that predictable, notably BECAUSE of mistakes, or simply cohesion among Alliance partners.

Both the first seed and first pick were VERY good robots, as should require not much proof. The second seed and their first pick were also just really good too.

Ditto... San Diego was an exciting finish for the top 2 seeds... that last game was intense... one point!

Plus there were lots of tall stack spills ...it was at times exciting... other times not so much.

[Ginger Power]

Personally, it seems if you have one or two OP robots at a event, it wont be as fun for the rest of the teams. But if everyone is about equal, its going to be a fun time for everyone.

Agreed. However, I do hold the opinion that a great game is easy to watch at a low level, and amazing to watch at a high level. Recycle Rush is certainly not easy to watch at a low level as I can attest to. It very well could be amazing to watch at a high level which is one of the reasons I'm excited for the next 2 weeks. Ultimate Ascent was almost universally thought of as a great game. I would contest that it fits my definition of a great game to a T.

[Orthofort]

I think a big point of conflict is that this game appeals more to the actual people involved with the robot. Yeah, it's a huge thrill to watch a team carry three stacks of 6 to the platform in one match, these games can be very exciting, but more from a design perspective.

I've been as engaged as I have as previous years and as exciting during the games, but this year it seems like the excitement is coming from the feeling of amazement as the technical skill and strategy that went into it, since this year presented a wonderful design challenge, but in previous years I've gotten the feeling of thrill instead just from competition, the excitement of it being an active, fast-paced game.

This is what I think is causing the disputes over this game, because a lot of the people who frequent these forums and discuss the game are heavily involved in the robot aspect of the competition, but a lot of people like spectators, parents, prospective students who may not be as dedicated to following the game or perhaps fully appreciate all that went into these fantastic robots don't get the innate thrill from this game that comes from natural competition.

Feel free to disagree with me, this is just my late-night opinion, but I think we have a biased view of whether this is a "good" game for the purposes of FIRST.

[iRobot_]

I agree this game is exciting to watch in eliminations, but I think the worst aspect of this game is this whole tether nonsense. Teams who struggled in their first event were able to add a ramp with some string, and all the sudden the robot can now put up stacks consistently. While I am happy the robot can now succeed at what it was meant to do, I think it moves away from one of the core aspects on FIRST, ingenuity. Teams can spend about 4 minutes designing a ramp instead of trying to fix the robot they originally built. FIRST should have mandated at least a motorized component on any part of a robot attached by a tether to help combat the abuse of the rule.

[asid61]

I agree this game is exciting to watch in eliminations, but I think the worst aspect of this game is this whole tether nonsense. Teams who struggled in their first event were able to add a ramp with some string, and all the sudden the robot can now put up stacks consistently. While I am happy the robot can now succeed at what it was meant to do, I think it moves away from one of the core aspects on FIRST, ingenuity. Teams can spend about 4 minutes designing a ramp instead of trying to fix the robot they originally built. FIRST should have mandated at least a motorized component on any part of a robot attached by a tether to help combat the abuse of the rule.

I like that rule though. Adding a ramp is such a nice change; it's better for all the robots to be a bit better by deciding a ramp was a good idea and sticking it on. As long as they made it, it's all pretty well defined.
Giving those ramps to other teams though I don't really like so much. Picking robots for the sole purpose of sticking 30lbs of withholding allowance on them seems to defeat the purpose of putting a lot of effort into a robot at all. It will likely have less of an impact at championships due to higher caliber robots, but it was pretty prevalent in earlier weeks, and even now.

EDIT: SVR was really obvious after Thursday. 254 would win, and whomever they picked would win as well. It's usually somewhat obvious, but this year was especially bad.

[Ginger Power]

I agree this game is exciting to watch in eliminations, but I think the worst aspect of this game is this whole tether nonsense. Teams who struggled in their first event were able to add a ramp with some string, and all the sudden the robot can now put up stacks consistently. While I am happy the robot can now succeed at what it was meant to do, I think it moves away from one of the core aspects on FIRST, ingenuity. Teams can spend about 4 minutes designing a ramp instead of trying to fix the robot they originally built. FIRST should have mandated at least a motorized component on any part of a robot attached by a tether to help combat the abuse of the rule.

I would say adapting to a rule that allows for your team to go from ineffective to highly effective requires a high amount of ingenuity. Plenty of teams have attempted ramps and failed with them. Others have succeeded and I commend them for it. I know exactly where you are coming from though. If I'm an audience member who is viewing a FIRST match for the first time, and I'm watching a robot with a string tied to it I'm asking myself how that is considered 1 robot? It won't make sense to me. This confusing element makes it more difficult to explain the game to people outside of FIRST. It isn't an issue where you point fingers at the teams. It's an issue where you question the rule which makes it an allowable practice. This rule is obviously the lack of frame perimeter restrictions. Besides confusing ramps, this rule has also generated some of the most innovative and inspiring robots I've seen in FIRST. Just rewatch Batman and Robin, or check out 1987's amazing robot. It's a rule that has obvious benifits and pitfalls. To repeat though, a team doesn't have any less ingenuity just because they build a tethered ramp.

[artK]

FIRST should have mandated at least a motorized component on any part of a robot attached by a tether to help combat the abuse of the rule.

Even if FIRST made a rule like this, what constitutes a "Motorized Component"? I could see a number of teams ziptying the lightest possible motor onto the ramp completely out of the way, connecting it legally to the robot, and having it be legal based on this rule. And adjusting the rule so that the motorized component has make contact would also be really easy to get around by attaching a ziptie to the motor shaft, and having it slap the totes as they come out would also be legal.

And if FIRST did make a rule that required that the tethered components be an active mechanism, there would be an outcry. Why require teams to develop and use an active mechanism when a passive one can be just as effective, without allocating extra electrical/pneumatic resources? 1114's RC holder is passive (to the best of my knowledge), and it works better than a lot of the active mechanisms.

[iRobot_]

I would say adapting to a rule that allows for your team to go from ineffective to highly effective requires a high amount of ingenuity. Plenty of teams have attempted ramps and failed with them. Others have succeeded and I commend them for it. I know exactly where you are coming from though. If I'm an audience member who is viewing a FIRST match for the first time, and I'm watching a robot with a string tied to it I'm asking myself how that is considered 1 robot? It won't make sense to me. This confusing element makes it more difficult to explain the game to people outside of FIRST. It isn't an issue where you point fingers at the teams. It's an issue where you question the rule which makes it an allowable practice. This rule is obviously the lack of frame perimeter restrictions. Besides confusing ramps, this rule has also generated some of the most innovative and inspiring robots I've seen in FIRST. Just rewatch Batman and Robin, or check out 1987's amazing robot. It's a rule that has obvious benifits and pitfalls. To repeat though, a team doesn't have any less ingenuity just because they build a tethered ramp.

The rule itself is an amazing aspect of the game. What i'm saying is that creating a passive ramp and attaching it the the "main robot" seems like an abuse of the rule. You mentioned 1987 and 148 as prime examples of how this rule allows for very impressive robots. But I would like to point out that 1987 is not tethered, and 148 has a motorized component on their feeder station robot. Maybe criticizing teams as having less ingenuity was a misstep on my part, and I apologize. Adding a ramp is so much easier than fixing the original robot to complete the challenge, and that's the problem, it's just too easy. My issue isn't the fact that the rule exists, which I guess I failed to highlight in my previous post.

Also, I stated that fact that motorized components should have been a rule for parts of the robot TETHERED to another part of the robot. To my knowledge, 1114's grabber isn't tethered.

[dcarr]

Adding a ramp is so much easier than fixing the original robot to complete the challenge, and that's the problem, it's just too easy. My issue isn't the fact that the rule exists, which I guess I failed to highlight in my previous post.

What if adding a ramp is fixing the original robot to complete the challenge?

[sanddrag]

I like the game for the fact that it allowed my team to take risks in the design and construction of our robot that we never would have in any previous game.

[Chief Hedgehog]

What if adding a ramp is fixing the original robot to complete the challenge?

Agreed. In 2013 FRC 4607 had to adapt after our ballast mechanism was deemed illegal. We then retrofitted our robot to become a blocker - and it served us well. Part of the process of FRC is thinking on the fly - and designing a robot that can adjust during the competition and still make an impact. The ramp/tether is this example in the 2015 game.

[Ginger Power]

When I referenced both 148 and 1987 I did so intending to say that they both designed their robots from the beginning to utilize the lack of restrictions. They are awesome examples of why this is a good rule. I think we agree that strings tied to ramps weren't the intention of the GDC when they designed the game.

Edit: I will say again that despite ramps with strings likely not being the intent of the GDC, they are an ingenious adaption that teams can simply do to become more competitive.

[GaryVoshol]

Suppose there was a requirement that attached components had to be motorized. (Because that's how this proposed rule would have to read - you can't make a rule specific to a "ramp".) Would that mean canburglars need motors?

Back to the original premise: You have to watch this game differently this year. OK, there's no interaction between alliances, and I agree, sometimes that can be exciting. We'll probably see that again in future games. This year, you need to appreciate what the robots are doing for themselves rather than against their opponents. Yes, some matches with robots of lesser abilities can be less exciting - but that happens every year. Simbotics, Poofs or Wildstang don't play in every match in every event. But when you get those good matches with those good teams in them, it's every bit as exciting as other years. I'm really looking forward to seeing some exciting things at MSC.

[Chris Fultz]

I think we agree that strings tied to ramps weren't the intention of the GDC when they designed the game.

Edit: I will say again that despite ramps with strings likely not being the intent of the GDC, they are an ingenious adaption that teams can simply do to become more competitive.

And how would you know what the intent of the GDC was?

[Green Potato]

The issue that I see in this game is not that the excitement wasn't there to begin with, but that it's not picking up pace like it should. The game is getting more boring as time passes. In the earlier regionals, 6-stacks were much more rare, strategy was still a hurdle to overcome in terms of whether to go for co-op, and as I saw in the stands, people were excited. We went to a Week 1 regional, and even though our robot didn't perform quite as well as we hoped, I can say with confidence that a huge proportion of the kids that went to the event had fun and stuck around.

Fast forward to the later events. We're not seeing any bigger scores in terms of value per stack (aka 6 stack with can and noodle is still the max, better teams at this points just mean more said stacks), and many of the kids attending have already been in a competition. At Virginia, our second competition, I could tell by the look on some of our scouts' faces that they would rather count the ceiling tiles than scout yet another match. Strategy is much better-known, as there is no real defense, and people can see who's likely going to take home the blue banners. Sure, there are exciting moments especially in the finals, as with any FIRST game, but this one just isn't quite as good in terms of the whole enchilada. Championships will inevitably be exciting, and more teams will make elims than ever, but it may not be quite as good as previous years. That, and it's not a good spectator sport. We've beaten the dead horse already on that.

Overall, although this year was an interesting engineering challenge and fun to watch at first, I am likely not going to miss this game.

[chrisfl]

I have to agree that this years game was very boring. The consistency was great for strategizing. I was strategizing for our team and, using the scouting information, was able to predict our matches score within ten points before we went on the field. The thing I loved about this game was how teams are very consistent at what they do.

[Siri]

'Fun to watch in powerhouse finals' seems like an odd standard to measure a game against. Historically, that's almost apodictic. To my mind, a game that 1114 and 148 can't make look cool is not boring, it's just bad. You give those VEXers 6 weeks on speed phone book reading and it'd probably draw a crowd.

A game can be "boring" and still pass that standard, even when played by regional powerhouses. It's just a matter of audience. Boring to teams in the stands? Sponsors and VIPs? Volunteers or public spectators? This game has certainly had far more complaints about boredom than others of recent history, from those constituencies both on CD and at events. That doesn't mean everyone thinks it's boring (they don't), but it's hard to argue on evidence that it's equally or less so.

[Sunshine]

I had been concerned from the beginning about this game having no audience appeal. I talked with several people who attended our first regional. Half had never been to a FIRST competition before, the other half had not been to an event for a couple of years. Both groups loved this game. One engineer (never been to event b4) commented on enjoying seeing a real engineering challenge versus a sporting like event. Two indicated (had been to events before) that they liked not seeing defense where inferior robots just try to get in your way.

I get the fact that predictably may concern some. But always knowing that a 16-17 year old is in control of the bot indicates that anything can and will happen. The human factor is still there giving unpredictable outcomes.

For those who complain about knowing outcomes when two great alliances get together............ Same complaint we hear year after year. It gets old.

[Jared]

Recycle Rush is very different from any FRC game I've ever seen (2004, 2005, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014).

In many ways, it's a great game. The engineering challenge is fun and original and caught many teams off guard. This year, the best robot is more likely to win than in previous years. The less restrictive design rules were awesome too. Although some people think the ramps are cheap solutions that take away from the value of the game and may not have been anticipated by the GDC, I think they're amazingly clever simple solutions to difficult problems. Isn't that what engineering is about?

The average score system is also far superior to the old W/L/T system for providing accurate rankings. The rules are also really objective and fair this year.

However, Recycle Rush has some flaws. The game is very boring at a lower level, and is often dominated by one or two teams. Scoring is set up so that a simpler robot scores way too little compared to better robots. The lack of defense and robot-robot interaction really brings down the excitement because you usually know what's going to happen before the match starts.

At the level of eliminations, the third robot on the winning alliance doesn't have much of a role. If the alliance partners are unable to cheesecake the robot, the robot usually ends up in a corner, watching the other teams make a fortress of stacks.

The game is also deceptively difficult. Even loading totes from a hole in the wall is challenging because they don't land consistently or right side up. Was this additional engineering challenge really necessary? What does it add to the game? There are two game pieces, neither of which can easily be manipulated, but being able to manipulate both is required to do well.

Autonomous mode also was also a little disappointing. Outside of eliminations, there are rarely robot sets, tote sets, or container sets simply because a collaborative autonomous mode is very difficult. No teams seem to be using the landmark to help coordinate autonomous scoring. Most of the time when scoring happens in auto, two robots sit out of the way while a third gets a stacked tote set which gets old after a while.

Overall, I think that the positives from this game outweigh the drawbacks. It's refreshing to have a game that isn't about throwing things into holes above the other side's driver station - which is what I had for my first three years with FIRST. From what I've seen, the crowd still gets very excited when coopertition happens, or a stack falls over, or a robot does well. The GDC does have to try something different now and then.

[GeeTwo]

While this was the first year that we left before the pits closed on Thursday, it was not because we weren't interested, but because this is the first year that we bagged a robot that we had practiced with and only needed minor mods to be ready to go.

Scouting and pit conferences were at least as common this year as others at Bayou, With the wide variety of tasks to perform, and the handful of teams that could regularly make one or more tall capped stacks, it was essential to fill in the capability gaps, and no ranking or OPR is going to provide that.

Finally, while I expected the game to be boring, I found it anything but, especially in the last few rounds of quals and playoffs. Even watching 0-0 matches usually wasn't boring. Frustrating, but not boring. (Can't they at least bulldoze a single row of totes onto the platform?) Even the people who "wandered in off the street" whom I spoke to were cheering, especially after a couple of resets or a dance break explaining the basic rules.

