Why I think having no defense was a great idea

[WillNess]

I think that a game without defense helps the students learn more than it does with defense.

The reason is, last year when designing the robot, after every suggestion we had to evaluate if we thought it could survive constant beating during a regional. This year, we had to worry about that a lot less, don't get me wrong it was still a consideration but it wasn't as severe as last year. In fact, we were able to be much more creative and even have a 5 foot arm sticking behind our robot that could pick up bins from the step without mining the landfill. Even if the same length/width rules were in place in a game with defense, we never would have been able to make that arm because it couldn't have survived being run into. FIRST is about the students, and I learned much more this year about engineering and programming than I did last year because of the creativity involved in this years game. Remember that the competition is where the students can go to show off what they've done, but the important part is what the students do up to that point. I would vote for the crappiest game ever if it means that the students on my team were to learn more. The competition is NOT the important part of FIRST, the students are the most important part of FIRST. The competition can help students build time-management skills when you need to fix something in the 10 minutes of pit time in between matches, and other skills, but the competition should never be the focus.
It's For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology not For Recognition of The Best Robot.

"To transform our culture by creating a world where science and technology are celebrated and where young people dream of becoming science and technology leaders." - FIRST Mission Statement

Thoughts?

[Conor Ryan]

No Defense this year caused teams to evolve in new ways. One of those ways was cheesecake.

Cheesecaking has been around for a long time, however because more teams needed to find something different to stay relevant as the game progressed, it became much more common. One of the oldest forms of cheesecake is taking a robot that was designed to play offense and have it play defense in Eliminations.

Chew on that philosophy for awhile.

[WillNess]

No Defense this year caused teams to evolve in new ways. One of those ways was cheesecake.

Cheesecaking has been around for a long time, however because more teams needed to find something different to stay relevant as the game progressed, it became much more common. One of the oldest forms of cheesecake is taking a robot that was designed to play offense and have it play defense in Eliminations.

Chew on that philosophy for awhile.

So are you for no-defense or against it?

[brinoc]

I agree that this years game with no defense allowed teams to come up with some very different and creative designs that haven't been used in years past. However; I do not believe that defense hinders design and engineering in any way. In the real world of engineering, designing a mechanism or device that can perform its intended task and can withstand any possible expected (or even unexpected) situation is very important.

Years with defense actually pose an equal or larger engineering challenge, because teams must design and build a robot that can manipulate game pieces while also being able to take a little bit of a beating. FIRST evened it out slightly this year by making the game piece very difficult to manipulate, so there was a higher challenge in that aspect, with a lower challenge in drive power and ruggedness.

Aside from the engineering/learning aspect, in my opinion defense is overall a more engaging game for teams, spectators, and sponsors alike.

[pmangels17]

I have often found that the coolest designs were those that were both functional and resilient. I really enjoyed seeing all the creative designs for robots this year, and a break from defense wasn't the worst thing for FRC, but I look forward to returning to a time when I can marvel at the amazing machines that survive the torture test of FRC defense and still do amazing things. Designs like 341's 2012 intake, 67's entire seamless 2013 robot, and 254's spectacularly simple 2014 machine are amazing not only because they creatively solved a problem but because they did so in a way that they were able to sustain massive hits and still perform at the highest level.

**steps on soapbox
Competition is the vehicle we use to inspire students. We work to build better robots in order to win, and through that desire to win we push ourselves to do better. When we see what we can create when driven to do better, that is inspiring stuff. I enjoyed the creativity we saw from teams this year without the defense, but now I'd like to see how we can take this creativity to the next level. That next level is continuing to be creative, but making our ideas able to survive big hits and stand up to the test of strength.
**steps off soapbox

I also really like defense like we saw in 2013. I think it is important to interact with the opposing alliance, and it adds a certain level of uncertainty regarding who will win the match. This year, after the can battles, we could basically always pick the winner before teleop even started.

[Insert quip about these being my opinions and not necessarily those of my team.]

[WillNess]

Agreed I think 2013 was a great mix

[lynca]

Agreed I think 2013 was a great mix

Agreed 2013 was the best mix of defense and offense.
2014 was way too much defense.
2015 was no defense.

I get upset when teams build fantastic scoring robots and lose to inferior robots built only for defense.

Hopefully the FRC GDC finds a good balance and rewards teams for building great robots !

[Taylor]

Our robot played 56 matches this season - that's triple any previous amount - and it's still going strong. I'm fairly certain that it would not have such longevity given a defensive game.

[MrForbes]

It was rather boring in our pit, since we never had to fix anything on the robot. Is that good or bad? I don't know. It was less nerve wracking than having the robot getting damaged in matches.

I did like your robot at the AZ West regional...and I know your team was having fun!

