Recycle Rush Farewell [Archive]

mrnoble

26-04-2015, 00:46

This game has been weird. I liked aspects of it, such as the creative options that were opened (and sometimes pursued) by the removal of size limits, or, the lack of stress imposed on the referees. But there were lots of things I didn't love at all. It's lousy knowing that, if a great team fails on the field, it is because they (or worse, their alliance partner) made an error. Beating yourself or your partners feels way worse than being beaten by an opponent. Repetitive, efficient movement also feels very businesslike, and not very sport-like. Watching high level matches felt like a combination of watching a curling match, and watching a lumberyard crew at work.

JohnFogarty

26-04-2015, 01:10

0/10 Literally trash. Worst game for me since I started in FRC.

Oblarg

26-04-2015, 01:19

Very few redeeming qualities. They had been doing so well ever since Lunacy, too.

Now, don't get me wrong - a lousy FRC game still makes for a really great program that's worth participating in. But this game simply was not very good, no matter how I look at it.

Jarren Harkema

26-04-2015, 01:22

The relationship between me and the totes have been a rollercoaster. We both knew that it just wasn't going to work out. To be honest, I am glad it's over. We may never cross paths again. I think it would be easier for me that way.

audietron

26-04-2015, 01:52

I am simply tired of the upsets, it is just a bit too much to take in all at once. :rolleyes:
Also I hate noodles, they will all be destroyed!!

Koko Ed

26-04-2015, 05:16

Not so fast!
There is still the off season!

Leav

26-04-2015, 07:07

Not a fan.

Totes were a really good game piece choice: new and challenging.

Recycling containers felt a bit improvised but sure what the heck.

The pool noodles were a horrible addition and only added to the importance of the human player (which was already easy higher that I think it should be). The use of noodles as defensive pieces (throwing them so that they impede the opposing alliance) was annoying.

The 3v0 aspect made the game incredibly boring. This was again exaggerated by the can burgling, which apart from the noodles was the only competitive interaction between the alliances. Games were over literally less than a second after they began, and strategy had very little place on the field compared to previous years.

Good riddance indeed...

Gdeaver

26-04-2015, 07:19

Recycle Rush is not over. Love it or hate it we will be training our 2016 team on it over the summer and fall. Personally, I hate this game. Have from day 1. However, the engineering challenges pushed our team to methods we have never tackled before. This is especially true for our student programmers. Our mechanical team made more components than ever before. Did the mill ever stop running? So I hate it but it was good for the students. FIRST GDC, can we have just a little bit more robot to robot interaction and violence?

Qbot2640

26-04-2015, 07:53

I am looking forward to using the off season, and this game, to train our incoming freshmen and a few newer veterans that didn't get involved in the build this year...we'll build a second robot as an engineering challenge. That's the only real strength of this year's game.

As for the game itself - I will be glad to say goodbye. While marginally more exciting at the end it was still horribly boring compared to previous years. I particularly hated the treatment that autonomous received. All three of either totes or containers was a bigger challenge than the average team could accomplish, and even if a team did accomplish that, the point values were too low (all three totes plus all three containers should have been a game-changer...that was impressive).

As a FIRST program / team membership promotional tool let's compare: The last three seasons added to our robot repertoire (1) a robot that shoots frisbees about 70 feet with incredible accuracy, (2) a robot that throws a huge brightly colored ball 20 feet with similar accuracy, and (3) a robot that stacks tote bins and recycling containers. If you were a corporate official or a middle-schooler...which would impress you?

Paul Boehringer

26-04-2015, 09:22

Good riddance. I thank FIRST for letting me end my senior year with the worst game I could think of. But in all seriousness it was a challenge to build for, but the game play was just so dull.

(These opinions are my own and are in no way affiliated with my team's)

Fanny Z

26-04-2015, 09:41

A love hate relationship with the game. It was exciting to see what some teams could come up with but it was disappointing that FIRST created a game with flaws like:

-The upside down totes (Who really picked up these?).

-The co-op totes just adding to the clutter of the field after autonomous in the playoffs, especially if the auton didn't go as planned. (Not getting the 20pts)

-The pool noodles being everywhere, sometimes going unnoticed on the scoring platform, causing stacks to be dropped on them and falling over.

Overall, I guess I'm excited for off-seasons but I'm also looking forward for a better game next year.