[rick.oliver]

Full disclosure, Recycle Rush is the game I have been hoping to get from the GDC since the second or third year of my 13 seasons of FRC experience. I most appreciate the opportunity to execute a design without being harassed by an opponent's robot. That is not to say that I have not enjoyed previous games, nor that teams which I have mentored did not fully participate in and employ strong defense within the rules.

In terms of excitement. At QCR this past weekend, we had a large number of parents, school administration representatives and a sponsor in attendance. I did not witness a lack of interest from any of them. In fact, I had one parent ask if parents could help us with scouting when we compete at Worlds. There was plenty of enthusiasm from the parents. In fact, at one point, our Spirit Mentor admonished the students by informing them that their parents were outperforming them, the students.

Finally, I will share this anecdote, my wife commented after watching matches on the video stream from our Central Illinois event, "this is a boring game." After sitting in the stands with us at Queen City she found it to be very exciting.

[Ginger Power]

And how would you know what the intent of the GDC was?

I have absolutely no clue what the GDC intends. It's an uneducated guess based on the idea that strings attached to robots are confusing to an outsider of FIRST, and that the mission of FIRST is to bring STEM to the common culture through inspiration. That is not to say that ramps are any less inspirational. Just that they can be confusing which can take away from the inspiration.

[JPopham]

While my team had a great season, and had a ton of fun, this is my least favorite game. I think, unintentionally, it does the opposite of what FIRST tries to do. What I mean is, FIRST wants robotics to be thought of as important as a sport, and that is why sports inspired games do so well, because it gets the crowd going, and can pull attention from all kinds of people who would not normally be excited about robots. With no defense, you take away a lot of the strategy in the game, and excitement. Also, rookie teams often could/would build defensive bots and be able to be competitive, teams can build a purely defensive bot and be an asset to their alliance. If you can't stack in this game, you are in the way and a liability for your alliance.

Also, hard to explain, but after a 3-regional season, I do think it is not as exciting for spectators, and it changes the way teams watch the games. In the past, teams would cheer on an alliance, with the win-loss system for ranking. Now, this year, I found a lot of teams/members cheering for low scores all around, because that helps your rank. This is not GP, and seems to take out alot of the spirit of traditional FIRST games.

[Ginger Power]

I had been concerned from the beginning about this game having no audience appeal. I talked with several people who attended our first regional. Half had never been to a FIRST competition before, the other half had not been to an event for a couple of years. Both groups loved this game. One engineer (never been to event b4) commented on enjoying seeing a real engineering challenge versus a sporting like event. Two indicated (had been to events before) that they liked not seeing defense where inferior robots just try to get in your way.

I get the fact that predictably may concern some. But always knowing that a 16-17 year old is in control of the bot indicates that anything can and will happen. The human factor is still there giving unpredictable outcomes.

For those who complain about knowing outcomes when two great alliances get together............ Same complaint we hear year after year. It gets old.

I guess my biggest complaint about this game is just what your first mentor liked about it. Sports are popular. There's a very good reason professional athletes get paid astronomically high salaries. There's also a very good reason why little kids grow up saying I want to be a professional baseball/soccer/football etc. player. It's because sports are popular. I want little kids to be saying: "I want to grow up to be a(n) engineer/welder/architect". I'm sure that's something everybody on CD can agree on, which is a rare thing. I want the reason for them to grow up saying this thing because FIRST has accomplished it's mission of bringing STEM to the popular culture. I just believe that a sports-like-game does a better job of this.

Is there a reason teams still use their 2012 robot when doing showcase events in big arenas, specifically at basketball games? Could it be because the purpose of the robot is instantly recognizable by anybody within a matter of seconds? Now the important question: Will teams be able to showcase their Recycle Rush robot in front of large crowds with as much, or more success than they could with their 2012 robot? I severely doubt that they can.

So in order to infiltrate the popular culture it is my strong belief that FIRST needs to emulate the games which people already know and love.

On the other hand... I completely understand the purpose of Recycle Rush. We can't do the same thing (throw objects into goals) every year. We need to mix it up. With that said, there are so many different recognizable sports out there which can be emulated in a way that they do provide a unique engineering challenge, and a different viewing experience for the crowd.

Edit: A lot of the same sentiment ^^^ I was sniped.

[Boltman]

As lead strategist/scout mentor I thoroughly enjoyed this years game. From those standpoints.

We failed to make worlds but still rank in top 16.5% world rank. 20% of teams go to Worlds.

Our failing was not having a bot to be top 8 and alliance captain, that is not say we did not have a shot with our outstanding alliance partners with four outstanding teams ( in our two playoff alliances) gave us a total shot and winning we are grateful for the support of teams 696 Circuit Breakers, 1836 Milken Knights, 3021 The Agency and 1772 Brazilian Trailblazers...all of you were excellent alliance captains and/or partners . Our strategy was sound "dividing labor" to what each bot adds, however the fact we were not good enough to be an alliance captain (Highest rank #15) meant we came close but failed. So many chances to succeed. Yet did not.

Lesson learned.

What I do like is this challenge:

A. Requires engineering
B. Requires alliance teamwork and proper makeup
C. Requires consistency
D. Requires considering every scoring aspect

No two best bots in the arena can win on their own guaranteed. The best three matched perfectly wins.

Two examples from our own regionals....

In Ventura best bot/team hands down 330 Beach Bots second best 1717 D'Penguineers along with 2761 Iron Horse (strong third)..they eventually won BUT they were a measly 6 points in three semi finals QA from not even making the finals. We could have beat them (696, 1836, 5137) had any one play in three games made us 6+ points ... 6 points extra in three games and who knows we could be in the worlds....its that close.

In San Diego best bot was 1538 Holy Cows and second best obviously was Code Orange 3476 they added a strong third pick 4486 Blue Prints ...They formed a very strong alliance lost in the finals by 1 point in second final match (0-2 in finals)...same thing happened to Holy Cows in their first regional...dominated added second best strong third and then lost . Best two bots plus third strong (dual grabber) does not guarantee a championship. Like in previous years where a strong two or one could win. I think noodles won San Diego. I was shocked I thought they won and there would be a game 3 there wasn't ...great effort from a great alliance.

With best two bots from a scout standpoint and their third was a fast platform side two wall RC grabber to go along with Holy Cows super fast two RC wall grabber...their potential to grab all four cans in auto.... they lost... Two best bots + dual can grabber seems like they should win.

As a hearty side note congrats to both Eagle Robotics 399 (only one set of fast dual RC talons ) and 3255 SuperNURDS who I consider great teams and FRC friends and of course 2339 Robolopes! Amazing alliance winning against all odds.

Special shout out to the Greybots and Adam Heard thanks for your teams full support!

Moral of the story...having the best two bots does not guarantee success in this years game... the differential in the top 4 alliances is minuscule from a scouting perspective... I love that aspect of this years game.

May the best alliance makeup win the worlds, going to be very interesting. I will watch the playoffs.

I fully support what they were trying to do with RR...its a great challenge.

Best of luck to all teams who made it...worlds are going to be amazing and tough...good luck to all.

We'll be back in 2016...another year better.

[Oblarg]

Recycle Rush is very different from any FRC game I've ever seen (2004, 2005, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014).

In many ways, it's a great game. The engineering challenge is fun and original and caught many teams off guard. This year, the best robot is more likely to win than in previous years. The less restrictive design rules were awesome too. Although some people think the ramps are cheap solutions that take away from the value of the game and may not have been anticipated by the GDC, I think they're amazingly clever simple solutions to difficult problems. Isn't that what engineering is about?

The average score system is also far superior to the old W/L/T system for providing accurate rankings. The rules are also really objective and fair this year.

However, Recycle Rush has some flaws. The game is very boring at a lower level, and is often dominated by one or two teams. Scoring is set up so that a simpler robot scores way too little compared to better robots. The lack of defense and robot-robot interaction really brings down the excitement because you usually know what's going to happen before the match starts.

At the level of eliminations, the third robot on the winning alliance doesn't have much of a role. If the alliance partners are unable to cheesecake the robot, the robot usually ends up in a corner, watching the other teams make a fortress of stacks.

The game is also deceptively difficult. Even loading totes from a hole in the wall is challenging because they don't land consistently or right side up. Was this additional engineering challenge really necessary? What does it add to the game? There are two game pieces, neither of which can easily be manipulated, but being able to manipulate both is required to do well.

Autonomous mode also was also a little disappointing. Outside of eliminations, there are rarely robot sets, tote sets, or container sets simply because a collaborative autonomous mode is very difficult. No teams seem to be using the landmark to help coordinate autonomous scoring. Most of the time when scoring happens in auto, two robots sit out of the way while a third gets a stacked tote set which gets old after a while.

Overall, I think that the positives from this game outweigh the drawbacks. It's refreshing to have a game that isn't about throwing things into holes above the other side's driver station - which is what I had for my first three years with FIRST. From what I've seen, the crowd still gets very excited when coopertition happens, or a stack falls over, or a robot does well. The GDC does have to try something different now and then.

I agree with everything here except the conclusion - I do not think that this game, on the whole, is a good one. It is brutal for rookies and low-resource teams, and it's simply less fun to watch and to play than any game I can remember since 2009. While I can wholeheartedly get behind the "we need something other than shooting games" sentiment, I do not think this one is it.

I find the lack of clear contributions that can be made by simple robots this year to be particularly discouraging - in most other years I can remember, even a box-on-wheels (or something very close to a box-on-wheels) could be a valuable alliance partner.

[KevinG]

Overall I was disappointed in this game. It began with the animation, and the loss of poor Dozer.

http://i.imgur.com/iM7KykR.png

In essence Recycle Rush was the polar opposite of Aerial Assault Assist. Where Aerial Assist was about working with other partners to achieve a goal while also facing off against an opponent doing the same, Recycle Rush is essentially robots playing by themselves next to each other. It's less a competition and more a technology demonstration. The complete lack of interaction between alliances outside of stealing cans within the first few seconds of the games makes the experience very boring. At the low level game it's boring because nobody will be doing much. At the high level game it's boring because the alliances will be doing the same thing each match. You could almost have some teams run autonomous throughout the entirety of the match.

In my opinion a good FRC game needs to have the following characteristics:

1. It needs to provide a compelling technical challenge.
2. The game needs to have multiple roles that require unique solutions, mitigating the likelihood of one robot doing it all.
3. There needs to be a place for a "brave little toaster" robot (ie Dozer) to have a role so that low performing teams can still participate.
4. There needs to be meaningful interaction between the robots so that each match is unique.
5. It needs to be fun and engaging to watch beyond the point at which the novelty expires.
6. The rules need to be clear and easy to understand with a minimum of subjectivity.

Ultimately IMO Recycle Rush only met two of those characteristics, as stacking bins proved to be a very good technical challenge and the rules were easy to understand. However there is no real diversity in roles, low performing teams have no real job save autonomous points, there is no interaction outside stealing cans, and spectators will quickly grow bored as robots do the same thing over and over again. Aerial Assist got 5/6 characteristics (the subjectivity of some fouls was a problem).

Hopefully next year bumpers will be back.

[Siri]

...Best two bots plus third strong (dual grabber) does not guarantee a championship. Like in previous years where a strong two or one could win.This is an odd assertion statistically. If you [generic "you"] are a senior this year, you have never seen a game in which the winning Alliance Captain or their 1st Pick are more likely to be the top-ranked team by OPR at that event. Recycle Rush stands alone in the likelihood of the first 2 winning robots having highly ranked OPRs. 2012 is essentially tied at the highest levels, but even it trails off eventually.

I'm not saying that OPR should or shouldn't be used as a predictor in general or this year, or that this is a good or bad thing, or that the ranking system this year is better or worse. I only point out that OPR, being a predictor, thrives on predictability. The above trend is basically the definition of predictability for FRC.

*I'm also not arguing against the statement "Best two bots plus third strong (dual grabber) does not guarantee a championship". I agree; this is just about the comparison to previous years.

[nixiebunny]

I remember starting a thread like this a couple weeks ago. I can't say my opinion of the game has changed much since winning a regional.

Some of our team members just drove to Phoenix yesterday with me to watch the action at Arizona West. One of them decided to spend the afternoon instead at another team's build space, working on a secret weapon. I think they predicted the outcome after five minutes in the pits.

I got a chance to check out the winning robots, 3309 and 2122, in the pits. They were very similar, and looked just like machines you'd see in a factory, if factories moved empty totes around all day. I could appreciate the engineering. I even noted that 3309 did the same thing as 2122 with half as many powered systems.

That said, my brother's NERDS team was unable to beat them at their task, even with a dramatic push to bump their alliance average by 20% in semifinals. Their robot wasn't built like a factory worker. Oh, well.

[Kevin Leonard]

I used to have the same opinion of some teams in this thread about ramps. I felt that they were a lazy way to make a robot that never considered how to actually get game pieces into a good robot.

However a few things changed my mind:

1.) Ramps can help allow teams with less resources to compete with the best of them.
An example I found awesome was 2550 from at the Pacific Northwest District Championship. Watching their robot, which had a Kitbot drivebase and a basic elevator, seed second and consistently place 2-3 stacks using their ramp was awesome to me. They understood the strengths and weaknesses of the robot they built and used that knowledge to compete at the highest levels.

2.) They can be enable the best to do even better.
Teams 1114, 254, and 2056 use long ramps to bypass the bottleneck that is the chute door (which is a cool engineering feat in its own right). By using these ramps, these teams are able to put up staggeringly high scores and blow my mind in what I thought was possible from robots this year.

3.) Using a ramp is a trade-off.
To begin with, if your robot is tethered to a ramp, you have to start autonomous in the area of the field with the staging zones, preventing you from effectively competing in the Autonomous can race. Tethers can also provide other issues, like stacks being on top of tethers, and thus not fully supported by the scoring platform, and tethers being caught in wheels.

Overall, I really like what this year's rules have allowed for in terms of robot design. Ramps and tethers and can grabbers and conveyors are what makes this game much cooler than I expected.

[marshall]

EDIT: SVR was really obvious after Thursday. 254 would win, and whomever they picked would win as well. It's usually somewhat obvious, but this year was especially bad.

Just wait until the game outcome is decided by the only constrained resource. I suspect it will be painfully obvious who is going to win a match by how many recycling containers they have at the end of the autonomous period.

[evanperryg]

OP- RR can be boring, but it gets boring for the same reason any other game gets boring. The problem with North Star, and the cause of OP's complaints, seems to be the huge divide between 2826 and the rest of the event. First and second were divided by 50 points, and the divide between second and third was also pretty significant. It was pretty clear what was going to happen there, and if you weren't 2826 or 3130, it'd be easy to be upset by the predictability of the event.

However, OP is wrong in singling out RR for this causing this frustration. Similar things have happened in regionals in the past. Look at Midwest 2014 or Waterloo for the last eight years. When one or two teams become so much better than everyone else at an event, all the fun is taken out because the result is obvious.