[donnie99]

I feel the lack of defense was the catalyst for some of the most creative designs FIRST has ever seen.

One of the things that defense does teach students about design, is being able to build resilient designs that can complete the challenge. This year saw some designs that could break fairly easily, including the first match of Einstein finals. Part of learning engineering is building designs that don't break easily and don't need to be fixed often.

[Citrus Dad]

Agreed 2013 was the best mix of defense and offense.
2014 was way too much defense.
2015 was no defense.

I get upset when teams build fantastic scoring robots and lose to inferior robots built only for defense.

Hopefully the FRC GDC finds a good balance and rewards teams for building great robots !

The answer to creating the right level of defense is to insert "traffic calming" obstacles that prevent full-speed hits, and safety zones for scoring. Those could have been added to the 2014 game without changing it very much.

As for the balance of defense and offense, it is part of the competition to find a way to counter those scoring machines. 1114's goalie bot almost stopped 254 (at least one of 254's auton shots deflected off 1114's goalie pole in the last final). That was perhaps the most exciting moment in 2014 and maybe for many years.

FRC is about much more than the engineering of the robots; its about the organizational challenges of real world competition. Students may not always realize that even if they build the coolest device in the world, they still have a lot more work to get it adopted for widespread use. Training your drive team, preparing in-depth scouting, creating robust strategies, and marketing your program to raise funds are all just as important as building the best robot. The teams that cover all of the elements are more likely to be successful.

[MrForbes]

Training your drive team, preparing in-depth scouting, creating robust strategies, and marketing your program to raise funds are all just as important as building the best robot. The teams that cover all of the elements are more likely to be successful.

That's true.

For most teams, there are limited resources, and we have to prioritize. Since it's a robotics competition, we usually put most of our resources into designing and building the robot. Having little or no defense allows us to have some success with this model, while allowing us to showcase our creativity.

[K-Dawg157]

I agree that this years game with no defense allowed teams to come up with some very different and creative designs that haven't been used in years past. However; I do not believe that defense hinders design and engineering in any way. In the real world of engineering, designing a mechanism or device that can perform its intended task and can withstand any possible expected (or even unexpected) situation is very important.

Years with defense actually pose an equal or larger engineering challenge, because teams must design and build a robot that can manipulate game pieces while also being able to take a little bit of a beating. FIRST evened it out slightly this year by making the game piece very difficult to manipulate, so there was a higher challenge in that aspect, with a lower challenge in drive power and ruggedness.

Aside from the engineering/learning aspect, in my opinion defense is overall a more engaging game for teams, spectators, and sponsors alike.

Just... Yes.

[Pretzel]

Interestingly enough our robot had much more to fix this year between matches than last, and I think no defense had a lot to do with that.

Last year we had a robot that, until our second off-season event (for a total of four), had only one mechanical issue in the form of a broken tank tread. The only reason that we had a second issue was that the loctite holding one of our transmissions onto the frame of the robot broke loose and allowed the screws to back out slightly, causing a catastrophic failure that cut shelves into the gears and destroyed every bearing in the transmission. We had, from the start, anticipated high levels of defense with heavy contact and designed accordingly. Nothing extended outside of our frame at any point in time other than a claw with rollers to grab the ball, which was robustly constructed from 1" x 2" .125" box tubing along with two polycarbonate "fenders" that helped guide the ball and reduce side-impacts. Everything else remained completely contained within our robot frame, including our tank treads, that was constructed of 1" x 2" t-slot extrusion with corner braces. This meant that, once bumpers were installed, the driver could ram into other robots or bump into walls without fear of damaging the robot. Every item on the robot was also designed as simply as possible for the quickest turnaround times if something should break. Our entire catapult/claw assembly was held on with eight bolts, four pneumatic tubes, and one sensor wire and was actually removed between competitions as our withholding allowance to practice and iterate.

This year's robot was a bit of a different story. Our design this year was much more complex to deal with the more specialized requirements (throwing a ball is easier than stacking totes AND handling recycling containers). We had a conveyor belt, a claw, a stacker, and a canburglar that each had its own subtle nuances. For the first time in three years we went back to using wheels and chain for our drivetrain as opposed to tank treads, which was a really nice change to be honest. This robot, however, was fairly often in need of repairs. Due to weight restrictions, we had only 4 mini-CIM's and 2 BAG motors on the robot. The rest of our motors were RS-775's or RS-550's, which would burn out whenever they were stalled for a short period of time in a match or practice. We replaced the 550 in the claw four times before finding the weight to switch it to a BAG motor, and the stacking Raw Box ate up at least 3 775's in testing before PID issues had been sorted out. Our "crowder" rails that we used to center totes on our conveyor belt burned another 3 550's. The claw itself was frequently "tweaked" by the driver when he picked up the recycling containers located near the alliance wall, and the canburglar's CATOBAR (Catapult Assisted Take-off But Arrested Recovery system, really just multiple wraps of surgical tubing around a lever arm with more tubing to dampen the impact upon the can) tore up both the driver's hand while it was being loaded and the gears it was linked to when it was fired on one occasion. This was after a season where the only time a wrench touched the robot was to replace a broken tread that had been improperly tensioned, and it was just due to a shift in the design process. This year we designed for more complex mechanisms as opposed to those that would withstand a hit, and I actually enjoyed the change from a design standpoint. It was the best engineering challenge I've been involved with since I joined FRC, and that includes our 14 second pyramid climber in 2013.