Shrub

26-04-2015, 09:57

From the second I saw the game at kickoff, I was confused.
I still am kind of confused.

It was a weird, sometimes fun game to watch. People who were saying we'd get Lunacy again pretty much got their wish, I think. That's not to say it wasn't extremely challenging, and made room for so much more creativity, but a lot of teams I saw do well in the past had trouble with this game and vice-versa.

Now we wait for the offseason. :>

Donut

26-04-2015, 11:45

This game was more exciting to watch than I expected, I thoroughly enjoyed watching the race to stack the most in Einstein Finals 2 after the High Rollers managed to get the cans from 118 and even it up at 5 cans a piece. Seeing the end result of towering 8 foot stacks all over the field vies with a triple balance as the most impressive visual of the last 5 years (30 point climbs had that potential but were valued too low relative to difficulty to attempt for most).

Using average score was a good move. It won't make sense for most games and made for harsh quarterfinals but did a good job of finding your top 8.

It's definitely not my favorite game and is worse than the last few years in overall experience but I liked it better than 2009 - 2011, or its historical ancestor (Stack Attack in 2003). The two biggest game flaws were tote chutes and litter. Totes not landing upright coming out of the chute was the biggest barrier to scoring for the average team, it gave box on wheel bots nothing to do because the totes would come out awkwardly so they were hard to push, and for good teams it made having a tethered ramp or an internal tote catching mechanism mandatory rather than a competitive advantage. You would have seen better stacking overall with a better chute since virtually no one figured out a good method for flipping totes (see unused upside down totes in the landfill). Litter was also silly, as litter caught in your drive train could effectively end your match.

Autonomous requiring all robots to do something is a horrible game mechanic, and put any points out of reach except for those who could say "get out of our way, we can do it all ourself". A good number of alliances on Einstein didn't bother with it, that should tell you it's pretty broken. Cooperation is good to encourage but requiring the whole alliance to score is rarely worth it (2005 and 2006 end games) whereas needing only some alliance members but giving additional points for all results in more utilization (2007 end game, 2014 possessions).

Summary: not a great game, bottom third of games I've played, but has some redeeming qualities that should be emulated in the future. It will be overly ridiculed because it was radically different and brought an end to The Golden Age of FRC* (2012-2014).

*2004 - 2007 would have been The Golden Age but 2005 is smack in the middle of it, and was merely an okay rather than great game because of a poor autonomous and end game. I'm sure someone will correct me that it was actually 1997-2000 when robots were real robots but I don't know enough about the games in the 90s to say.

Mrcope9

26-04-2015, 12:01

Still hoping that this was all a dream and I'll wake up on kickoff day in January and hear about the real game. Hard to say this was even a game when the objective was to take out the trash. Hopefully we get back to wins, losses, defense, competition, projectiles, and actual sports next year.

Lil' Lavery

26-04-2015, 13:50

It was better than the last time we stacked boxes.

teslalab2

26-04-2015, 19:10

Here's to another game with projectiles.

I don't know about anyone else but we flung totes a couple of time early on in build season... I mean... nothing........what..?

Andrew Schreiber

26-04-2015, 19:45

Recycle Rush, I filed a restraining order. Never contact me again.

- s

GeeTwo

26-04-2015, 19:53

It was better than the last time we stacked boxes.
I wasn't around FRC then, but from what I hear, I agree. Next time stacking shows up, oh, around 2023, perhaps there will be three areas: red must stay out of blue, blue must stay out of red, and white is a traditional "bumper" area. anything goes. Scoring is in red and blue, and most of the game pieces are (or at least start) in white. Maybe a rule that you have to stack at least two pieces to bring them to the scoring area to cut down on canburgular type systems.

Average points was a good match to the "stacking/placement" game mechanics. It might have cut back a bit on robot-to-robot defense even if there weren't a step, since (during quals/seeding) scoring ten points would be more beneficial to your average than stopping your opponent from scoring fifty. Unfortunately, it makes finals at each event an inherently different game than the tournaments, even if the finals are "total points in three matches" rather than "two victories". For this reason, I prefer victory counts over point counts.

Nonlinear scoring makes for a good challenge. It also moves OPR from the realm of the uncertain to the often just wrong. Consider this: If OPR/DPR meant anything this year, every team would have a DPR very close to zero unless it had a good canburglar or a wicked HP noodler. Canburglar DPRs would be diluted further whenever playing against an alliance that couldn't put up more than three big tote stacks.