Recycle Rush isn't inherently boring. Midwest was actually VERY exciting to watch. Elimination rounds featured brilliant strategies, alliances doing the seemingly impossible, and the cheesecake to end all cheesecakes (shout out to 16 and 2358), all ending in a regional winner decided by only 6 points. The finals matches were absolutely some of the best-played, most thrilling matches I have ever seen.

[Briansmithtown]

I think I speak for the majority when is say Recycle Rush should be considered the worst FIRST game. I found lunacy to me more entertaining (also since it was my first year).

[Ginger Power]

I think I speak for the majority when is say Recycle Rush should be considered the worst FIRST game. I found lunacy to me more entertaining (also since it was my first year).

I don't know if I'd go that far. I would say it's a combination of 2 of the worst games: 2001 Diobolical Dynamics, and 2003 Stack Attack. It borrows the 4 v 0 element of 2001 and stacking element of 2003. Granted the stacking part of 2003 wasn't the hated part.

[evanperryg]

(those 3 points)
I used to feel the same way, that ramps were basically a crutch for sub-par landfill bots. However, I think ramps will be vital on Einstein; think, there's a strong chance an alliance will be consistently emptying the landfill of totes. So, what's next? The best way to keep putting up stacks would be the feeder, and ramps will make this viable.

[Siri]

OP- RR can be boring, but it gets boring for the same reason any other game gets boring. The problem with North Star, and the cause of OP's complaints, seems to be the huge divide between 2826 and the rest of the event. First and second were divided by 50 points, and the divide between second and third was also pretty significant. It was pretty clear what was going to happen there, and if you weren't 2826 or 3130, it'd be easy to be upset by the predictability of the event.

However, OP is wrong in singling out RR for this causing this frustration. Similar things have happened in regionals in the past. Look at Midwest 2014 or Waterloo for the last eight years. When one or two teams become so much better than everyone else at an event, all the fun is taken out because the result is obvious.

Recycle Rush isn't inherently boring. Midwest was actually VERY exciting to watch. Elimination rounds featured brilliant strategies, alliances doing the seemingly impossible, and the cheesecake to end all cheesecakes (shout out to 16 and 2358), all ending in a regional winner decided by only 6 points. The finals matches were absolutely some of the best-played, most thrilling matches I have ever seen.I agree completely, but I don't think the assertion is really "RR is inherently boring". I think it's that it's statistically more likely to suffer from the boredom you've identified (e.g. Wave----->everybody else at the event). The point spreads are nuts this year. When they're not, it's not so bad (as long as you're good with watching uniformly-ish good or bad box stacking).

[Squillo]

I think @evanperryg has hit the nail on the head. As the best teams get SO much better than the VAST majority, it gets harder and harder for the GDC to meet what I see as one of its biggest challenges - designing a game/engineering problem that provides some challenge for those "top" teams, while still allowing the rest of the teams to meaningfully participate. While "playing defense" is one way to solve that problem, I don't think it's the best. It would be better, IMHO, if the less advanced teams could contribute to offense, but at a lower level. (I happen to think this year was a good year in that regard, I know rational minds do differ in this regard.)

I am not sure what the answer is. Part of me keeps thinking that maybe it's time to split into two competitions, FRC and "super-FRC," while still keeping some connection so that the "ordinary" teams can be inspired by and learn from the "powerhouses." I don't really like the idea of a split, but I'm not sure how to solve the problem otherwise. The "wild card" slot helps a little (at least when a single high-powered team would get multiple 'invites' to Champs, another team or two gets to go), but then there is the whole issue of the "first alliance second pick" that usually gets a MUCH less capable (i.e., fourth-or fifth-string) robot/team into Champs, while the "second stringers" are left behind (sometimes again and again... consider a team that regularly seeds 3rd or 4th - maybe in top 10-15% of all the teams by OPR or whatever else you could use to accurately measure performance - but never is on the winning alliance (because 1 picks 2 and then handily defeats all others). If FIRST wants the BEST robots/teams at Champs (often given as the rationale for allowing #1 to pick #2), then why let a third robot "tag along" merely by the luck of being drawn? (Or worse, because they happen to be "friends" with the #1 alliance? Like the old "popularity contests" in for grade-school student government.))

Unfortunately, I have not been able to solve this problem. One idea would be to give out points in some manner throughout the season, and then the teams with the most points get to fill, say, 2/3 of the Champ slots (with the rest for award winners; I do think it's good to let, say, Rookie All-Stars, EI and CA winners, etc. go to Champs). I'm not sure how all the points should work, we could debate that all day long, but I would think that being a "2nd pick" for a winning alliance would garner (way) fewer points than seeding high, being alliance captain of a semi-final competitor, etc. Even winning an engineering-based award could count for some points. There would also have to be a way to give single-competition teams as much of a shot as those who attend several competitions. This is really a difficult problem to solve... but that doesn't mean we/they shouldn't try.

[dcarr]

Unfortunately, I have not been able to solve this problem. One idea would be to give out points in some manner throughout the season, and then the teams with the most points get to fill, say, 2/3 of the Champ slots (with the rest for award winners; I do think it's good to let, say, Rookie All-Stars, EI and CA winners, etc. go to Champs). I'm not sure how all the points should work, we could debate that all day long, but I would think that being a "2nd pick" for a winning alliance would garner (way) fewer points than seeding high, being alliance captain of a semi-final competitor, etc. Even winning an engineering-based award could count for some points. There would also have to be a way to give single-competition teams as much of a shot as those who attend several competitions. This is really a difficult problem to solve... but that doesn't mean we/they shouldn't try.

District Points System (http://www.usfirst.org/sites/default/files/uploadedFiles/Robotics_Programs/FRC/Game_and_Season__Info/2015/FRC_District_Standard_Points_Ranking_System_2015%2 0Summary.pdf)

[Sunshine]

I think @evanperryg has hit the nail on the head. As the best teams get SO much better than the VAST majority, it gets harder and harder for the GDC to meet what I see as one of its biggest challenges - designing a game/engineering problem that provides some challenge for those "top" teams, while still allowing the rest of the teams to meaningfully participate. While "playing defense" is one way to solve that problem, I don't think it's the best. It would be better, IMHO, if the less advanced teams could contribute to offense, but at a lower level. (I happen to think this year was a good year in that regard, I know rational minds do differ in this regard.)

I am not sure what the answer is. Part of me keeps thinking that maybe it's time to split into two competitions, FRC and "super-FRC," while still keeping some connection so that the "ordinary" teams can be inspired by and learn from the "powerhouses." I don't really like the idea of a split, but I'm not sure how to solve the problem otherwise. The "wild card" slot helps a little (at least when a single high-powered team would get multiple 'invites' to Champs, another team or two gets to go), but then there is the whole issue of the "first alliance second pick" that usually gets a MUCH less capable (i.e., fourth-or fifth-string) robot/team into Champs, while the "second stringers" are left behind (sometimes again and again... consider a team that regularly seeds 3rd or 4th - maybe in top 10-15% of all the teams by OPR or whatever else you could use to accurately measure performance - but never is on the winning alliance (because 1 picks 2 and then handily defeats all others). If FIRST wants the BEST robots/teams at Champs (often given as the rationale for allowing #1 to pick #2), then why let a third robot "tag along" merely by the luck of being drawn? (Or worse, because they happen to be "friends" with the #1 alliance? Like the old "popularity contests" in for grade-school student government.))

Unfortunately, I have not been able to solve this problem. One idea would be to give out points in some manner throughout the season, and then the teams with the most points get to fill, say, 2/3 of the Champ slots (with the rest for award winners; I do think it's good to let, say, Rookie All-Stars, EI and CA winners, etc. go to Champs). I'm not sure how all the points should work, we could debate that all day long, but I would think that being a "2nd pick" for a winning alliance would garner (way) fewer points than seeding high, being alliance captain of a semi-final competitor, etc. Even winning an engineering-based award could count for some points. There would also have to be a way to give single-competition teams as much of a shot as those who attend several competitions. This is really a difficult problem to solve... but that doesn't mean we/they shouldn't try.

Although interesting, you are getting off topic. I hope this does not cause us to get off track. Purhaps a new thread with this info would be appropriate.

[Squillo]

District Points System (http://www.usfirst.org/sites/default/files/uploadedFiles/Robotics_Programs/FRC/Game_and_Season__Info/2015/FRC_District_Standard_Points_Ranking_System_2015%2 0Summary.pdf)

Wow, they should do something like this for Regionals, too! I love it.

Sorry for going off topic. We now return you to your regularly-scheduled endless discussion of whether Recycle Rush is boring or not.;)

[Green Potato]

I saw this challenge as a throw back to the old days. We saw that coming.

Honestly, whether or not one misses the "old days" of FIRST may indicate whether they like this game. Sure, this game isn't a copy of the old, but people who generally liked the older games were also the kind of people who liked this one. I saw this as I was walking around and talking with people both at Palmetto and Virginia regionals. I personally don't like this game so much due to it being more of an engineering match than a real competition. ( I actually suggested that this game be called a "challenge" instead), but different people have different opinions.

[Ginger Power]

I agree completely, but I don't think the assertion is really "RR is inherently boring". I think it's that it's statistically more likely to suffer from the boredom you've identified (e.g. Wave----->everybody else at the event). The point spreads are nuts this year. When they're not, it's not so bad (as long as you're good with watching uniformly-ish good or bad box stacking).

Yes

[MrForbes]

We kind of accidentally made a "can specialist" robot, for your entertainment.

Every match is different for us.

[Caleb Sykes]

If FIRST wants the BEST robots/teams at Champs (often given as the rationale for allowing #1 to pick #2), then why let a third robot "tag along" merely by the luck of being drawn? (Or worse, because they happen to be "friends" with the #1 alliance? Like the old "popularity contests" in for grade-school student government.))

Emphasis mine.

I disagree with a couple of things in your post, but this one flat-out confuses me. If the best two teams at the event are not picking the team that they think gives them the greatest chance at winning the event, then I have absolutely no clue how they managed to build the two best robots at the event.

I have never seen a case of the highest seed picking a team just to let them "tag along" for the ride to champs. My guess is that you have seen a case where the one seed picks a team they are familiar with because they trust the team to be useful contributors to their alliance. For example, there are generally a couple of teams at each event that I don't trust, primarily based on past experiences with them. Even if one of those teams had a slightly better robot than a team I am familiar with, I would want to partner with the team I am familiar with because I know that we will work well with them.

[evanperryg]

If FIRST wants the BEST robots/teams at Champs (often given as the rationale for allowing #1 to pick #2), then why let a third robot "tag along" merely by the luck of being drawn? (Or worse, because they happen to be "friends" with the #1 alliance? Like the old "popularity contests" in for grade-school student government.))

Yes, I believe that an event where one robot is so far beyond any of the others is upsetting to the other teams. I've seen plenty of that at certain regionals. However, I think you miss the importance of a second pick. I won't speak for any other team, but as my team's lead strategist and the primary guy behind the picklists, I'm willing to lay out the importance of some of my team's second picks over the last few years:

2014 Crossroads: 2338, 4085, 2358: We were in a position at crossroads where we knew we were not going to win the event, but I'm not one for giving up. 2358 was vital to this alliance by providing a robot that could inbound, bounce assist, or truss shot quickly, while their maneuverable drive and ~50" height made them good for defending against 1024.

2014 Midwest: 2338, 1732, 3936: Almost everyone at Midwest knew that 1625 and 2451 would win it effortlessly. I was certain they would run 1-assist+truss cycles and use their last bot as a defender. Realizing this, I knew the only way to have a chance against them was to get the 2-assist+truss cycle down fast. So, 3936 was perfect for us because their robot was just a collector on wheels, and a pretty quick collector at that, and their drivetrain was strong enough to get in 1625's way while they tried to get a truss shot.

2015 Wisconsin: 2338, 2077, 167: This one's pretty simple. We knew we needed to put up 5 6-stacks capped if we wanted to beat 2826 and their 28 point auto. since 2077 and 2338 were both landfill bots that needed upright cans, we needed a bot that could both tip up our center-pull cans, and could have a ramp for 2077 to use. We had worked with 167 in a qualifier, and knew they could tip up cans quickly, and they were a joy to work with.

2015 Midwest: 2338, 1756, 171: 1756 tips over 2 (usually 3) cans in auto, and our center can auto usually leaves one can tipped over. This time, too, 2338 and 1756 were both landfill bots that preferred ramps. So, we needed a robot that could upright cans, and be light enough to have 2 tethered ramps. Through all of quals, no team had proven themselves to be a really good can tipper, so we searched for some teams that could be light enough for the ramps, and suggested those teams work on can tipping. 171 proved themselves to do it the fastest, and they became a valuable alliance member. Even when 1756's collector broke and we weren't doing much better, 171 was able to score a few points that helped keep our average high enough to advance to finals.

A second pick doesn't have to put up massive scores to be valuable. A really good second pick can be the deciding factor in an alliance's success. The fact is, high-scoring teams put a significant amount of time and effort into deciding what their second pick is. Even if it sometimes looks like a power alliance's second pick is a lottery winner on a free ride to champs, that team was chosen for a good reason, and they are pulling their weight just as much as (and sometimes more than) their captain.

[Aroki]

Lets not forget that at most regional events, the last pick in the draft is above average. A game where the tops teams are able to question whether an above average robot is more of a liability than an asset is completely unbalanced.

[dcarr]

Lets not forget that at most regional events, the last pick in the draft is above average.

This may be true at larger events with a deeper field, but I'm not sure I'd qualify that as "most."

[Aroki]

Lets not forget that at most regional events, the last pick in the draft is ranked above average. A game where the tops teams are able to question whether an above average ranked robot is more of a liability than an asset is completely unbalanced.

That said, I think the true issue with this year's game lies with how it plays with low tier teams. Other people have talked at length about how the points with RC's favors top teams and the lack of defense removes the major role of weaker teams so I will instead talk about the ranking method in this year's game.

In past years, if six weak teams were playing each other, everyone can get excited for a 3:2 finish. The winning alliance feels good about clutching out the victory and maybe a team scored a last second goal or something and is feels like the contributed to the alliance effort. Objectively speaking however, all six of these robots are weak and none will advance to eliminations but they are still able to be happy about getting a win. This year however, with average match score deciding ranking, there won't be a single one of those six teams walking off the field feeling good about how their robot did.

This may be true at larger events with a deeper field, but I'm not sure I'd qualify that as "most."

Edit: On average, regional events have 51 teams this year.

[MichaelBick]

Lets not forget that at most regional events, the last pick in the draft is above average. A game where the tops teams are able to question whether an above average robot is more of a liability than an asset is completely unbalanced.

I think you mean above median, not above average

[Rachel Lim]

Lets not forget that at most regional events, the last pick in the draft is above average. A game where the tops teams are able to question whether an above average robot is more of a liability than an asset is completely unbalanced.