While it was a fun change of pace to design for, I do not think that no defense should happen again in the near future, or at least not in this manner. The lack of robot interaction other than the initial can battles made for a less interesting game to outside observers. Last year we threw exercise balls up to 60 feet in the air, this year we just stacked what appeared to be shipping containers and trash cans. No defense has it's place and I think every FRC student should get to experience a game like this one, but I think a game can still have interaction between opposing alliances without "defense" being involved. A game where the goal is to have as many gamepieces on the opposing side of the field at the end of the match as possible, for example, would provide a no-defense challenge that also ensures an exciting spectator experience.

[WillNess]

Agreed 2013 was the best mix of defense and offense.
2014 was way too much defense.
2015 was no defense.

I get upset when teams build fantastic scoring robots and lose to inferior robots built only for defense.

Hopefully the FRC GDC finds a good balance and rewards teams for building great robots !

Agreed like in 2010 alliances would just have goalies that would literally just put themselves in a opposing goal and the best scoring robots couldn't do anything.

[WillNess]

It was rather boring in our pit, since we never had to fix anything on the robot. Is that good or bad? I don't know. It was less nerve wracking than having the robot getting damaged in matches.

I did like your robot at the AZ West regional...and I know your team was having fun!

Thanks! Yours was really cool too.

[WillNess]

The lack of robot interaction

I agree with this. One of the most exciting parts about last year was the truss shots to a human player or another robot, to see how the robots interacted was very exciting.

[BigJ]

Agreed like in 2010 alliances would just have two goalies that would literally just put themselves in the opposing goals and the best scoring robots couldn't do anything.

In 2010 only one defensive robot could be in the zone containing the goals.

[Hjelstrom]

Count me in the minority that agrees with the original poster! Not having to worry about physical defense or strict size restrictions was really awesome for all the reasons stated.

[James3245]

I really enjoyed the challenge this year's game provided our team as we considered possible strategies in the days after kick-off. As valuable as the actually competition is in terms of learning feedback, I think that just as valuable for student learning (and my enjoyment of the season) is the amazing cerebral challenge of analyzing a new game.

Yes, every year provides this. However, by eliminating robot-to-robot contact and defining separate alliance zones the GDC this year unleashed a refreshing set of new opportunities and challenges to consider. I think they did an excellent job in prompting teams to think freshly. For this kudos to the game designers.

I've never witnessed so much excitement in the community about a reveal video as that generated by 148's release. I really enjoyed watching it with my students as it showed elegantly out-of-the-(FRC)box thinking. Such an innovative design would have never come about in a more typical game that included defense.

I don't think there is a "right" amount of offense/defense balance for a "good" game. I hope that the GDC keeps mixing it up year-to-year. It is healthy for the level of student learning. Every game should be refreshingly different; I have no problem with some games being at the extreme ends on the continuum of amount of opportunities to play defense. On a four year cycle of student participation it is desirable to have a variety of games. We all learn more that way.

I would enjoy having another of this same kind some year in the future.

[Sunshine]

I have no problem witht the elimination of contact to contact with robots. Defense can occur without the brutal hits. I hope that FIRST continues the trend of expandable robots. Not sure if this can be accomplished with defense. I'd gladly give up defense to see this trend continue.

[Wawa]

I think it was a really good thing for no defense this year. As a fifth year team that has never really had a functioning robot, it gave us the opportunity to really focus on ourselves without worrying about what other teams might do to our bot. We bagged a fully functioning robot this year (never happened before) and it was really awesome to not have to rush between matches to repair anything, ever.
I don't think we should keep this no-defense forever, but it definitely was good for teams that haven't always been very elite. Yes, there was a significant lack in excitement for spectators, but sometimes we need that little slack in action to catch up to those legendary teams out there.

[WillNess]

In 2010 only one defensive robot could be in the zone containing the goals.

Ya but they would switch a lot and defense was overpowered

[WillNess]

Count me in the minority that agrees with the original poster! Not having to worry about physical defense or strict size restrictions was really awesome for all the reasons stated.

:D :D :D :D :D
High Five!