As for the coopertition and endgame, I found it strange how few robots coded up the "drive forward five feet" autonomous; I guess a shot at four points just didn't seem worthwhile. Coopertition was good, though I preferred the mechanics of it in Rebound Rumble. As part of the endgame (not the main game) it gave a bonus to both teams in the rankings in qualifiers, but did not change the game as significantly for playoffs.

Richard Wallace

26-04-2015, 19:58

It was better than the last time we stacked boxes.
That's because we didn't actually stack them in 2003. We attacked them.

Sunshine

26-04-2015, 20:13

I still say.....and will always say a tether is not a string in robotics competition.

PayneTrain

26-04-2015, 20:20

I think Recycle Rush added some positive elements that can be included in FRC games in 2-4 years, but on the whole it sort of came together into a pretty smelly mess. We don't have any interest in offseason competitions this year, that's for sure.

I still find it totally bizarre that between 2010-2014 you have 5 years of games to draw from. Each game has different elements and pros and cons lists that can draw from each other. I think between 2010, 2012, and 2014 (2013 is just 2012b) alone you have ingredients and themes of game design you can take and make a really really great game. Instead they threw out everything but the field perimeter and the robot weight limit. Seriously, everything else got tossed.

I like that it put us on our toes and there are some things in RR that can be used later, but I don't want to see Recycle Rush get the Rebound Rumble --> Ultimate Ascent treatment.

Caleb Sykes

26-04-2015, 20:26

Nonlinear scoring makes for a good challenge. It also moves OPR from the realm of the uncertain to the often just wrong. Consider this: If OPR/DPR meant anything this year, every team would have a DPR very close to zero unless it had a good canburglar or a wicked HP noodler. Canburglar DPRs would be diluted further whenever playing against an alliance that couldn't put up more than three big tote stacks.

I agree that DPR and CCWM are nearly meaningless this year, but I am curious to know what has led you to believe that OPR is such a horrible metric for this game.

tindleroot

26-04-2015, 20:29

The Tethering and Cheesecaking were my least favorite parts of this year's game. Coincidentally, both aspects were covered at some point by FIRST after kickoff day, and I believe they may not have thought through it enough.

The tethered ramps allowed any landfill robot to become equally efficient (if not more so) at the HP station just by adding .5 pounds of ramp and tether. Those HP robot specialists got the short stick with a task that was not much easier than landfill (since the totes came out at an odd angle and didn't fall flat).

The cheesecaking essentially removed the downside for high seeds in the serpentine draft if the alliance captain (or first pick) had a good cheesecake. The whole point of serpentine is to allow the low seeds to pick up the best 3rd robots, but even the 24th picked robot could become equally useful as the 17th picked robot (8th seed 2nd pick) at the cost of 1 pound of withholding allowance and a chance for mistake. IMO, cheesecake was a poor decision on FIRST's part and it could have been fixed by saying that your team's withholding allowance could only be used on your team's robot.

Other than that, I agree with most everyone else's comments. I hope FIRST listens to the community and decides to revert somewhat back to a contact game with win-loss.

Koko Ed

26-04-2015, 20:38

That's because we didn't actually stack them in 2003. We attacked them.
Correction.We attacked each other.

GeeTwo

26-04-2015, 21:02

Each game has different elements and pros and cons lists that can draw from each other. I think between 2010, 2012, and 2014 (2013 is just 2012b) .. but I don't want to see Recycle Rush get the Rebound Rumble --> Ultimate Ascent treatment.

OK, you said it twice in two different ways. I don't get the similarity. I have:
Comparisons (a few fairly normal conditions in common):

flat carpet; no ramps or steps
defense; robots with bumpers
flying game pieces
high (throwing) goals wider than they are tall
low (pushing or dropping throwing) goals essentially square
Most autonomous points are scored like main game points at double value.

Contrasts:

Auto start location permits easy goals in UA; most 'bots must move for goals in AA
End game that requires significant compromise to do well for most teams vs no end game
no analog to pyramid goal in AA.
one game piece vs more than most alliances could ever hope to score
spherical vs flat game pieces
Human players operate 1-way through slots only vs interactive
essentially no alliance intra-action vice both assist points and throw/catch points
small game pieces (though they did limit the number you could carry) vs large game pieces (even if there had been 2 you could legally carry, few robots could have carried them both at the same time)
obstructions (pyramid legs and lower rungs) vs open field.
No goal tending (can't be tall enough) vice limited goal tending allowed

So in what distinctive way(s) was 2013 like a 2012b?

iVanDuzer

26-04-2015, 21:08

So in what distinctive way(s) was 2013 like a 2012b?