The 24th best team at a regional isn't usually that different from the 25th best one, or the 30th best one, and so on. Generally speaking, it's quite obvious who the top 2-4 teams are, and then the next 4-8. But beyond that, many teams are quite similar. Being "above average" may only really apply to the top 8-12 teams to the event, and "below average" to the absolute bottom few. "Average" means very little; between each of those groups is a huge drop.

What truly matters is how much those teams can contribute to their alliance. And being in the 99th percentile (i.e. ranking first) does not mean scoring twice as many points as being in the 50th percentile (i.e. being average). In many cases it is 5, or even 10 times as much.

That said, I do agree that top teams this year are even farther above the average than top teams last year. However, in both years, the top teams were very, very far above the average--or 24th best--team. The reason 2nd picks last year were more crucial was because they were needed for assists and for defense.

[Siri]

I have never seen a case of the highest seed picking a team just to let them "tag along" for the ride to champs. My guess is that you have seen a case where the one seed picks a team they are familiar with because they trust the team to be useful contributors to their alliance. For example, there are generally a couple of teams at each event that I don't trust, primarily based on past experiences with them. Even if one of those teams had a slightly better robot than a team I am familiar with, I would want to partner with the team I am familiar with because I know that we will work well with them.I'll contribute to this as well. I don't know that FIRST wants the "best" robots at Worlds. They seem to want a good cross-section that can also make for exciting and meaningful world championship matches. Does it take luck to make participate in that as a 2nd picks? Some, and 2nd picks are likely less consistent with Saturday afternoon appearances, particularly when including Worlds. But 1640's current high school seniors have won back-to-back MAR Championships in 2012/3 and back-to-back Worlds divisions in 2013/4 as second pick.* I don't know anyone who argues that you can go along for the ride in district or division championships, but if that was just luck of the draw, it was about 4.7 million to one. I'd be interested to know how common similar repeats are.

As for doing that in this game, I'm sure 2nd picks are still valuable. I think the root of most draft complaints this year isn't that there aren't 2nd pick niches that teams can make themselves valuable for, it's that the niches themselves are upsetting to people. The most divisive example being a "boat anchor" to teams' ramps, but other cheesecake is also controversial this year.

*We didn't personally know our alliance teams beforehand (we knew the MAR guys of course, but so did everyone else there). It was our first time picked by all of them except 341 in 2012, who had picked us second to win Horsham a few weeks prior. EDIT: Actually, we won Philly 2011 (and then Newton 2013) with 303, but in 2011 we were the AC and they were the second pick. Also, this makes me feel old in that all the strategists on both teams were too young to remember it.

[dodar]

More often than not, 3rd robots at regionals are niche teams.

[Squillo]

All the talk of "selecting the proper team to complement" a high-ranked alliance is totally true, from the point of view of the top alliance captains, and I know they take it seriously,* however it ignores the fact that by the time the top alliances get around to picking, their choice of "the best complement" is necessarily be made from among a group of teams that DOES NOT INCLUDE many teams that would have actually made a better "complement" - but got picked already. You can be the best "niche" team ever but if so, you will almost certainly be picked BEFORE the top alliances get to their second picks.

I do have to admit that it was hard for our team this year, when we had the best robot and drivers ever, to know at 11 a.m. on Saturday that because we were good enough to be picked by a #4, #5, or #6 Captain (and of course couldn't say no unless we wanted to put together our own #7 or 8 alliance with even worse chances), we had basically no chance of being a finalist (this may not be true at all competitions, I know the #6, 7 and 8 alliances have won a few this year, but it wasn't happening at either of ours), whereas a robot that wasn't even top 20 would have a much better chance of ending up on the winning alliance. Yes, they would have to be a decent robot, the best of what was available then; but EVEN IF we'd been the "best" complement to the #1 alliance, we had no chance of hanging around long enough 'unpicked' to be able to be chosen by them. And same was true of many very good robots, niche and otherwise.

*My comment about the "popularity contests" actually comes from second-hand anecdotes I have heard from years ago, not only re: FRC but (probably moreso) other competitions, that involve younger students. I haven't seen it happen the past few years in FRC, I have to admit. So consider it withdrawn as having been the ill-considered product of frustration.

[Sunshine]

because we were good enough[/B][/I] to be picked by a #4, #5, or #6 Captain (and of course couldn't say no unless we wanted to put together our own #7 or 8 alliance with even worse chances), we had basically no chance of being a finalist (this may not be true at all competitions, I know the #6, 7 and 8 alliances have won a few this year, but it wasn't happening at either of ours), whereas a robot that wasn't even top 20 would have a much better chance of ending up on the winning alliance. Yes, they would have to be a decent robot, the best of what was available then; but EVEN IF we'd been the "best" complement to the #1 alliance, we had no chance of hanging around long enough 'unpicked' to be able to be chosen by them. And same was true of many very good robots, niche and otherwise.

Your comments are NOT unique to this years game. You hear the same concerns year after year.

[Michael Corsetto]

More often than not, 3rd robots at regionals are niche teams.

This year, 3rd robots at regionals are cheesecake teams.

After 3 regional wins, multiple high scores, canburgalar races, and overall playing this game at higher level than 99% of FRC teams, I can say one thing for sure:

This. Game. Sucks.

Buckle up everyone, you have 2 more weeks to make the fastest can grabber in the world. Because at CMP, that is the only thing that matters.

Looking forward to not playing RR in the offseason, and hoping the GDC wakes up for 2016.

-Mike

[Abhishek R]

This year, 3rd robots at regionals are cheesecake teams.

After 3 regional wins, multiple high scores, canburgalar races, and overall playing this game at higher level than 99% of FRC teams, I can say one thing for sure:

This. Game. Sucks.

Buckle up everyone, you have 2 more weeks to make the fastest can grabber in the world. Because at CMP, that is the only thing that matters.

Looking forward to not playing RR in the offseason, and hoping the GDC wakes up for 2016.

-Mike

Even as a driver, watching replays of our matches, I get kinda bored of seeing us sit for about 20 seconds just stacking totes at the feeder station. I definitely miss the past few years' games, at least every match was different.

[KevinG]

Even as a driver, watching replays of our matches, I get kinda bored of seeing us sit for about 20 seconds just stacking totes at the feeder station. I definitely miss the past few years' games, at least every match was different.

This is what really gets me, the lack of variation between matches. I see this as a function of the lack of interaction between teams outside of snatching cans.

[Alyssa]

Buckle up everyone, you have 2 more weeks to make the fastest can grabber in the world. Because at CMP, that is the only thing that matters.



I could not agree more. At multiple regionals, including SDR this last weekend, the determining factor in the last few matches was who got the containers in the first 5 seconds of that match. After that, the game was decided. Good luck to everyone attending Championships, and I really can't wait until next year.

[Conor Ryan]

Some years are better than others. I don't dislike any of them. This year is cool, its just awesome to watch a good robot place this game, just like any other year. Last year was incredible for strategy, this year doesn't have much outside of design.

In recent years, my favorite game has been Aerial Ascent. Difficult challenge, fun to score, fun to watch. This year is a little underwhelming in some aspects, but still in the spirit of FIRST its fun to watch, and more fun to participate.


What will I tell my friends that I've made over the 10+ years of FRC involvement and are not participating this year? They aren't missing much. Some years are better than others, they know that. The rules changes certainly made this year more fun, but the challenge isn't fun like the glory days of 2004.

[topgun]

There are a lot of things I like about this game and some I don't (all highlighted in previous posts in this thread).

To me the biggest problem is the absolute disparity between teams at a regional. NorthStar had two powerhouse robots, several very good robots, and many other robots. We saw the same thing at 10K Lakes, and I am sure other regionals are seeing the same.

A deeper field of robots would certainly have contributed to more exciting matches, and far less predictable playoffs.

Throughout FRC we need to raise the overall level of the robots. A much deeper field of robots at each and every regional will enable any game to be exciting for everyone.

[Mastonevich]

It seems very common that people are saying the main thing missing is defense or robot/robot interaction between the two alliances.

I would much rather watch the NCAA basketball national championship (Go Bucky) between the two teams with interaction and defense rather than each team sending out their players to see who makes the most 3 pointers or does the fanciest dunk without defense. The NBA has that during all star weekend, and it is boring.

The engineering challenge was amazing this year. The real world type challenge added some flavor. Watching 254 or 1114 makes stacks faster than anyone is so WOW, but once you have seen it, it would seem you have seen it a thousand times.

I am not wishing this year to be over as there is a lot to be played out. However I am hoping for robot/robot interaction next year at a minimum.

[Sunshine]

There are a lot of things I like about this game and some I don't.

To me the biggest problem is the absolute disparity between teams at a regional.

A deeper field of robots would certainly have contributed to more exciting matches, and far less predictable playoffs.

Throughout FRC we need to raise the overall level of the robots. A much deeper field of robots at each and every regional will enable any game to be exciting for everyone.

Couldn't agree more! Tired of hearing people complain that it's boring and then go on to say it's too hard. Some suggest on other threads of lowering the bar so everyone can compete. I agree with you, everyone should strive to raise the bar to achieve greatness. The great teams INSPIRE my team to do more using SCIENCE and TECHNOLOGY. I think the system works, and is not broken in my world.

[MrForbes]

After 3 regional wins, multiple high scores, canburgalar races, and overall playing this game at higher level than 99% of FRC teams, I can say one thing for sure:

This. Game. Sucks.

It's still pretty fun for a bunch of us in the 99%.

Sorry about that.

[Michael Corsetto]

It's still pretty fun for a bunch of us in the 99%.

Sorry about that.

Don't worry, we're still having fun. Hard not to with a Dean's List Finalist, WFFA, GP Award, Industrial Design Award, 3 Blue Banners, and a whole lot of hard working kids to be proud of.

Also, they play a lot of Taylor Swift at the competitions, which makes anything more fun.

You can still have a good time while playing a terrible game.

-Mike

[MaGiC_PiKaChU]

This year, 3rd robots at regionals are cheesecake teams.

This. Game. Sucks.

-Mike

Our team was 1st seed at the Montreal regional, and we had a canburglar mechanism to cheesecake on our 3rd bot. We didn't. We've let them use their own design, and it made them feel proud to win an event with their original robot. The finalist alliance did not have a cheesecake either, and we can be proud of it.

The game sucks only if you make it do so. :rolleyes:

[Rachel Lim]

Our team was 1st seed at the Montreal regional, and we had a canburglar mechanism to cheesecake on our 3rd bot. We didn't. We've let them use their own design, and it made them feel proud to win an event with their original robot. The finalist alliance did have a cheesecake either, and we can be proud of it.

At some point, the container grabbers 2nd picks have aren't going to be fast enough to win. Period. Watching finals at SVR, where 1678 cheesecaked their grabber onto 5027 who then fought with 971, should be enough to confirm this if it wasn't already clear. And at least at SVR, the red alliance would get at least 2 containers (1678 wasn't competing with anyone) and it was fairly clear that 254+1678 could outscore the blue alliance (just by pure stacking speed), so the two containers 5027 was trying to get wouldn't have decided the match. By champs, this will no longer be true. Teams aiming for Einstein are going to have to be willing to cheesecake and be cheesecaked, and 1678 knows this. They're just been getting some practice. :rolleyes:


After attending two regionals and watching countless webcasts, my opinion on this game hasn't changed. It's still amazing to watch at the highest levels (go watch qual 88 at SVR if you don't believe me), but the huge gap between the few top teams and the average team makes a typical match less than exciting. Recycle Rush is a great engineering challenge, but a terrible game.

[MaGiC_PiKaChU]

After attending two regionals and watching countless webcasts, my opinion on this game hasn't changed. It's still amazing to watch at the highest levels (go watch qual 88 at SVR if you don't believe me), but the huge gap between the few top teams and the average team makes a typical match less than exciting. Recycle Rush is a great engineering challenge, but a terrible game.

This gap is huge this year because good robots will always be able to perform in quals, even with the last seeded ones as alliance partners.

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

At some point, the container grabbers 2nd picks have aren't going to be fast enough to win. Period. Watching finals at SVR, where 1678 cheesecaked their grabber onto 5027 who then fought with 971, should be enough to confirm this if it wasn't already clear. And at least at SVR, the red alliance would get at least 2 containers (1678 wasn't competing with anyone) and it was fairly clear that 254+1678 could outscore the blue alliance (just by pure stacking speed), so the two containers 5027 was trying to get wouldn't have decided the match. By champs, this will no longer be true. Teams aiming for Einstein are going to have to be willing to cheesecake and be cheesecaked, and 1678 knows this. They're just been getting some practice. :rolleyes:


After attending two regionals and watching countless webcasts, my opinion on this game hasn't changed. It's still amazing to watch at the highest levels (go watch qual 88 at SVR if you don't believe me), but the huge gap between the few top teams and the average team makes a typical match less than exciting. Recycle Rush is a great engineering challenge, but a terrible game.

I have a feeling canburglers will be a lot faster at champs to the point where cheesecake is not enough to match with dedicated can grabbers. Question is how many fast canburglers will there be per division. 4,8, 20? How many there are will affect how much canburglers cheesecake will be needed if at all.

[Mark Sheridan]

Our team was 1st seed at the Montreal regional, and we had a canburglar mechanism to cheesecake on our 3rd bot. We didn't. We've let them use their own design, and it made them feel proud to win an event with their original robot. The finalist alliance did not have a cheesecake either, and we can be proud of it.

The game sucks only if you make it do so. :rolleyes:

A fun fact, we were the #1 pick at San Diego and we were cheese caked by 1538 when they attached their ramp to us. We were very happy about it too.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Couldn't agree more! Tired of hearing people complain that it's boring and then go on to say it's too hard. Some suggest on other threads of lowering the bar so everyone can compete. I agree with you, everyone should strive to raise the bar to achieve greatness. The great teams INSPIRE my team to do more using SCIENCE and TECHNOLOGY. I think the system works, and is not broken in my world.

It's not about raising the bar, it's about setting attainable options for teams. Last year, no matter how bad you were, you could contribute to an alliance. Heck, I watched Meredith Novak get assist points off a completely inoperable robot at OMB last year. That's an extreme case but even a mediocre robot could inbound and then play effective zone defense (ok, or contact defense but I don't want to claim that is a good thing) This year? They get to become anchors to ramps or liabilities. That's neither inspirational to the team ("here sit in a corner and don't screw up") nor is it fun to watch ("daddy, why is my brother's robot just sitting there not moving?"). Upside, a static billboard is a good billboard, so maybe some sponsors will like having their logo sit still in front of people for 2 minutes, but I doubt it.