[PVCpirate]

I'll start by saying I'm not a fan of high speed, damage causing ramming being commonplace as it was in 2014. However, I think defense should exist in some form for a couple reasons. Defense forces teams to keep making their mechanisms faster and stronger. Any time you extend a mechanism outside your robot, it could be hit by another robot and break. You can reduce this by making the mechanism faster so it is at risk for a shorter time, or making it stronger so it doesn't break as easily.

The other reason for me is defense is exciting. I'm not talking about big hits, but one of my favorite things about sports is the "unstoppable force vs the immovable object" matchup, when a great offense goes up against a great defense(best FRC example is 254 vs. 1114 last year). Sure watching a great robot stack up totes is cool, but by the end of the competition you're just watching to see if they screw up. Defense adds a level of uncertainty that makes it entertaining. Bottom line, FIRST says they are all about inspiring people, but you can't do that if the matches are boring.

Ya but they would switch a lot and defense was overpowered

Just as an aside, 2010 remains my favorite game (weird ranking system aside) because the game evolved to have positions (forward, midfielder, defender), and everyone had to play their position well to win the match. defense was definitely important, but I didn't think it was overpowered.

[DonShaw]

Not having defense take an element out of design and strategy for the robot and game.

Needs to be a combination of both and include opposing alliance interaction as well.

[Jared Russell]

Interaction between players on opposing sides is what makes most team sports so much fun to watch, because every match is different. Decisions need to be made on the fly, there are tradeoffs to every strategy, and outgunned teams always have at least some chance of pulling off an upset (aside from hoping for their opponent to screw up).

This year, there was almost no interaction between opposing sides, outside of noodle throwing and the can race.

I don't think every FIRST game needs to have bumper-crushing physical contact between robots to be interesting. I do think that every FIRST game needs a significant level of interaction between the opposing sides in order to be interesting.

[David Lame]

Who are we trying to inspire? Ourselves? I don't think so. I think it's the rest of the world. Everyone who joins First is already inspired.

Dean Kamen says he wants to transform the world into a place where scientists and engineers are looked up to like sports heroes and entertainers are today. Well, if that's to be the case, we need to get people to look at us. We need to keep our game interesting and, well, sport-like.

That doesn't necessarily mean bumper-crushing action, but I think that having an entertaining game that could be watched and enjoyed by non-techies is an extremely important part of First game design.

[PVCpirate]

Who are we trying to inspire? Ourselves? I don't think so. I think it's the rest of the world. Everyone who joins First is already inspired.

Dean Kamen says he wants to transform the world into a place where scientists and engineers are looked up to like sports heroes and entertainers are today. Well, if that's to be the case, we need to get people to look at us. We need to keep our game interesting and, well, sport-like.

That doesn't necessarily mean bumper-crushing action, but I think that having an entertaining game that could be watched and enjoyed by non-techies is an extremely important part of First game design.

You're spot on, and this is why I loved the 2014 game concept. It was robotball! It was a sport, drawing elements from sports people know, and played by teams of 3 robots each. Even at fairly low levels, it was fast paced and had tough defense, explosive offense, buzzer beaters, teamwork, interesting strategy. You name something that makes sports exciting, Aerial Assist had it. Plus, it was easy to understand! If FIRST wants to inspire people outside the program, it should aim for that, not stacking boxes in neat rows and throwing pool noodles at them.

[Deneb]

This year, in a stacking game, no defense was a good idea so that the maximum point total was easier to achieve. However, in future games, it would be nice to see defense again because it provides an opportunity for skilled drivers to take advantage of the situation regardless of the robot's quality. Defense also serves as a well needed nerf to uber teams and allows competition to be more intense and exciting.

[jeremy callahan]

Our robot played 56 matches this season - that's triple any previous amount - and it's still going strong. I'm fairly certain that it would not have such longevity given a defensive game.

your team only played 56 matches? Michigan about doubles that every year and we usually have hard defense in our state. If you cant build a robust machine then you aren't doing it right. if its not robust and can't go the distance. how do you know your going to have a working robot every match?

[IronicDeadBird]

I would agree with the title in the context of this year.
The little to no defense this year worked great for the game this year and provided a distinctive style of play.
I think game traits like defense and offense cannot be generalized into a good or bad category. It is how said traits are applied to a game that really adds or subtracts from said game. It is weird for me coming from a video game background which includes a lot of squad base games, and real time strats, and hearing all this "defense makes games exciting!" It actually conflicts with my past experiences where generally defense heavy is the worst thing next to water levels (which also makes it weird when people ask for a water game). Poorly implemented defense mechanics result in horribly slow game play, and absolutely no audience appeal. In the future I would like to games like Recycle Rush make a comeback, but instead of the conventional bumper to bumper defense a lot of people want I would instead want to see resource defense implemented. Safety zones are something I feel the GDC needs to fully utilize in the future. The games they present are really well done and only by taking risks (like the ones they took this year) will they continue to grow.
Then again that is just my 2cents...