Three off-the-ground goals worth 3 and 2 points respectively.
Limited number of game pieces able to be controlled at one time.
Similar floor intake mechanisms.
Engame based around structures in the middle-ish of the field.
Robots designed specifically for the endgame (to an extent I haven't seen since 2007).
Protected offence zones in similar areas of the field.

Not that I agree with GeeTwo, but the similarities are there.

EDIT: Also, I think you're comparing 2013 to 2014, when GeeTwo was saying 2013 was basically another 2012.

DanielPlotas

26-04-2015, 21:14

OK, you said it twice in two different ways. I don't get the similarity. I have:
Comparisons (a few fairly normal conditions in common):

flat carpet; no ramps or steps
defense; robots with bumpers
flying game pieces
high (throwing) goals wider than they are tall
low (pushing or dropping throwing) goals essentially square
Most autonomous points are scored like main game points at double value.

Contrasts:

Auto start location permits easy goals in UA; most 'bots must move for goals in AA
End game that requires significant compromise to do well for most teams vs no end game
no analog to pyramid goal in AA.
one game piece vs more than most alliances could ever hope to score
spherical vs flat game pieces
Human players operate 1-way through slots only vs interactive
essentially no alliance intra-action vice both assist points and throw/catch points
small game pieces (though they did limit the number you could carry) vs large game pieces (even if there had been 2 you could legally carry, few robots could have carried them both at the same time)
obstructions (pyramid legs and lower rungs) vs open field.
No goal tending (can't be tall enough) vice limited goal tending allowed

So in what distinctive way(s) was 2013 like a 2012b?
2012 was Rebound Rumble, and 2013 (so-called 2012b) was Ultimate Ascent.

Lil' Lavery

26-04-2015, 21:25

I still say.....and will always say a tether is not a string in robotics competition.

And the response is the same. Regardless of how the community uses the word "tether," the word isn't part of any of the rules surrounding the use of ramps or other string-attached mechanisms.

Ichlieberoboter

26-04-2015, 21:31

GeeTwo

26-04-2015, 21:36

I agree that DPR and CCWM are nearly meaningless this year, but I am curious to know what has led you to believe that OPR is such a horrible metric for this game.

DPR can be meaningless in three ways. First, every team can get the same number (with a bit of noise, of course). Then, it's meaningless, but that would not invalidate OPR. Second, if DPR is systematically incorrect, I have confidence that OPR shall also be systematically incorrect as well. FInally, if DPR has such wild scatter as to appear to mean something, I have confidence that OPR shall be wildly inaccurate as well.

Non-linearity and limited game pieces inherently confuse linear models. For example:

Q. How many offensive points is a can burglar (by itself) going to be worth?
A. If the alliance can't build more than three decent stacks, nothing. If the alliance can build and cap seven tall stacks, perhaps 100 points.

Q. How many offensive points are making inverted totes and totes on the step scorable?
A. If the alliance is not starved for totes, nothing. If totes become the limiting factor, up to 44.

tindleroot

26-04-2015, 21:36

Someone should totally do an off season competition with the center step removed. That'd be awesome. You'd probably have to make teams have bumpers and just let them add them onto their robot not counting them in the size limits.

By the comments I've heard, it's possible many of this year's offseason events will remove the step as part of their rules changes. (I personally believe that IRI will do something like that)

cmrnpizzo14

26-04-2015, 21:47

I actually didn't hate this game!

PROS:

1.) Promoted interesting designs! Less robot constraints this year encouraged innovation and a fewer percentage of teams that simply went with a robot in three days design!

2.) Different design challenge than the shooter games that we have had! I honestly got tired of throwing things.

CONS:

1.) Game overall didn't feel as finished as previous years. It felt like there was supposed to be more that never really panned out. I think this had a lot of potential but it almost seemed like the GDC ran out of time.

2.) I'll admit, it just wasn't as spectator friendly as previous years. I personally liked it. I enjoyed the autonomous battles. I loved watching the stacks go up. I just think that for an average person observer it was lacking.