Now, I'm not advocating lowering the bar so teams can compete. I'm saying it is a fact of life that, at any given event, there's about 10% of robots that play the game well, maybe 60% middle tier that can play the game sometimes, and a remaining 30% of teams that flat out can't drive reliably (this in itself is an improvement, prior to the 05 kitbot I'd flip the last two categories). Now, I've been pushing for years to help the last 30% group. But you know what? They are the hardest to reach. They have 0 CD presence, don't respond to emails, and probably only meet during build.[1] It's REALLY hard to bring these teams up. But during quals they still need a task to contribute in some meaningful way.[2] That is the big failing of this game. The bottom teams are always going to exist, no matter how much we raise the bar there'll be people who miss it. Games need to have some sort of THING for them to contribute. Otherwise these teams will be reduced to, at best, an anchor or will remain a liability. Or we could have game designs that don't penalize teams from taking risks in qualification matches and not have to have these awkward conversations about how of the 8 times team's have tried to score an auton ball they've spent the next 2 minutes chasing it down or how they have knocked over an average of 1.3 stacks every match.[3]





1. There's also the alternative of the team just being mismanaged contributing to their failure.


2. and to recognize they need to do this other task and not the main task that they are poor at doing.


3. As much as I hate to push for a never ending stream of '13 clone games ala Call of Duty 47: Jaffar Gets Glasses the big takeaways from those games (and why they are well received in my mind):
- Numerous and consistent game pieces
- Instant Scoring
- Sufficient protected zones to make contact defense risky
- Minimally invasive ref involvement
- No penalty for attempting to score (this applies at the low levels where the number of discs was effectively unlimited, at higher tiers of play missing a shot hurt, and that's good)

[MrForbes]

The contributions that some of the lower tier teams can make are quite small this year. Still, as drive coach I made the effort to help two teams score a tote or two each in matches with us. I hope they had fun. I did.

[MaGiC_PiKaChU]

A fun fact, we were the #1 pick at San Diego and we were cheese caked by 1538 when they attached their ramp to us. We were very happy about it too.

attaching a ramp and still play with your robot and standing on a platform with 2 ramps are 2 different stories

[nuclearnerd]

Buckle up everyone, you have 2 more weeks to make the fastest can grabber in the world. Because at CMP, that is the only thing that matters.

To be fair, there are going to be hundreds of teams at CMP that have no can-burgler at all, so if even if you have a slow one, you'll be valuable at the division finals.

Your point stands though for getting to Einstein. But that bar is set so high, I don't think most teams can realistically worry about it. The uber teams that make the most stacks will *also* be the ones with the fastest can-burglers, because they're the ones that will sink the most energy into it. At the level where Can Burgling is the "only thing that matters", the top ~2 teams per division will already have it locked up. The rest of us can be happy with a respectable playoff showing.

I'm not trying to sound defeatist. I'm super happy with my team's performance so far. But this game gives us few avenues to change the order that's been set early in build season.

This is what I think is causing the disputes over this game, because a lot of the people who frequent these forums and discuss the game are heavily involved in the robot aspect of the competition, but a lot of people like spectators, parents, prospective students who may not be as dedicated to following the game or perhaps fully appreciate all that went into these fantastic robots don't get the innate thrill from this game that comes from natural competition.

I do get the sense that there is a dichotomy amongst FIRST aficionados. I call it (somewhat derisively, sorry) the "Sports"/"Science Fairs" split:

The "Science Fairs" type want to show off their ingenuity, and be rewarded commensurately (without all that undignified defence interfering).
The "Sports" type want a game that has unpredictability, where driver training and bad breaks can completely upset a competition outcome.

In 2014 was a "Sports" game. 2015 is a "Science Fair" game. As a designer, who really gets into the technical aspects of the challenge, I should be a "Science Fair" type, but I'm "Sports" all the way. That unpredictability is the heart of the excitement that makes FRC different then anything else out there!

[KevinG]

I do get the sense that there is a dichotomy amongst FIRST aficionados. I call it (somewhat derisively, sorry) the "Sports"/"Science Fairs" split:

The "Science Fairs" type want to show off their ingenuity, and be rewarded commensurately (without all that undignified defence interfering).
The "Sports" type want a game that has unpredictability, where driver training and bad breaks can completely upset a competition outcome.

In 2014 was a "Sports" game. 2015 is a "Science Fair" game. As a designer, who really gets into the technical aspects of the challenge, I should be a "Science Fair" type, but I'm "Sports" all the way. That unpredictability is the heart of the excitement that makes FRC different then anything else out there!

I completely agree with this and those who call RR an engineering challenge as opposed to a game. The lack of competition and interaction between teams on the field of play is a real detriment to the overall experience and enjoyment of spectators.

[nuclearnerd]

The "Science Fairs" type want to show off their ingenuity, and be rewarded commensurately (without all that undignified defence interfering).

OK, that's a little dismissive. I think the broader subject is not about defense per se, but about meaningful team interaction. I get the sense that the auto-set rules, and the three types of game pieces were an attempt to get teams to interact in Recycle Rush. There are some can specialists for sure, and they're super useful at a certain level, but on average they don't seed well, hurting their chances of making the playoffs. Meanwhile, teams that wanted to guarantee a playoff spot ensured their robot did everything - a much harder design challenge then previous years! Future games need to find a way to force the best teams to *need* the other teams on their alliance. Assists were a great way to do it. Three types of game pieces were not. What other ways are there?

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

To be fair, there are going to be hundreds of teams at CMP that have no can-burgler at all, so if even if you have a slow one, you'll be valuable at the division finals.

Your point stands though for getting to Einstein. But that bar is set so high, I don't think most teams can realistically worry about it. The uber teams that make the most stacks will *also* be the ones with the fastest can-burglers, because they're the ones that will sink the most energy into it. At the level where Can Burgling is the "only thing that matters", the top ~2 teams per division will already have it locked up. The rest of us can be happy with a respectable playoff showing.

I'm not trying to sound defeatist. I'm super happy with my team's performance so far. But this game gives us few avenues to change the order that's been set early in build season.


I disagree. I don't believe the top 2 robots in a division will already have can grabbers locked down. Especially since many human player specialist robots are likely to rank the highest such as 148, 2122, 1538 ect... I think its fully reasonable for a team to focus only on being the fastest can grabber and being the critical third pick for a 148/1678 ish alliance. If your alliance can lock down the cans every match, your top 2 robots only have to make 6-7 stacks a match so if all your team does is grab the cans super fast, you are a very valuable robot.

[Boltman]

What I want to see in Champs... is a Can-Burgal defensive bot that deploys some sort of shield/net similar to how 2485 three tennis ball "bolo-net" was used in SD to grab a can , there should be some material to stop the typical can burgals...and do one on each side to cover two RCs...those three tennis balls-bolo deploys were very fast.

[Siri]

I disagree. I don't believe the top 2 robots in a division will already have can grabbers locked down. Especially since many human player specialist robots are likely to rank the highest such as 148, 2122, 1538 ect... I think its fully reasonable for a team to focus only on being the fastest can grabber and being the critical third pick for a 148/1678 ish alliance. If your alliance can lock down the cans every match, your top 2 robots only have to make 6-7 stacks a match so if all your team does is grab the cans super fast, you are a very valuable robot.The problem is that if you're actually the fastest canburglar in your subdivision, the rest the ACs would be foolish to let you fall all the way to bring the second (much less third) pick of 1678. Guys like the Circuits know this, which is why powerhouses are putting so much effort towards their own grabbers.

This is not something an AC/1Pick wants left to chance, draft order, or anyone else. Per exactly the math you explain, it's just too important. HP or landfill, unless they're running a tether from the feeder that can't move or cheesecake, they're probably in the cold canburglar war. (Per your example, here's hoping 148 could take the auto stack and can set while 1678 burglars.)

That's not to say that pick can't happen: I still remember 1114 somehow managing to pick the fastest minibot in their division on the back of the draft. But minibots aren't canburglars (strategically I mean; otherwise they basically are). And even if they were, you can bet neither 1114 nor 294 went into Worlds counting on everyone missing them. It's a heck of a gamble, but you know what they say about big risks and their rewards. I struggle with the characterization of "fully reasonable" though, if that's the alliance number a team is gunning for second/third pick of.

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

The problem is that if you're actually the fastest canburglar in your subdivision, the rest the ACs would be foolish to let you fall all the way to bring the second (much less third) pick of 1678. Guys like the Circuits know this, which is why powerhouses are putting so much effort towards their own grabbers.

This is not something an AC/1Pick wants left to chance, draft order, or anyone else. Per exactly the math you explain, it's just too important. HP or landfill, unless they're running a tether from the feeder that can't move or cheesecake, they're probably in the cold canburglar war. (Per your example, here's hoping 148 could take the auto stack and can set while 1678 burglars.)

That's not to say that pick can't happen: I still remember 1114 somehow managing to pick the fastest minibot in their division on the back of the draft. But minibots aren't canburglars (strategically I mean; otherwise they basically are). And even if they were, you can bet neither 1114 nor 294 went into Worlds counting on everyone missing them. It's a heck of a gamble, but you know what they say about big risks and their rewards. I struggle with the characterization of "fully reasonable" though, if that's the alliance number a team is gunning for second/third pick of.

That's a pretty solid argument. Food for thought, if lets say 1114 was second fastest can grabber and they had the option to pick 148 or the fastest can grabber but that robot can't do anything else but handle cans. Do they go with 148 and hope for a decently fast grabber as third pick or pick the fastest can grabber and pick the best stacker remaining as their third pick. Of course their are countless other factors to consider and the robots in question might be variations of this example but its situations that I could see happening given there are 8 divisions for crazy stuff like this to happen.

[evanperryg]

There are a few main reasons there is such a huge gap this year:
-Qualifier average: although it definitely makes sense in the context of this game, it doesn't allow those gray-area teams to get good records that will put them in a position for success. A team that can put up 2 capped 6-stacks is certainly better than most teams, and would be "winning" matches. However, their scores will never compare to a team who puts up 3. I like the QA system overall, but I think it emphasizes the divide between top-tier and good-tier.

-no defense: With very few exceptions (among them, 2062 and 4143 at midwest) there is no real strategy in this game. There is also absolutely no effective defense in this game, unless you have 2 extremely fast can pullers. As a result, lower-power teams have no means of stopping top-tier teams without taking themselves down in the process.

-scoring: in previous years, the actual action of scoring big points wasn't a slow process. This year, producing those valuable 5 and 6 stacks can take a lot of time and precision. As a result, there are teams who spend the entire match scoring 2 points, and teams who put up 200+ alone. Funnily enough, the most precision-oriented game in years rewards speed much more highly than precision, and if you are a high-stacking team who takes even a couple seconds longer than the rest to put up a capped 6-stack, it means you're doomed for the second tier.

[Caleb Sykes]

Funnily enough, the most precision-oriented game in years rewards speed much more highly than precision, and if you are a high-stacking team who takes even a couple seconds longer than the rest to put up a capped 6-stack, it means you're doomed for the second tier.

This sentence really confuses me, particularly the first part. Can you describe in more detail what you mean by this?

[Citrus Dad]

This is what I think is causing the disputes over this game, because a lot of the people who frequent these forums and discuss the game are heavily involved in the robot aspect of the competition, but a lot of people like spectators, parents, prospective students who may not be as dedicated to following the game or perhaps fully appreciate all that went into these fantastic robots don't get the innate thrill from this game that comes from natural competition.

Feel free to disagree with me, this is just my late-night opinion, but I think we have a biased view of whether this is a "good" game for the purposes of FIRST.

I agree. I've posted elsewhere on this--the point of FIRST is SOCIAL engineering. It is to change the cultural attitude about the attractiveness of STEM education and careers. That means appealing to the folks who are NOT deeply invested in building robots. It means that the game must be appealing to someone who has an interest in sports or social activities and is on the fence about STEM activities. Only by stepping outside of the usual comfort zone for most of us focused on STEM and appealing to a broader audience can FIRST truly change the culture.

[Citrus Dad]

Quote:
Originally Posted by evanperryg View Post
Funnily enough, the most precision-oriented game in years rewards speed much more highly than precision, and if you are a high-stacking team who takes even a couple seconds longer than the rest to put up a capped 6-stack, it means you're doomed for the second tier.

This sentence really confuses me, particularly the first part. Can you describe in more detail what you mean by this?

Scoring is a step function--each capped stack is really worth 36 or 42 points. If a team can't fit in that last stack in the last few seconds, they fall 36 or 42 points behind, not just 2 or 4. We can see how teams fall into 2, 3 or 4 stacks per match teams (only 2 or 3 at that higher level, and a dozen at the next level). There aren't really any 2.5 stack teams, because that's largely meaningless due to the lumpiness of stack scoring.

[Citrus Dad]

This gap is huge this year because good robots will always be able to perform in quals, even with the last seeded ones as alliance partners.

Which is fundamentally different from previous years. It was very difficult for a top team alone to outgun an entire alliance at least in the last 3 years, and even impossible last year if the alliance had competent robots. This year a top team will "win" the match so long as the bot doesn't drop a stack.

And what's worse is that with all of the anticipation for Einstein, the competition may be decided in the first second and all of the amazing stacking power of 1114/254 will be for naught.

That's why this year's game "sucks." (And yes, I agree with my fellow mentor on this point.)

[Citrus Dad]

I have never seen a case of the highest seed picking a team just to let them "tag along" for the ride to champs. My guess is that you have seen a case where the one seed picks a team they are familiar with because they trust the team to be useful contributors to their alliance. For example, there are generally a couple of teams at each event that I don't trust, primarily based on past experiences with them. Even if one of those teams had a slightly better robot than a team I am familiar with, I would want to partner with the team I am familiar with because I know that we will work well with them.

Yes, that has been the case each time for us, but that has been much more important than previous years where specific robot performance had been the primary criterion.

[Jared Russell]

Scoring is a step function--each capped stack is really worth 36 or 42 points. If a team can't fit in that last stack in the last few seconds, they fall 36 or 42 points behind, not just 2 or 4. We can see how teams fall into 2, 3 or 4 stacks per match teams (only 2 or 3 at that higher level, and a dozen at the next level). There aren't really any 2.5 stack teams, because that's largely meaningless due to the lumpiness of stack scoring.

I think there are plenty of 2.5 stack teams. The ".X" in 1.X, 2.X, 3.X buys you margin against screwups, dropped cans, cans ending up in the corners, noodles, "defense" from alliance partners, etc.

[asid61]

Just a note-
the problem is no longer how fast you can get the cans. Anything between 0-0.3 seconds will probably get the can, depending on if they are going for the handle or for the center. It's how well you can hold on that's the deciding factor now.
Unless you can block teh center of the can against another center robot.

[George Nishimura]

Just a note-
the problem is no longer how fast you can get the cans. Anything between 0-0.3 seconds will probably get the can, depending on if they are going for the handle or for the center. It's how well you can hold on that's the deciding factor now.
Unless you can block teh center of the can against another center robot.

Tug of war scenarios opens up a new avenue of strategy: determining the price a team is willing to pay to hold on to the can. Is it worth 5-15 seconds of tele-op for something you may not win? Is it worth a broken arm?

It becomes a physical auction of sorts that drive teams will have to manage very carefully.

But based on the canburglars I've seen, I'm not sure how often such a scenario will occur.

[asid61]

Tug of war scenarios opens up a new avenue of strategy: determining the price a team is willing to pay to hold on to the can. Is it worth 5-15 seconds of tele-op for something you may not win? Is it worth a broken arm?