[BumblingBuilder]

While I think having minimal defense was a fine idea this year, I don't exactly want FIRST to make it the norm, and it's likely they won't. This year was a great deviation from the standard projectile game we've seen in the few years prior. It proved to be a great way for teams to branch out in creativity that we don't exactly get from defense-heavy games. Having no defense allows teams to think differently. They have more freedom because they don't feel too constricted to a particular build because they're worried about having to stand the ramming from the teams of the opposing alliance. However, having an emphasis on defense has its merits. They don't have to just worry about accidentally knocking over a stack (and what to do when that happens) or the occasional pool noodle pile on the ground. Teams learn about having to adapt to unpredicted events like a change in defense strategy. Teams have to think about how to make their robot more versatile.

With both types of games having their merits, they should both be utilized in the future to push the differing amounts of constrictions, adaptability, and creativity offered in the robotics field that FIRST participants may deal with in their future.

[pntbll1313]

your team only played 56 matches? Michigan about doubles that every year and we usually have hard defense in our state. If you cant build a robust machine then you aren't doing it right. if its not robust and can't go the distance. how do you know your going to have a working robot every match?

Michigan usually plays over 100 matches??? Didn't you guys only play 14+14+14+10 = 52 matches?

[stuart2054]

While I think having minimal defense was a fine idea this year, I don't exactly want FIRST to make it the norm, and it's likely they won't. This year was a great deviation from the standard projectile game we've seen in the few years prior. It proved to be a great way for teams to branch out in creativity that we don't exactly get from defense-heavy games. Having no defense allows teams to think differently. They have more freedom because they don't feel too constricted to a particular build because they're worried about having to stand the ramming from the teams of the opposing alliance. However, having an emphasis on defense has its merits. They don't have to just worry about accidentally knocking over a stack (and what to do when that happens) or the occasional pool noodle pile on the ground. Teams learn about having to adapt to unpredicted events like a change in defense strategy. Teams have to think about how to make their robot more versatile.

With both types of games having their merits, they should both be utilized in the future to push the differing amounts of constrictions, adaptability, and creativity offered in the robotics field that FIRST participants may deal with in their future.

I agree with this statement. I have enjoyed this game and the things that our team did that would not have happened in a defense intense game. However I think that games with defense and "flying objects" are more interesting for spectators, sponsors and the "guy off the street". I have mixed feelings about the average score being used for ranking but it certainly made it easier to know where you stood.

[Rman1923]

I loved this year in terms of building and planning the robot. This game was amazing in terms of strategy, build and possibilities. Could you imagine robots like Batman and Robin in any other year? Could you imagine having any sort of race like we did this year for cans? This year was amazing!

But there are downsides in the #morethanrobots part of it. The best way I could explain this year's game was saying 'fedex simulator 2015'. Like watching the game was really boring for a non-firster. What I'm saying is that although MKIX will always have a special place in my heart (as with any robot I build), for outreach events we'll probably leave our awesome robot in the shed in exchange for the robot that shoots frisbees. I don't mind not having defense but the game that we play should be easily explained to other people who don't do robots (yet).

[qzrrbz]

Michigan usually plays over 100 matches??? Didn't you guys only play 14+14+14+10 = 52 matches?

well, a given district winner played 12+2+3+(2or3) == 19or20
and the MSC winner played 12+2+2+3+(2or3) == 21or22

there are quite a few teams that play 3 districts, so they're looking at 57 to 60 matches.

1023, winners at MSC, ended up with about 80+ matches, before CMP!

so, all told (after IRI too :p ) over 100 matches

[Mr. Tatorscout]

I loved this year in terms of building and planning the robot. This game was amazing in terms of strategy, build and possibilities. Could you imagine robots like Batman and Robin in any other year? Could you imagine having any sort of race like we did this year for cans? This year was amazing!
.

The unfortunate thing about this year was that Batman and Robin did the same thing match after match after match after match after match after... no variation except for getting better at it as the season progressed. It was a great engineering showcase challenge, but I'm just glad the paint is finally dry.

http://216.120.240.100/~contestq/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/204252-276x300.gif

[FIMAlumni]

well, a given district winner played 12+2+3+(2or3) == 19or20
and the MSC winner played 12+2+2+3+(2or3) == 21or22

there are quite a few teams that play 3 districts, so they're looking at 57 to 60 matches.

1023, winners at MSC, ended up with about 80+ matches, before CMP!

so, all told (after IRI too :p ) over 100 matches

If I have all the data right here are the robots that have played at least 100 matches.