Caleb Sykes

26-04-2015, 22:49

DPR can be meaningless in three ways. First, every team can get the same number (with a bit of noise, of course). Then, it's meaningless, but that would not invalidate OPR. Second, if DPR is systematically incorrect, I have confidence that OPR shall also be systematically incorrect as well. FInally, if DPR has such wild scatter as to appear to mean something, I have confidence that OPR shall be wildly inaccurate as well.

Are you saying that one of these three cases happened this year, thus invalidating OPR? If so, which one?

Non-linearity and limited game pieces inherently confuse linear models. For example:

Q. How many offensive points is a can burglar (by itself) going to be worth?
A. If the alliance can't build more than three decent stacks, nothing. If the alliance can build and cap seven tall stacks, perhaps 100 points.

Q. How many offensive points are making inverted totes and totes on the step scorable?
A. If the alliance is not starved for totes, nothing. If totes become the limiting factor, up to 44.

This is true, these things will cause poorer results in linear models. At the highest-caliber events, many teams were performing better than their OPRs might imply, for reasons such as limited game pieces.

However, at weaker events, OPR seemed to be a very good description of a team's contribution, and at all events, the relative rank of OPR also seemed to be a good descriptor of a team's contribution relative to the rest of the field.

lynca

27-04-2015, 10:18

I actually didn't hate this game!

PROS:

1.) Promoted interesting designs! Less robot constraints this year encouraged innovation and a fewer percentage of teams that simply went with a robot in three days design!

2.) Different design challenge than the shooter games that we have had! I honestly got tired of throwing things.

Agree !

The engineering challenge of this game really helped many teams focus on offense. Many teams build a defense robot and never take the time to add more features to their robot. Recycle rush was the 1st game that challenged these teams to go beyond defense.

The_ShamWOW88

27-04-2015, 10:25

Correction.We attacked each other.

Correction, Correction....we attacked the evil tote army....

Noudvanbrunscho

27-04-2015, 10:28

I always hope for an 'endgame'. the climbing in 2013 and the balance in 2012 makes the game exciting till the end.
And about this year, wasn't too bad after all.

Nate Laverdure

28-04-2015, 21:57

Bon Iver - Re:Stacks (https://youtu.be/ePatJIwB-sI) makes for good subdued background to a season retrospective.

Everything that happens is from now on
This is pouring rain (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=131954)
This is paralyzed (http://www.reddit.com/r/FRC/comments/2zuvd4/on_idle_bots_carrying_gp_and_elimination_rounds/)
I keep throwing it down two hundred at a time (http://imgur.com/KcZqTqm)
It's hard to find it when you knew it (http://www.usfirst.org/aboutus/2017-first-championship-announcement)
When your money's gone (http://www.vexrobotics.com/vexpro/motion/gearboxes/)
Farewell, stacks.

GeeTwo

30-04-2015, 19:57

(2013 is just 2012b)
... Rebound Rumble --> Ultimate Ascent

OK, I was comparing the wrong two games before. I see it even less for Rebound Rumble vs Ultimate Ascent.

At Bayou, you could have competed without bumpers if it hadn't been for the rules. Only about three robots ever crossed the barrier, and they were more interested in getting game pieces than in robot-to-robot interaction. UA's defense was nearly as heavy as AA's in 2014.
Ball floor pickups were essential in RR, frisbee floor pickups relatively rare in UA.
Throwing balls with rollers has plenty of examples to copy. We didn't come up wit a workable way to throw a frisbee within the size limits until we saw Ri3d.
Lowering a bridge requires a single actuator (or in some cases none). Climbing more than one rung practically required several coordinated actuators.
Maybe it was because they were the first two games I was involved with, but the differences significantly outweighed the similarities both from a design and a game play experience.

As far as limits to the number of game pieces, it seems that there have been very few robots that carry more than eight game pieces at a time since Lunacy.

Deneb

01-05-2015, 08:46

While there was no endgame, I feel as if the pregame race for cans was executes similarly. While it wasn't necessarily put out there in the animation, as teams strategized, they realized there would be a race to see who would get the cans. However, it felt that this was the most exciting part of the game. Especially at championships, it got boring to see games at 250 points every game and very little error occurring. Even Einstein matches were boring after the can battles, especially the final match with the tug of war where I believe the field saw the most excitement.