It becomes a physical auction of sorts that drive teams will have to manage very carefully.

But based on the canburglars I've seen, I'm not sure how often such a scenario will occur.

Adding a can triples the stack value, more if you add a noodle. The moment you let go of a can, you assume that the other robot can stack less than 2x as fast as you can- at least in finals. Before then it makes sense to gamble.
Can grabbers at champs will probably be "cheesecaked" to other teams. The speed makes the tug of war very possible.

[artK]

That's not to say that pick can't happen: I still remember 1114 somehow managing to pick the fastest minibot in their division on the back of the draft. But minibots aren't canburglars (strategically I mean; otherwise they basically are). And even if they were, you can bet neither 1114 nor 294 went into Worlds counting on everyone missing them. It's a heck of a gamble, but you know what they say about big risks and their rewards. I struggle with the characterization of "fully reasonable" though, if that's the alliance number a team is gunning for second/third pick of.

Galileo 2011 was also the division where 973 (who also had a really fast minibot) fell to the pick right before 294.

This reminds me, that based on how champs has ended in the past, I think this year, a #1 or #2 alliance will pick a robot with a really fast can grabber (w/o cheesecake) that the other alliances ignored, and said alliance will win champs because of this second round steal. It happens almost every year, with teams like 610, 16, 973, 177, 971, and 148 (the third champion robots from 2013-2008) falling to one of the last picks of the draft.

An argument can be made that the smaller divisions may reduce the depth of each division. While that may happen in some divisions, I believe that because their are twice as many chances for this to happen, it will still happen (I don't think cutting 25% of teams from a division will bring down the bar for a third robot 50% across all eight divisions).

[kaliken]

Back in 2011 973 had the fastest minibot bar none in Galileo and really all the teams should have known that if they had done some quality scouting. Combining their minibot with 254 or 111's and they had the fastest 1/2/3 combo around. Our scouts were blown away that they they fell all the way to the 2nd pick of the 2nd alliance.

We were really lucky to play with 1114 on the number 1 seed alliance that year. Our robot was decent with an above average minibot. We were a solid pick but not elite. The really amazing thing is how we teamed up with 1114 to make our minibot system way way faster! We actually swapped our entire minibot deployment system for a 1114's spare system got reinspected and went to play. It was actually documented here..

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=96030&highlight=294+1114+minibot

This kind of harkens to the sharing of ramps/cheesecake this year...

Adding to the 2nd pick steals, we felt the same way with 177 as well in 2010. You couldn't beat picking a team that not only had a great robot but also had been to Einstein the past 3 years in a ROW! how did they get missed?!?!

I easily see this happening again this year especially with more divisions and a much higher bar of quality robots.

[Siri]

Galileo 2011 was also the division where 973 (who also had a really fast minibot) fell to the pick right before 294.Yeah, sidenote, I completely told this story wrong. Point being, 973 (I think, 973 =/= 294) was really, really fast and fell really, really late. Right, apparently I don't still remember it that well at all. Ahem. EDIT: Yes, what 294 above me said. Sorry about that, folks.

This reminds me, that based on how champs has ended in the past, I think this year, a #1 or #2 alliance will pick a robot with a really fast can grabber (w/o cheesecake) that the other alliances ignored, and said alliance will win champs because of this second round steal. It happens almost every year, with teams like 610, 16, 973, 177, 971, and 148 (the third champion robots from 2013-2008) falling to one of the last picks of the draft.Yes, it is quite common. In fact, our first Einstein appearance (2013) was as the second round draft pick of a full court shooting AC who'd gotten a floor pickup in the first round. We were a cycler with a 30 point climb. Weird combinations fall through the cracks somehow.

In fact, the draft might be even cooler than that this year. As Rangle asked, what does 1114 do as the second fastest can grabber? The thing is, this isn't just a subdivision question. If the point calculus works out to mean that the #nth AC can win their bracket with the mth fastest burglar there, the problem isn't whether they're the mth fastest burglar in their subdivision. The question is whether they're the pth at Worlds--or rather, qth fastest that's going to make it to Einstein. Meaning that if you're thinking about winning the whole shebang, you're not just scouting your subdivision's burgling speeds, you're scouting all of them. And making some kind of weighted judgement, consciously or otherwise, as to what the other Einstein-likely ACs are doing during selection. Hmm...I wonder what happens if alliance selection doesn't occur at the same time on each field.

[AGPapa]

This reminds me, that based on how champs has ended in the past, I think this year, a #1 or #2 alliance will pick a robot with a really fast can grabber (w/o cheesecake) that the other alliances ignored, and said alliance will win champs because of this second round steal. It happens almost every year, with teams like 610, 16, 973, 177, 971, and 148 (the third champion robots from 2013-2008) falling to one of the last picks of the draft.

I wasn't around on CD back then, so can somebody inform me of how often on CD was the overwhelming importance of minibots discussed in 2011? I tried doing some searches and couldn't find much discussion until after champs.

Similarly, how often was the importance of lap bots in 2008 or ball-stealers in 2012 talked about?

Can people point me to threads that talk about these issues before champs in each of those years?

This canburglar stuff has been beaten to death on CD, I seriously doubt that any division will leave a good canburglar to the end of the draft. And even looking at the teams that you mentioned, the more recent ones (610 and 16) were not the last picks of the draft, instead they were selected by the lower seeded alliances. I expect something similar to happen this year, with a lower seeded alliance of alright robots and great canburglars winning a few of the divisions.

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

I wasn't around on CD back then, so can somebody inform me of how often on CD was the overwhelming importance of minibots discussed in 2011? I tried doing some searches and couldn't find much discussion until after champs.

Similarly, how often was the importance of lap bots in 2008 or ball-stealers in 2012 talked about?

Can people point me to threads that talk about these issues before champs?

This canburglar stuff has been beaten to death on CD, I seriously doubt that any division will leave a good canburglar to the end of the draft. And even looking at the teams that you mentioned, the more recent ones (610 and 16) were not the last picks of the draft, instead they were selected by the lower seeded alliances. I expect something similar to happen this year, with a lower seeded alliance of alright robots and great canburglars winning a few divisions.

I don't know the exact threads for 2011 but if you just watch Einstein matches, you can see how tube scoring that year became exponentially ineffective after scoring the top two rows of the scoring racks. A full logo on the bottom rack was only worth 6 points and since minibot scores varied dramatically if an alliance got 1st and 2nd, it was pretty much the sole decider of games at the highest level. I also think that awesome canburglers will make it to the very late picks since alliances will be weighing in different factors and not just canburglering. I think many captains might pick slower canburglers that are also good tote stackers vs a robot that is a awesome canburgler and not much else. Especially for the lower seeded alliances where they might still need help with tote stacking.

[AGPapa]

I don't know the exact threads for 2011 but if you just watch Einstein matches, you can see how tube scoring that year became exponentially ineffective after scoring the top two rows of the scoring racks. A full logo on the bottom rack was only worth 6 points and since minibot scores varied dramatically if an alliance got 1st and 2nd, it was pretty much the sole decider of games at the highest level.


I know how important minibots were on Einstein, what I want to know is Did the alliance captains drafting in 2011 know how important minibots were?
This year we have very active CD threads always discussing the importance of canburglars. GameSense talks about it, Looking Forward talks about it; did people in 2011 talk about minibots like we're talking about canburglars now?


I also think that awesome canburglers will make it to the very late picks since alliances will be weighing in different factors and not just canburglering. I think many captains might pick slower canburglers that are also good tote stackers vs a robot that is a awesome canburgler and not much else. Especially for the lower seeded alliances where they might still need help with tote stacking.

This is an interesting point. I can understand how something like this may happen, but I wonder if there are enough canburglars in each division that it will happen.

[Sunshine]

I'm betting/counting on an over abundance of burglars. Don't let me down....lol:ahh:

[Siri]

I know how important minibots were on Einstein, what I want to know is Did the alliance captains drafting in 2011 know how important minibots were?
This year we have very active CD threads always discussing the importance of canburglars. GameSense talks about it, Looking Forward talks about it; did people in 2011 talk about minibots like we're talking about canburglars nowI don't remember specific DC threads (not to say there weren't any, just to say that that was years ago), but I do remember that we as a team discussed it, and we were idiots in 2011. In fact, it must have been on CD quite a lot, or there wouldn't have been so much cloning. We won Philly that year with a minibot whose identical twins were all over the FRC world. As I recall a lot of that cloning was related to the "seriously, this is becoming a coin flip" discussion. Loud discussion. And I remember lots of "refs as garage door openers" complaints vis-a-vis not really knowing if people were deploying exactly on time. It was at least known aggravation and a serious enough game mechanic that people were loud about objecting to it. I have trouble parsing how much of that was CD and how much was in person, though.

On the other hand, for you youngins' out there, we didn't have LF or or Ri3D or GameSense or Top25 or Top10 or... etcetera. (I wonder what Car Nack said that year.) So there's a limit to the ubiquity potential.

I also think that awesome canburglers will make it to the very late picks since alliances will be weighing in different factors and not just canburglering. I think many captains might pick slower canburglers that are also good tote stackers vs a robot that is a awesome canburgler and not much else. Especially for the lower seeded alliances where they might still need help with tote stacking.Can an NE and/or PNWer talk about how selection played out at their District Championships? What was your depth in stacking and specialist(s), and where did which caliber of each end up in the draft?

And does a mod want to kick us all out, because I think we broke this thread topic. :o

[EricAnderson191]

I have been reading the responses with great interest and wanted to add a new question connected to the discussion about alliance choice:

What do you think the expansion to 8 divisions does to the alliance choosing process.

Also, if I was in charge of division placement I would work hard to keep the powerhouse teams spread out to avoid say 254 and 1114 having a chance to work together.

Are division placements random?

Eric

[Ginger Power]

And does a mod want to kick us all out, because I think we broke this thread topic. :o

I was thinking the same thing haha. It should be moved to a thread called: "2015 Champs Discussion" or something along those lines. I've really enjoyed the conversation if that means anything.

[artK]

I wasn't around on CD back then, so can somebody inform me of how often on CD was the overwhelming importance of minibots discussed in 2011? I tried doing some searches and couldn't find much discussion until after champs.

Similarly, how often was the importance of lap bots in 2008 or ball-stealers in 2012 talked about?

Can people point me to threads that talk about these issues before champs in each of those years?

This canburglar stuff has been beaten to death on CD, I seriously doubt that any division will leave a good canburglar to the end of the draft. And even looking at the teams that you mentioned, the more recent ones (610 and 16) were not the last picks of the draft, instead they were selected by the lower seeded alliances. I expect something similar to happen this year, with a lower seeded alliance of alright robots and great canburglars winning a few of the divisions.

I think people on Chief Delphi (at least sometimes) forget there are people in robotics who don't read Chief Delphi, Looking Forward, GameSense, Top 25, etc. I remember their being a large amount of discussion on CD last year about people doing mobility autos, yet at the earlier events, some teams didn't even plan on moving during auto. Just because the people who write on the above media have determined that the optimal strategy involves can-burglars, doesn't mean that every alliance captain at champs will know this. Some teams make suboptimal to really bad picks during alliance selections (the only time I ever was field rep, I made a bad pick*).

And if a really good canburglar does fall to the last pick of the draft, I think stranger stuff has happened at champs.

*Mistakes are made

[AdamHeard]

I know how important minibots were on Einstein, what I want to know is Did the alliance captains drafting in 2011 know how important minibots were?
This year we have very active CD threads always discussing the importance of canburglars. GameSense talks about it, Looking Forward talks about it; did people in 2011 talk about minibots like we're talking about canburglars now?



This is an interesting point. I can understand how something like this may happen, but I wonder if there are enough canburglars in each division that it will happen.

There was discussion of it on chief. I distinctly remember posting that they'd be the only thing that mattered once a relatively low point threshold was achieved.

Just like this year, many people who didn't understand competition argued they weren't that important.

[AGPapa]

There was discussion of it on chief. I distinctly remember posting that they'd be the only thing that mattered once a relatively low point threshold was achieved.

Just like this year, many people who didn't understand competition argued they weren't that important.

Thanks Adam. For reference, this thread (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1042529&highlight=minibots#post1042529) has some pretty good discussion about the importance on minibots.

Here are some selected quotes:

The minibot score can't be offset at the high level of play, every competent alliance come champs will fill the top and middle rows along with some ubertubes. The sole decider in the win will be the minibots.


Seriously though, I think Adam is right, regardless of how well the minibot sensors work, or not, they're a little overweighted in the competition. I've seen a single minibot beat an entire other alliance scoring for the whole game. Just the minibot score. It's kind of frustrating, but it's probably also a topic for another thread.



You're missing his point. BOTH alliances will have robots like 148 and 1114. While the points scored by 1114 could offset a minibot if the opponent isn't scoring tubes, it's not going to offset the scoring from 148 AND 148's minibot.

There's a definite potential for the tube scores for both alliances to be both incredibly high, and incredibly close. That's where minibots are going to decide matches. It's not going to be a case where those 50 points alone are going to overcome the opponents scoring, but those 25 extra points from getting 1st and 2nd in the minibot race would easily offset the 2 extra tubes the opponent scored more than your alliance did.

Perhaps I'm overestimating the knowledge possessed by average alliance captain at champs. Especially since it'll be twice as easy to captain this year.

[Citrus Dad]

I think there are plenty of 2.5 stack teams. The ".X" in 1.X, 2.X, 3.X buys you margin against screwups, dropped cans, cans ending up in the corners, noodles, "defense" from alliance partners, etc.

What seems to happen is that a lot of teams are left stuck at the HP station or caught on their way to the platform because they tried to get one more tote. That's where the step function becomes most readily apparent.

[Kevin Leonard]

What seems to happen is that a lot of teams are left stuck at the HP station or caught on their way to the platform because they tried to get one more tote. That's where the step function becomes most readily apparent.

In scouting and strategy, I defined the extra half stack as either the ability to make another uncapped stack or cap another stack after they've made their primary stacks.

So a team that is capable of 2.5 stacks can make 2 fully capped stacks, then either cap a partner's stack or build an uncapped one before the match end.

[Necroterra]

I'd like to share my thoughts on this game. This is my first and probably last (unless I mentor) year doing FRC, as I am a senior. Because of this, my perspective is different than many of the other posters here on CD - I didn't experience the 2013 and 2014 games, I've never strategized around defense, etc.

Recycle Rush undoubtedly has flaws - high skill floor, strange skill ceiling, autonomous probably deciding Einstein matches, potential liabilities of 3rd teams, boring and complicated for spectators.

I think, however, that this thread has focused mainly on defending or attacking the flaws of RR, and there are definitely some cool things about it that I didn't see in my cursory look at earlier games.

First of all is the simply insane robots some teams have built. I realized more teams had realized the potential for adventurous designs so we would have more of these at Champs, but teams like 1987 and the other ConveyorBots, 1726, with their more-or-less pure stacker, 1212 with their double robot, Batman and Robin, Zenith and Zipline, 2840's robot, 1671's under-ramp... maybe this has always happened, but seeing 1212's robot at Arizona West was amazing to me, even though it was having trouble.