1023 has played 103 matches
125 has played 100 matches
and
1519 has played 100 matches

[Rman1923]

Yeah, I was taking about the engineering aspect, Tbh, competitions are fun but i always have more fun building robots and asking other teams why they built their robots that way. This year I could really see creativity, instead of telling people'it's a forklift' you had to say 'it's a passive forklift with a chain driven lifter'. Whereas last year and years before, you could say "oh, it's just a shooter, no other take on it"

[Nemo]

This year's game took the "defense bot" strategy off the table for teams that otherwise would have settled for a box on wheels. Hopefully that caused some teams to challenge themselves in healthy ways.

#1. I prefer to watch games that are dominated by offense.

#2. I want the incentives in the rules to significantly favor offensive strategies.

#3. I like a scoring mechanic that doesn't severely penalize an alliance for letting a less effective robot try to execute their offensive strategy.

I mention #2 and #3 are because it sucks when teams show up with manipulators and get told by their alliance partners not to use them. Sometimes the incentives are setup that way.

[GaryVoshol]

your team only played 56 matches? Michigan about doubles that every year ...How many events do you go to each year? The maximum number of matches at a FiM district event this year was 20 - 12 quals, 2 quarters, 3 semis, 2-3 finals. Add 2 more for octos at MSC.

OK, I see where people have posted over 100 including Worlds, for a few teams. But you can't say Michigan about doubles it every year, certainly not for every team.

CyberCards had a respectable season, and 56 is a good number of matches.

And you can't count off-seasons yet, they haven't happened. I'm sure 1529 will add to their total, at least at Cage.

[buchanan]

This year's game took the "defense bot" strategy off the table for teams that otherwise would have settled for a box on wheels. Hopefully that caused some teams to challenge themselves in healthy ways.

#1. I prefer to watch games that are dominated by offense.

#2. I want the incentives in the rules to significantly favor offensive strategies.

#3. I like a scoring mechanic that doesn't severely penalize an alliance for letting a less effective robot try to execute their offensive strategy.

I mention #2 and #3 are because it sucks when teams show up with manipulators and get told by their alliance partners not to use them. Sometimes the incentives are setup that way.

I agree strongly on all points. On #1, I guess it's a matter of preference, though one might observe that the NFL, for example, seems to think that's what their fans want, given rule trends around the passing game. #2 may be just a restatement of #1, even if other points may made for it.

I'm really glad to see #3 mentioned though, because IMO it's one of the uglier sides of FIRST, and unfortunately all too common.

It's one thing (and painful enough) for a team to decide itself to turn to defense because the scoring mechanism they worked all season on isn't working well, but quite another to be told by alliance partners to play defense simply because it better serves the alliance. It is hard for this not to come across as a direct insult to a machine a young team has worked hard on, meant so or not.

While maximizing alliance score may be the best interest of the higher ranked teams competing for seeding spots, it frequently isn't for those lower down. Their best shot may be to make a good showing of some unique capability that might cause a captain to pick them for eliminations, or to demonstrate that the failures that dropped their ranking have been corrected and they're now underrated, and a good "sleeper" pick. Finally, if you're completely out of the running, what's better for enjoyment and experience, running your robot to the best of its capabilities and learning what you can, or "taking one for the team" to help partners you may be playing against the very next round anyway?

The sad part is that it's young teams most likely to be in this position, and most likely to succumb to this sort of pressure. They want to be GP, but haven't yet learned to assert, or even fully evaluate, their own team's best interests. Young teams are also the ones that most need encouragement, and using them as cannon fodder isn't particularly encouraging.

It should go without saying that the above applies exclusively to qualifications, not eliminations, for several good reasons.

[Melissa McBrien]

The answer to this one depends a lot on you primary goal.

If your chief goal is to design a creative robot that doesn't have to consider more extremes of durability, then a no-defense game might be a better venue. Although, in my opinion, the robots this year were more uniform in their appearance and approach to strategy than in the previous 7 years that I've been around FIRST.

If you would like to engage an audience outside of already devoted FIRST-ers, then defense is something that adds the uncertainty and excitement that garners attention.

An "endgame" like the minibot or hanging in the last few seconds helps supply some of that, as well.

[WillNess]

Although, in my opinion, the robots this year were more uniform in their appearance and approach to strategy than in the previous 7 years that I've been around FIRST..

Whaaaa? I guess I could maybe see strategy being the same due to the simplicity of the game. The game goal was to stack totes and put a bin on top. That was it. Last year it was passing, shooting over truss, two different goals, you had to make combos with shooting over truss into human player, into other robots, assists. I understand that. But appearance? I saw so many different mechanisms to pick up the totes and recycling bins, as well as tethered robots are something completely new. Robots were built to either grab from the feeder station or the landfill. There were robots that had ramps, and much more. In 2010 all of the robots were basically the same except 469, that year (in my opinion) was the year with the most uniform robot appearance.

[rick.oliver]

Who are we trying to inspire? Ourselves? I don't think so. I think it's the rest of the world. Everyone who joins First is already inspired.

Dean Kamen says he wants to transform the world into a place where scientists and engineers are looked up to like sports heroes and entertainers are today. Well, if that's to be the case, we need to get people to look at us. We need to keep our game interesting and, well, sport-like.

I have a much different understanding of the Vision and Mission statement of F.I.R.S.T. as published on the website. Culture change is the goal, the strategy is to inspire young people. The sponsors with whom I have dealt over the years are most interested and excited by the development of future engineers, scientist and technologist. They understand the value of maintaining an inspired pipeline of innovative young women and men.

I very much enjoyed the absence of robot-to-robot interaction and the emphasis on consistency of execution. It illustrates the power of reliability.

[grstex]

I can't recall the last time teams were allowed to "de-score" or "steal" points from their opponent. The one example that sticks in my mind forever was team 25's 2000 robot.

I think defense gets something of a bad wrap because it's been mostly limited to pushing and blocking in recent years. I think if there was a game that opened up more defensive possibilities, then we'd have a chance to see more unique defensive specialists, and your basic "pusher-bot" would still get to play a role as counter-defense. Plus it would push high offense teams even harder.

[Abhishek R]

I can't recall the last time teams were allowed to "de-score" or "steal" points from their opponent. The one example that sticks in my mind forever was team 25's 2000 robot.

I think defense gets something of a bad wrap because it's been mostly limited to pushing and blocking in recent years. I think if there was a game that opened up more defensive possibilities, then we'd have a chance to see more unique defensive specialists, and your basic "pusher-bot" would still get to play a role as counter-defense. Plus it would push high offense teams even harder.

What about in 2007, Rack And Roll?

[evanperryg]

I think the need for defense varies based on the game. The kind of defense we saw in 2014 would have ruined this game. Just look at 2003: the only truly successful stacker I know of, 67, was designed to make one stack and protect it from all the robots trying to plow bins and knock over stacks. The same would have applied to this game if there had been a significant amount of interaction. This is purely speculation, but even if scoring platforms had been "safe zones" and knocking over the other alliance's stacks would award them penalty points equal to the value of the wrecked stack, that mess of gamepieces would have crippled the scoring abilities of many teams. An inherent part of defense is that it is spontaneous and very on-the-fly. Sure, the ultimate goal of defense is to stop the other teams, but this year's game would have been too heavily impacted by even the slightest misstep in defense (knocking over another team's stack). This year's game was centered around very precise, intricate mechanisms that would never be viable if defense were present, and defense would have made scoring any points extremely difficult.

Different levels of defense suit different types of games. Just because defense was a valuable part of 2014 and many previous games, doesn't mean that it would contribute anything positive to this game.

[Ken Streeter]

If I have all the data right here are the robots that have played at least 100 matches.

1023 has played 103 matches
125 has played 100 matches
and
1519 has played 100 matches

Wow, I never would have guessed our robot played the third-most official matches this year. If only we had got to the Carson semifinals (just one more noodle!) we would have tied Bedford Express!

Amazingly enough, this year's robot was maybe the most reliable one we have ever had -- the pit crew even mentioned it was "a boring robot" -- hopefully next year's will be even more boring!

[jtrv]

Strongly pro-defense game here.

Why? This year's game had ... zero counterplay. Zero strategy. Zero metagame development.

So how do you out-score the opponent? You better pray that you just get the luck of the gods and that the enemy screws up a few times. This year, the alliance that screwed up the least won. Sure, that sounds great - strive for absolute perfection. But most of the time, the screwing up is not always something you can help. Ex, your robot loses comms with the field. Then you look at the DS logs and it literally tells you nothing. "Oh you lost comms, nothing was wrong, your comms just cut out." and the assistants don't have an idea either.

No defense leads to very uniform designs. Sure, you had a lot of different designs this year. Did you see each of every design win? Absolutely not. The multi-bot self-stacking mechanisms destroyed everyone. They're stacking while scoring - maximum efficiency. Sure you had some ramp based bots, but in perfect execution, they won't keep up.

"Oh, the defense was the cans in the middle!" Yeah, for auton. That's it.

"You had noodle defense!" Hahah good luck throwing those things very far when every other team bends them at 180 degree angles and they rarely get replaced or people get fed up with replacing them each and every game.

There was zero strategy. It's like - "Okay, we'll score here, you score here, and you score here. Let's just hope for the best. Since X team grabs these two cans in auton then we go for the other two." That's it.