Second is it seems to me like the human players, at least through the weeks of regionals, are more interesting this year. 2014 has them catching and re-introducing balls, and 2013 has them inserting and throwing (for a few seconds) the frisbees. This year, the human players have to load totes, something that has some level of skill to make it smooth and consistent, load noodles into cans, again, something that can done slowly or quickly, and most challenging, they can throw noodles for a fairly significant number of points. At championships, the best noodle throwers will be targeting robot's paths or aim for a side of the landfill.

Finally, there have been complaints about the amount of clutter on the fields this year. I actually like the clutter - whenever I watch a 2014 game in particular, the game feels so empty. This year has so much going on, especially for middle level alliances in these last week (see 1726 at AZWest).




One other note, someone earlier in the thread mentioned that there are two camps - an "FRC should be a Sport" camp and an "FRC should be a Engineering Challenge" camp, more or less. I personally don't ever foresee FRC becoming extremely fun for spectators without a major restructuring.

Too many qualifying matches - outsiders won't watch 80+ matches to find the really exciting ones for them. Maybe a Dakar Rally style recap series of videos would work, though.
Too much expected knowledge. Show 2014, a simple game, to someone new. They don't know how big the robots are, how hard it is do intake and relaunch the balls, they aren't going to intuitively keep track of the different robots, they don't understand the strategy of the scorign systems...
The matches are designed in such a way that no one really cares. They are short, preventing you from getting invested, it's often easy to tell who will win 1/2 way through (not just in RR). You spend 5 minutes explaining the game to someone, and then play them a 2 minute match and they don't get anything out of it.
They stakes of winning aren't presented to the audience - partly because they don't exist. I would think the culture FIRST wants to foster doesn't care about winning as much as learning and the experience (evidenced by Chairman's and many other decisions), but spectators want a reason to root for their team.


When I show our team's victory to an outsider, be it a family member, a friend, a potential sponsor, I think their experience is something like this:

"BLUE ALLIANCE WINS" - Ok, so they won. Now what? They get to go to Championships and lose against teams I have never heard of? Uh...

Very few outside viewers care that we are learning about programming / engineering / design / teamwork / leadership.

NOTE: Please let me know if any of my opinions about earlier years are misinformed, I'll be honest that I haven't spent much time researching.

[MooreteP]

One aspect off this game that I like is that the performance of teams is obvious on the field during and at the conclusion of a match.

Like LogoMotion (2011), or Rack-"N"-Roll (2007), the scoring implements are apparent at the end of the match. Rack-"N"-Roll's climbing on your partners Robot was a great endgame.

In most games (Aerial Assist, Ultimate Ascent, Rebound Rumble, Breakaway, Aim High) the scoring pieces disappear and the only indication of scoring progress is with the Real Time scoring on the screen.

The added bonus of stacks obscuring the view of the Drive Teams as scores are accrued is cool. Tethered bots scoring on the closest platform degrade the ability to work the landfill.

Say what you will about the game this year. It is what it is.
I understand the concerns about engaging the General Public in STEM activities.
The energy of the students dancing (witness the PNW championship) make the events pop!

Looking forward to this weekend's District Finals in Michigan, Mid-Atlantic, and New England. Watch them if you can as they are precursors to the CMP.

[Richard Wallace]

Only by stepping outside of the usual comfort zone for most of us focused on STEM and appealing to a broader audience can FIRST truly change the culture.This is always true, and never more so than when are playing a game that 'sucks' -- from the viewpoint of (some) top-tier competitors.

I didn't like tape measures in 2002. I didn't like minibots in 2011. I don't like intentional litter on the floor this year. I am trying to keep an open mind about canburglars. Like others, I fear there is a wasteful and uninspiring arms race looming.

[JesseK]

There was discussion of it on chief. I distinctly remember posting that they'd be the only thing that mattered once a relatively low point threshold was achieved.

Just like this year, many people who didn't understand competition argued they weren't that important.

To be fair, this year the canburglars only matter insofar as the point values that can be attained after the cans are acquired. In 2011, a fast minibot gave points regardless.

The statistic that hasn't even been evaluated, probably because it's tough to acquire the data, is what % of canburglaring turned into points, and whether or not those extra points changed an outcome of Elims averge ranking. If we could get that data and analyze it I think (IMO) it'd translate back to the average team's design decisions in Week 1-2 to not do canburglars given the efficiency in match flow of few high stacks vs many short stacks at a typical event.

-----

Moving forward to champs, niche things like this seem to be the only publicly-discussed thing that matters for the average champs-bound team. While I don't think canburglars are the only thing a team who can't solo > 2 capped 6-stacks, I think it's almost a must. Such a shame too.

Where would a canburglar specialist be picked in selections? Where do they fit, outside of the 2-3 elite alliances who can do 5+ capped 6-stacks?

[jvriezen]

To be fair, this year the canburglars only matter insofar as the point values that can be attained after the cans are acquired.

Not really true. If you can grab three cans off of the step to own six total, the other team can cap at most four stacks. You probably only need to cap five stacks to win. If you grab all the cans from the step to own seven, you only need to cap four to exceed the three capped stacks the other alliance has.

[Sunshine]

Kinda funny
My biggest complaint with this year is what to do with the robot(s) at the end of the season. We generally keep one in for demonstrations or teaching. We already have the same drive train on past assembled bots so that's useless. We have made "forklift bots" in the past, so no need for displaying that element. And showing our sponsors, potential sponsors, admin or community how we pick up totes or a garbage can truely isn't very glamorous. So, I guess I need to agree with some of the thought process represented in this thread. This game has aspects of boredom. I know that the experience my students had was phenomenal but we were lucky to end up in the 2-5% winning two regionals. So obviously my/our opinions are a bit skewed. But having a forklift sitting around isn't very exciting versus a frisbee thrower or basketball bot that gets others a bit excited when they see it.

[Siri]

First of all is the simply insane robots some teams have built. I realized more teams had realized the potential for adventurous designs so we would have more of these at Champs, but teams like 1987 and the other ConveyorBots, 1726, with their more-or-less pure stacker, 1212 with their double robot, Batman and Robin, Zenith and Zipline, 2840's robot, 1671's under-ramp... maybe this has always happened, but seeing 1212's robot at Arizona West was amazing to me, even though it was having trouble.It's true, you get some crazy looking awesomeness when you lift size restrictions. You also get something similar when you get teams climbing a 10-foot pyramid. These examples are hard to find for two main reasons: first, they're probably about as common as the really crazy ones this year (a couple conveyors, a couple powered tethers). Second, 2013 did screw up the scoring if this is what you're looking for; high climbs weren't weighted enough.

Second is it seems to me like the human players, at least through the weeks of regionals, are more interesting this year. 2014 has them catching and re-introducing balls, and 2013 has them inserting and throwing (for a few seconds) the frisbees. This year, the human players have to load totes, something that has some level of skill to make it smooth and consistent, load noodles into cans, again, something that can done slowly or quickly, and most challenging, they can throw noodles for a fairly significant number of points. At championships, the best noodle throwers will be targeting robot's paths or aim for a side of the landfill.This is probably an issue of deceptive simplicity. Uber-fast frisbee loading took technique and practice for both HPs and drivers. It was actually pretty cool to see the different speed demons that had really cool techniques. If you're thinking sports models, just because it's fast doesn't mean it's easy (usually means it isn't, actually). Also, 2012 was even bigger for that, if we go all the way back in a standard high school tenure. Throwing those balls through the opening to make them all the way across the field, with robots trying to score and block you on the near side? Not easy at all. It's also a good year for clutter if you like that, and the bridge balances could get quite crazy.


"BLUE ALLIANCE WINS" - Ok, so they won. Now what? They get to go to Championships and lose against teams I have never heard of? Uh...Maybe I just haven't been in high school recently enough, but this process seems quite familiar. District tournaments, regional tournaments, state championships... We do Worlds, which is maybe more baseball-y, but it's not like parents know every team in (at least the larger) states anyway.

[JesseK]

Not really true. If you can grab three cans off of the step to own six total, the other team can cap at most four stacks. You probably only need to cap five stacks to win. If you grab all the cans from the step to own seven, you only need to cap four to exceed the three capped stacks the other alliance has.

I don't think this is correct for 80-90% of teams at a typical event. In Quals, QF's and SF's you aren't directly competing with the opposing alliance, but also all of the other teams. Denying the RC's in one match is irrelevant unless their next opposing alliance can also deny the RC's. All that matters in Qual/QF/SF are individual scores - so Canburglaring is only effective if used as the means to that end. At a typical events, I seriously doubt they made a big difference before Finals.

At champs they matter even in Quals because there is a good chance that average teams are paired with elite teams who can use 4+ RC's.

[jvriezen]

I don't think this is correct for 80-90% of teams at a typical event. In Quals, QF's and SF's you aren't directly competing with the opposing alliance, but also all of the other teams. Denying the RC's in one match is irrelevant unless their next opposing alliance can also deny the RC's. All that matters in Qual/QF/SF are individual scores - so Canburglaring is only effective if used as the means to that end. At a typical events, I seriously doubt they made a big difference before Finals.

At champs they matter even in Quals because there is a good chance that average teams are paired with elite teams who can use 4+ RC's.

You are correct-- I fell into the W/L mindset. The closer you get to finals (and when you are competing against the stronger/strongest team, it can still be sufficient to deny the cans to minimize the opponents score relative to yours if you are both near the 'cut line' of who gets to advance.

[mrnoble]

"No, I would like to see FRC continue progressing toward "sport" rather than "game". It is much more exciting for the spectator to see a simpler game played with strategy and skill than to see a technical task accomplished. There are plenty of science fairs, but FRC is becoming the true sport for robots."

I said the above last December. FRC sort of shocked me with the introduction of this new game, because I thought they were moving away from such things. I get why they did it, I think:

Make it easier on referees and other volunteers
Help students see the specific application of their learning experience in industry
Give students a larger field of possible designs, with additional, new challenges


But, put me in the camp of moving FRC toward "sport" still. Long term, I think that is the niche that FRC best fills. Other events are better suited to the science fair/complicated game side. I'm not disappointed in RR, but that's because it has turned out to be more fun than I expected, and my expectations were pretty low. My team had a great time rising to the design challenge, and playing the game, and FRC is not at risk of losing 1339 as participants because of RR. But, if this is the beginning of a trend, and future games follow this pattern, we might reconsider.

[MrForbes]

At champs they matter even in Quals because there is a good chance that average teams are paired with elite teams who can use 4+ RC's.

The cans are interesting. They can be placed on any size stack of totes, and putting them on a stack of two (or even one) totes does interesting things to your qualifying scores, at a typical regional that does not have many "really good" robots.

I've been really amazed by the general lack of understanding of the value of cans on short stacks.

[Boltman]

The cans are interesting. They can be placed on any size stack of totes, and putting them on a stack of two (or even one) totes does interesting things to your qualifying scores, at a typical regional that does not have many "really good" robots.

I've been really amazed by the general lack of understanding of the value of cans on short stacks.

Yup wasted cans are wasted scores...

3 totes = 1 can on 1 tote
6 totes = 1 can on 2 totes
9 totes = 1 can on 3 totes
12 totes = 1 can on 4 totes
15 totes = 1 can on 5 totes
18 totes = 1 can on 6 totes

Such a shame to see any uncapped stacks.

[itsjustjon]

As a freshman, this game didn't seem that bad to me. Of course, it helps that I've never participated in any other seasons before but I still had tons of fun.

I feel like this game made it somewhat easier for me to help out with. I'm sure we can all agree on its simplicity and this actually made it relatively appealing to me. No, there wasn't that ecstatic gameplay I've seen from last year's YouTube videos but there was still a sense of teamwork where I felt like I could help in some way.

Sure, go ahead and beat a dead horse. It's a boring game to watch but on the back end, it was (at least for me) a hell of a time to participate in and I can't wait for next year.

[Citrus Dad]

I don't think this is correct for 80-90% of teams at a typical event. In Quals, QF's and SF's you aren't directly competing with the opposing alliance, but also all of the other teams. Denying the RC's in one match is irrelevant unless their next opposing alliance can also deny the RC's. All that matters in Qual/QF/SF are individual scores - so Canburglaring is only effective if used as the means to that end. At a typical events, I seriously doubt they made a big difference before Finals.

At champs they matter even in Quals because there is a good chance that average teams are paired with elite teams who can use 4+ RC's.

A superior chokehold is a virtual guarantee out of the semifinals. Assuming the transitive property holds (Team A is faster than B is faster than C is faster than D), so long at Team A puts up 5 stacks of 36 points in each match (and ignoring uncapped stacks) Team C can only advance by putting up 7 stacks of 42 points in its match where it is faster than D and puts ups 3 stacks of 42 in its matches against A and B.

[Siri]

As a freshman, this game didn't seem that bad to me. Of course, it helps that I've never participated in any other seasons before but I still had tons of fun.

I feel like this game made it somewhat easier for me to help out with. I'm sure we can all agree on its simplicity and this actually made it relatively appealing to me. No, there wasn't that ecstatic gameplay I've seen from last year's YouTube videos but there was still a sense of teamwork where I felt like I could help in some way.

Sure, go ahead and beat a dead horse. It's a boring game to watch but on the back end, it was (at least for me) a hell of a time to participate in and I can't wait for next year.(emphasis mine) I wonder what you mean by simplicity in this case. In terms of the minimalist engineering involved (e.g. minimum competitive concept), it's probably most complicated in modern FIRST history. On the other hand, the ceiling is lower in some ways. Can you pinpoint what exactly you liked about it and maybe how future games could bring a similar element?

Oh, and welcome to FRC!

[JesseK]

A superior chokehold is a virtual guarantee out of the semifinals. Assuming the transitive property holds (Team A is faster than B is faster than C is faster than D), so long at Team A puts up 5 stacks of 36 points in each match (and ignoring uncapped stacks) Team C can only advance by putting up 7 stacks of 42 points in its match where it is faster than D and puts ups 3 stacks of 42 in its matches against A and B.

I get that this holds, and with the math it makes total sense. We did it from the perspective of quantity of game pieces score at their most valuable placement rather than total points.

However, this analysis makes a fundamental assumption that there exist alliances A, B, C, & D in the Semis who were capable of handling that quantity of game pieces to begin with. Maybe that's an easier data set to come up with - given the tote & container scores posted, which C & D alliances at what events would have benefited from more canburglaring.

Again, not trying to say that canburglaring isn't absolutely critical for Champs - but rather trying to reflect on how design decisions are made early in the build season.

[Sunshine]

A superior chokehold is a virtual guarantee out of the semifinals. Assuming the transitive property holds (Team A is faster than B is faster than C is faster than D), so long at Team A puts up 5 stacks of 36 points in each match (and ignoring uncapped stacks) Team C can only advance by putting up 7 stacks of 42 points in its match where it is faster than D and puts ups 3 stacks of 42 in its matches against A and B.

Your scenerio is valid IF the fastest burglar team can actually capitalize on having additional RC's. If the burglar bot can do little but steel RC's the outcome could come down to great autonomous points and a great human player from a starved alliance. I can also see that outcome happening in some divisions.

I'm looking forward to seeing if and how many 300 point plus alliance totals we may see.

[Sunshine]

............. it's probably the most complicated in modern FIRST history. On the other hand, the ceiling is lower in some ways.

Can you elaborate on why you feel this way?

[itsjustjon]

(emphasis mine) I wonder what you mean by simplicity in this case. In terms of the minimalist engineering involved (e.g. minimum competitive concept), it's probably most complicated in modern FIRST history. On the other hand, the ceiling is lower in some ways. Can you pinpoint what exactly you liked about it and maybe how future games could bring a similar element?

Oh, and welcome to FRC!

I meant simple in the fact that most (if not, all) robots this year are similar in design. For me, I did not see too many designs that were unique (One exception being 2122 with their table for resting an RC). All designs have same/similar intake style and lift design. They all do the same thing except some are faster or more efficient. Of course there are other exceptions that I didn't name. One other dichotomy is that either your bot does landfill or feeder, and very few bots do both. I honestly do not know what I was necessarily expecting but I just feel that there wasn't room for uniqueness.

This lack of uniqueness makes the game simple because the task isn't too hard. It doesn't demand thinking outside of the box. All you need to do is stack something. No more, no less.

That being said, I still found the game very fun and I think it will be more exciting at Champs.

[Ginger Power]

This is a very difficult game. Watch videos of matches with combined scores under 30 points and you will understand where I'm coming from. There are quite a few of them.

[Mark Sheridan]

I meant simple in the fact that most (if not, all) robots this year are similar in design. For me, I did not see too many designs that were unique (One exception being 2122 with their table for resting an RC). All designs have same/similar intake style and lift design. They all do the same thing except some are faster or more efficient. Of course there are other exceptions that I didn't name. One other dichotomy is that either your bot does landfill or feeder, and very few bots do both. I honestly do not know what I was necessarily expecting but I just feel that there wasn't room for uniqueness.

This lack of uniqueness makes the game simple because the task isn't too hard. It doesn't demand thinking outside of the box. All you need to do is stack something. No more, no less.

That being said, I still found the game very fun and I think it will be more exciting at Champs.

Hey Jon,
I think you had a fun time because you students were prototyping a lot. Think about how many prototypes you went through. I remember your original tote lifter, I am very happy you continued testing to find a vastly superior design. Not to mention how many intake ideas were traded back and forth with 3476.

Your CAD team worked very hard this year to make sure everything work as designed. I am glad everything came together so smoothly and simple. There were pitfalls along the way, your robot was vastly different before the intake was finished.

The funny thing this game was anything but simple for robots, a lot of the tough stuff was in the details, intake geometry, space for the tote lifter, geometry of the tote lifter. A lot of the unique stuff is in the details. i am sure when our 2 robots are side by side each other sometime this summer your will notice a lot of similarities but also a lot key differences when you look up close. for one 3476 holds up a stack using a disc brake and you have a second set of pneumatically driven latches. These are 2 very different solutions to the same problem. If dig under the hood of most robots you will find plenty of outside of the box ideas.

[Citrus Dad]

Your scenerio is valid IF the fastest burglar team can actually capitalize on having additional RC's. If the burglar bot can do little but steel RC's the outcome could come down to great autonomous points and a great human player from a starved alliance. I can also see that outcome happening in some divisions.

I'm looking forward to seeing if and how many 300 point plus alliance totals we may see.

I'm assuming that any alliance that can get into the semifinals of divisions (and certainly Einstein) can put up at least 5 stacks which seems quite reasonable. There will be almost certainly be at least one alliance in each division capable of this. Just a few uncapped totes puts this alliance completely out of reach.

Jesse K:
I get that this holds, and with the math it makes total sense. We did it from the perspective of quantity of game pieces score at their most valuable placement rather than total points.

However, this analysis makes a fundamental assumption that there exist alliances A, B, C, & D in the Semis who were capable of handling that quantity of game pieces to begin with. Maybe that's an easier data set to come up with - given the tote & container scores posted, which C & D alliances at what events would have benefited from more canburglaring.

Again, not trying to say that canburglaring isn't absolutely critical for Champs - but rather trying to reflect on how design decisions are made early in the build season.

Watch the PNW champs. I expect the Divisions to be of higher quality. 3 alliances were over 200 points in the semis. RC availability will be constraining.

[bduddy]

There was discussion of it on chief. I distinctly remember posting that they'd be the only thing that mattered once a relatively low point threshold was achieved.

Just like this year, many people who didn't understand competition argued they weren't that important.The one thing that most shocks me about this game is that the GDC made the same mistake again. The scoring system was the biggest flaw in Logomotion (a game with many flaws) and led directly to the introduction of a rule, in all future games, saying the GDC reserves the right to change it. Now, once again, we have a game where, at a high level, one simple task essentially locks out the game and, barring catastrophe, renders the remainder of the match pointless. Now, perhaps the flaw is less apparent and less impactful this year, but I guarantee you'll see elimination matches at championship divisions, not just Einstein, decided by the cans.

Or, will we finally see the values changed? Hmm...

[Rachel Lim]

Or, will we finally see the values changed? Hmm...

The GDC can't* change the values now, not when many teams have been planning their strategy around them since kickoff. Unlike a minor change (like not allowing noodle throwing or something similar), that would be a HUGE strategic change for high level matches.

(And I'm saying this as a student on a team that hasn't put a large focus on them and probably won't be that affected by a change like that. But I think it would be completely unfair to teams who have done this to have the entire game changed right before champs.)

*Can't = will avoid this if it is at all possible (i.e. they have the ability, but almost definitely won't)

[Siri]

Can you elaborate on why you feel this way?Mostly because I use global team performance as a proxy for engineering difficulty per performance level. The contribution skew is the worst it's been in years, with more teams lower and some out in the stratosphere. Combined with the game's limits on contributions (essentially, it's really easy to get in the way), the effective floor to contribute is relatively high relative to that spread.

At the same time, those stratospheric teams are capped in the literal sense in terms of game pieces. I guess it's not so much that it's a low ceiling as it's a ceiling no one really wanted to break. This isn't trying to squeeze in another 3 assist cycle or nail the triple balance or design that 6 second climb. This is minibots: an arms race for a coin flip.

I meant simple in the fact that most (if not, all) robots this year are similar in design. For me, I did not see too many designs that were unique (One exception being 2122 with their table for resting an RC). All designs have same/similar intake style and lift design. They all do the same thing except some are faster or more efficient. Of course there are other exceptions that I didn't name. One other dichotomy is that either your bot does landfill or feeder, and very few bots do both. I honestly do not know what I was necessarily expecting but I just feel that there wasn't room for uniqueness.

This lack of uniqueness makes the game simple because the task isn't too hard. It doesn't demand thinking outside of the box. All you need to do is stack something. No more, no less. I gotcha. Yeah, this isn't full-court frisbee shooting versus 10-foot pyramid climbing--I can see how that combined with the limited interaction makes things look very similar. That's not to say that, as Mark was, there's no devil in the details.

[cgmv123]

The GDC can't change the values now, not when many teams have been planning their strategy around them since kickoff. Unlike a minor change (like not allowing noodle throwing or something similar), that would be a HUGE strategic change for high level matches.

They specifically said they can change scoring values.

As competition at the FIRST Championship is typically different from that during rest of the competition season, FIRST may alter each scoring value at the FIRST Championship.

[Donut]

When I show our team's victory to an outsider, be it a family member, a friend, a potential sponsor, I think their experience is something like this:

"BLUE ALLIANCE WINS" - Ok, so they won. Now what? They get to go to Championships and lose against teams I have never heard of? Uh...

This to me is not all that different than any other high school sport. Your season qualifies you for the playoffs, and the playoffs end with one team winning the State Championship. Maybe it is different because with other sports a State Championship is the highest goal to obtain, since there is no consensus National/World Championship for most high school sports even if there are national tournaments and attempts at rankings by sites like Max Preps. If that's the case the District system will eventually solve that problem; winning a District event is like winning a meet or tournament (helps you rank highly but not required to advance to the playoffs), and winning the District Championship is like winning the State Championship. Eventually with the growth of FRC attending the World Championships could be an unknown concept and not the ultimate goal for most, it already is that way with FLL (25,000 teams with almost 100 District Championships and only about 100 teams attend the World Festival). Competing with out of state teams for high school sports is typical only of very high level programs.

It happens almost every year, with teams like 610, 16, 973, 177, 971, and 148 (the third champion robots from 2013-2008) falling to one of the last picks of the draft.

I still don't know how 148 (the fastest lap runner in the world) ever fell to the last pick of the #1 alliance in their division. There were only two track balls to use, what else was the third partner going to do?

This is a very difficult game. Watch videos of matches with combined scores under 30 points and you will understand where I'm coming from. There are quite a few of them.

These game pieces were not conductive to teams that struggle building manipulators. Large, asymmetrical, heavy (8 lbs) game pieces require a lot of attention to detail, and the totes being either packed in the landfill or flipped over from the chute door didn't help. Mentoring a team that were effectively rookies from their experience level, we struggled even though our arm could lift totes because we made our arms about 1" too wide so that they ran into the totes neighboring the one we wanted in the landfill rather than fitting nicely into the gaps between them. We sized to give ourselves a little room to line up when picking up a single stationary tote but never tested on a landfill setup since we didn't have enough game pieces for it.


I did enjoy this game a lot more than I thought I would, but the barrier to a competitive robot was the highest imo since 2010 (oh the 0-0 soccer scores!).

[itsjustjon]

Hey Jon,
I think you had a fun time because you students were prototyping a lot. Think about how many prototypes you went through. I remember your original tote lifter, I am very happy you continued testing to find a vastly superior design. Not to mention how many intake ideas were traded back and forth with 3476.

Your CAD team worked very hard this year to make sure everything work as designed. I am glad everything came together so smoothly and simple. There were pitfalls along the way, your robot was vastly different before the intake was finished.

The funny thing this game was anything but simple for robots, a lot of the tough stuff was in the details, intake geometry, space for the tote lifter, geometry of the tote lifter. A lot of the unique stuff is in the details. i am sure when our 2 robots are side by side each other sometime this summer your will notice a lot of similarities but also a lot key differences when you look up close. for one 3476 holds up a stack using a disc brake and you have a second set of pneumatically driven latches. These are 2 very different solutions to the same problem. If dig under the hood of most robots you will find plenty of outside of the box ideas.


That is all very true. I never took a step back and thought of it from that angle. Thank you for the different perspective.

[asid61]

They specifically said they can change scoring values.

That would make for a very interesting Championships. I sort of hope they do just to keep the game competitive after the first quarter of a second.

[dcarr]

They specifically said they can change scoring values.

In 2013, the following was included in the manual

As competition at the FIRST Championship is typically different from that during the competition season, FIRST may alter the value of CLIMBING at the FIRST Championship by up to ten (10) points per Level.

There was a great deal of speculation that the incentive for climbing would be increased at Championship, but this did not materialize.

I think the incentives in Recycle Rush are overall more rational that the incentive for climbing was in Ultimate Ascent, so the chance of any score change happening is even lower. For that decision to make sense, the GDC would have to conclude that the benefits of making such a change would outweigh the backlash from teams who spent a season building and competing with a robot designed around the current incentive structure.

[bduddy]

In 2013, the following was included in the manual



There was a great deal of speculation that the incentive for climbing would be increased at Championship, but this did not materialize.

I think the incentives in Recycle Rush are overall more rational that the incentive for climbing was in Ultimate Ascent, so the chance of any score change happening is even lower. For that decision to make sense, the GDC would have to conclude that the benefits of making such a change would outweigh the backlash from teams who spent a season building and competing with a robot designed around the current incentive structure.IMO, quite the opposite. Climbing in Ultimate Ascent may have been less valuable than some people thought it would be, but ultimately the game was fairly well balanced and exciting to watch. Recycle Rush, on the other hand, is barreling straight towards a 2011 scenario where top-level matches are decided by a single action that wasn't supposed to be the main focus of the game in the first place... and I'm pretty sure that's exactly what the blue box was designed to prevent.

[dcarr]

IMO, quite the opposite. Climbing in Ultimate Ascent may have been less valuable than some people thought it would be, but ultimately the game was fairly well balanced and exciting to watch. Recycle Rush, on the other hand, is barreling straight towards a 2011 scenario where top-level matches are decided by a single action that wasn't supposed to be the main focus of the game in the first place... and I'm pretty sure that's exactly what the blue box was designed to prevent.

I think there's a difference between point incentives for game actions, and availability of game resources that are then used to score points. What score value change in Recycle Rush would eliminate the significance of the "single action" (presumably, the rush for RCs during the first < 1 second of autonomous)?. Lower RC value? Adding more RCs would not be a score change, it would be a game mechanics change. Not something that the GDC states is a possibility at least based on that blue box.

[Citrus Dad]

I think there's a difference between point incentives for game actions, and availability of game resources that are then used to score points. What score value change in Recycle Rush would eliminate the significance of the "single action" (presumably, the rush for RCs during the first < 1 second of autonomous)?. Lower RC value? Adding more RCs would not be a score change, it would be a game mechanics change. Not something that the GDC states is a possibility at least based on that blue box.

I may be afraid I said this, but the solution to ending the midstep rush in the first second would be to drastically lower the RC values and/or up the tote stacking value.

[Rachel Lim]

They specifically said they can change scoring values.

Sorry, I guess my original post wasn't clear. The GDC can legally change the values, but can't without completely changing the game and what mechanisms teams should have focused on. For weeks everything has been focused on those center containers; by changing the rules the best designs will become those robots focused on stacking totes very fast.

So yes, they can change the values, but they basically change the entire game. And they definitely can't change it without a very long thread on CD discussing whether they should or shouldn't have done so...

I'm not saying I like the fact that games will be decided in the first 0.1sec or so. I'm just saying that it has been this way so far, and to change it at this point will be...very interesting.

[MooreteP]

I may be afraid to say this too, but I have heard that the FMS may have a subtle micro-delay between when each alliance is enabled in autonomous.
FMS Enabling Sequence (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=136034)

[bduddy]

Sorry, I guess my original post wasn't clear. The GDC can legally change the values, but can't without completely changing the game and what mechanisms teams should have focused on. For weeks everything has been focused on those center containers; by changing the rules the best designs will become those robots focused on stacking totes very fast.

So yes, they can change the values, but they basically change the entire game. And they definitely can't change it without a very long thread on CD discussing whether they should or shouldn't have done so...

I'm not saying I like the fact that games will be decided in the first 0.1sec or so. I'm just saying that it has been this way so far, and to change it at this point will be...very interesting.In general, I agree with you. The GDC will have to, and I hope they are, consider what is the bigger problem: the unfairness caused by changing the rules, or the negative effects on the whole of FRC if the Championship games end up happening in the way many are predicting.