There weren't any clever strategies at all. Honestly. It's awful. No critical thinking during the competition, you're just going out and hoping to do your best.

[Ekcrbe]

The multi-bot self-stacking mechanisms destroyed everyone. They're stacking while scoring - maximum efficiency. Sure you had some ramp based bots, but in perfect execution, they won't keep up.

Where are you getting this idea from? Which "multi-bot" robots exactly are you referring to? In terms of the top-tier teams, I only think of one, and that's 148. Everyone else at the highest level of competition had one main robot, and a number did have ramps. The majority of robots on Einstein, however, were neither of these types. They were mostly integrated-ramp feeder stackers and can stealer/landfill stackers.

[BariSaxGuy]

One problem that I saw this year was that some teams didn't do anything, yet were told to just stay out of the way. In Kansas City one alliance had two Chute fed robots and one that could have used the landfill, but didn't do anything. Our alliance, partly due to lack of scouting knowledge, had three that used the landfill. A lot of those second-pick teams got lucky and had a high average from being on good alliances during qualifications. In 2014, we had a bot that was almost too light, and got pushed around, but we beat the 5th seeded alliance when the other two robots on our alliance were broken. So I really don't see a difference, with defense and no defense, teams just need to have effective designs that other people like to get picked.

[jtrv]

Where are you getting this idea from? Which "multi-bot" robots exactly are you referring to? In terms of the top-tier teams, I only think of one, and that's 148. Everyone else at the highest level of competition had one main robot, and a number did have ramps. The majority of robots on Einstein, however, were neither of these types. They were mostly integrated-ramp feeder stackers and can stealer/landfill stackers.

Not every team with the self-stacking mechanism made it to Einstein - hence why I added the bit about complete perfection in execution... that in itself isn't possible, plus not that many teams even had a self-stacking mechanism. and if they did, most weren't well executed.

[Ekcrbe]

Not every team with the self-stacking mechanism made it to Einstein - hence why I added the bit about complete perfection in execution... that in itself isn't possible, plus not that many teams even had a self-stacking mechanism. and if they did, most weren't well executed.

Right. Execution is everything. There were a few of them, and a small proportion of them made it to Einstein. There were a lot of other types of robots, and a small proportion of them also made it to Einstein. I see none of this as having to do with what archetype they were and everything to do with the efficiency with which they worked on the field--a combination of good engineering and driver skill and practice. No one was playing under perfect conditions, so if a single-robot stacker had a lower ceiling than a multi-robot stacker (say 4 stacks compared to 5, which is what I think we could have seen) but the single robot could perform at a 75% level in the real world more consistently, that was the better choice. If you had the ability to get your multi-robot to that level too, then it was the better choice. But I wouldn't say that either is a better design or that one is inherently more likely to win competitions.

Many of the lower and middle range teams had similar looking robots and creativity really blossomed in the highest echelon. I think that's the same as most other years and that it's good for the game to see that pattern.

On all your other points I agree, though. I should have said that earlier.

[Lil' Lavery]

What about in 2007, Rack And Roll?

Spoilers could reduce score in Rack 'N Roll, but you were not allowed to remove game pieces (other than spoilers) from the rack. Removing game pieces is typically what's considered de-scoring. This has been allowed in some VRC games recently.

[WillNess]

yet were told to just stay out of the way.
In Arizona West there was a team who had a robot that was a box bot, with an arm that would pick up noodles. That was it, and it rarely worked. When we were on an alliance that's basically what we had to do.

[BenGuy]

Agreed 2013 was the best mix of defense and offense.
2014 was way too much defense.
2015 was no defense.

I get upset when teams build fantastic scoring robots and lose to inferior robots built only for defense.

Hopefully the FRC GDC finds a good balance and rewards teams for building great robots !

Yeah, but we all have to remember - Dean Kamen's challenge (as usual) is to grow FIRST. 2013 and 2014 were much more fun to just watch, frisbees and balls flying everywhere and robots having to come up with complicated strategies, pushing wars, and robots smashing into each other. Spectators and potential future participants would have been much more intrigued and willing to join if it were as fun to watch as the last two years. Defense makes for a fun game.

[GreyingJay]

In Arizona West there was a team who had a robot that was a box bot, with an arm that would pick up noodles. That was it, and it rarely worked. When we were on an alliance that's basically what we had to do.

Obviously I can't speak for your team or for the noodle bot team, but I think there is a difference between a team that comes onto the field and essentially says "Ok, we know our robot doesn't do much, but we'll do our best and help out however we can", versus you telling them "just stay out of our way". One would hope that each team would be capable of judging how best they can help, even if the best thing to do is park in a corner.

My team can say "been there, done that". We went to our first regional with a lift that kept malfunctioning. In this year's game, if you can't pick up a tote or can, you literally can't do anything useful.