Don't Ban Can Battles in Offseasons

[Ty Tremblay]

I'll admit it. Recycle Rush is not an exciting game to watch. It was a fun puzzle to try and solve, but not a fun game to play. There just aren't that many exciting moments. The one exciting moment Recycle Rush does have, however, is the can battle. And removing can battles turns an already boring game into a snooze fest.

Now before you hit the reply button and say that can battles ruined the game, I agree with you. But as we've seen before, games with no interaction with the opponents (or no opponents, a la 2001) are boring. They simply dissolve into a race against the clock. There's no change in strategy between matches unless an alliance member breaks, no affecting the other alliance, no off-field chess matches like 2014 Einstein. It's just robots doing a task until time runs out.

Why take the only interaction between alliances out of the game? The answer is balance. Canburglars are overpowered. If you have a the fastest one, you have a huge advantage over your opponent. Losing all 4 cans in auto is a devastating blow for your alliance, making it almost impossible to win the match. It's unfortunate that FIRST didn't manage to balance canburglars, but that doesn't mean they should be eliminated from the game.

There are two ways to help bring balance to a game with an overpowered element. You can remove (ban) the element or you can reduce its effectiveness (nerf it). As I said earlier, removing canburglars from takes an already boring game and turns it into a set of drills. Why not nerf canburglars instead?

IRI and Chezy Champs have already taken steps toward nerfing can battles (if you ignore the fact that they're also explicitly banned), by adding 2 and 3 cans to each side of the field, respectively. They've reduced the advantage an alliance can gain by winning all 4 cans in auto, nerfing the can battle. If an alliance loses all 4 cans in auto at IRI, they still have 5 cans to work with. If an alliance loses all 4 cans in auto at Chezy Champs, they still have 6 cans to work with. Remember, this is a game where the highest score in the world was achieved with 6 cans. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3h6WeeZBRI)

Don't ban can battles from your offseason, nerf them. Bring them to a point where winning the battle is an advantage, not a necessity.

Braces for impact.

[Michael Corsetto]

Safety is my number one reason for removing the can battles. I'm glad their gone, it means my kids are more likely to live into their 20's.

-Mike

[logank013]

I'll admit it. Recycle Rush is not an exciting game to watch. It was a fun puzzle to try and solve, but not a fun game to play. There just aren't that many exciting moments. The one exciting moment Recycle Rush does have, however, is the can battle. And removing can battles turns an already boring game into a snooze fest.

Now before you hit the reply button and say that can battles ruined the game, I agree with you. But as we've seen before, games with no interaction with the opponents (or no opponents, a la 2001) are boring. They simply dissolve into a race against the clock. There's no change in strategy between matches unless an alliance member breaks, no affecting the other alliance, no off-field chess matches like 2014 Einstein. It's just robots doing a task until time runs out.

Why take the only interaction between alliances out of the game? The answer is balance. Canburglars are overpowered. If you have a the fastest one, you have a huge advantage over your opponent. Losing all 4 cans in auto is a devastating blow for your alliance, making it almost impossible to win the match. It's unfortunate that FIRST didn't manage to balance canburglars, but that doesn't mean they should be eliminated from the game.

There are two ways to help bring balance to a game with an overpowered element. You can remove (ban) the element or you can reduce its effectiveness (nerf it). As I said earlier, removing canburglars from takes an already boring game and turns it into a set of drills. Why not nerf canburglars instead?

IRI and Chezy Champs have already taken steps toward nerfing can battles (if you ignore the fact that they're also explicitly banned), by adding 2 and 3 cans to each side of the field, respectively. They've reduced the advantage an alliance can gain by winning all 4 cans in auto, nerfing the can battle. If an alliance loses all 4 cans in auto at IRI, they still have 5 cans to work with. If an alliance loses all 4 cans in auto at Chezy Champs, they still have 6 cans to work with. Remember, this is a game where the highest score in the world was achieved with 6 cans. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3h6WeeZBRI)

Don't ban can battles from your offseason, nerf them. Bring them to a point where winning the battle is an advantage, not a necessity.

Braces for impact.

I do have to say I agree. Now having 5 cans at IRI guaranteed is a great advantage. Can battles are not as important but are still important. Therefore, teams would still like to make their can burglars faster if the can battles are still like the battles at worlds. When you take the rule at IRI, you basically are guaranteed 7 cans. It now won't matter if it takes 2 seconds to get the cans in auto or the full 15 seconds. Going out on a limb here, I would guess that most teams with a can burglar has an auto for the can burglar. Basically, what IRI is doing is trying to prevent powerhouse teams from spending another couple thousand dollars on making their can burglars a split second faster. They also want to make it so teams aren't mad if their burglar get destroyed mid competition and again, preventing that extra cost. I believe the ultimate goal is to have teams save money on the off season. that's what a lot of events are doing.

A rule change that would be cool is if they did something like this: You have to wait 5 seconds into auto to touch the cans on the left side. Then, teams that have fast burglars still have the advantage but don't have to worry about speeding the can burglars up. A team that has a 4 second can burglar doesn't have to be concerned about a team with a 3 second auto. So then, you can line up 4 robots at the step (like at worlds) but have the robots on the left side on a 4.9 second delay so they still get the cans in auto. Then, it would be more like worlds where having a good auto truly does matter.

Tell me what you think, I hope all of what I said made sense. Thanks for reading

[logank013]

Safety is my number one reason for removing the can battles. I'm glad their gone, it means my kids are more likely to live into their 20's.

-Mike

Has a can launching into the stands ever been a concern? (This is a sincere question. I can't be at every event so I'm just curious.

[T^2]

Has a can launching into the stands ever been a concern? (This is a sincere question. I can't be at every event so I'm just curious.

I'd be more worried about a carbon fiber rod splintering into many pieces and flying everywhere.

[logank013]

I'd be more worried about a carbon fiber rod splintering into many pieces and flying everywhere.

Didn't think about that... lol... but obviously first didnt think that was an issue and, I don't know of any matches where flying parts have been an issue. I definitely could see that as a concern though.

[Nathan Streeter]

I agree that banning the can battles is silly (if the concern is 'game-breaking')... particularly because even at the highest levels at CMP, they weren't game-breaking at all! It almost always came down to 'who scored the most totes, made the most of their RCs, and/or just consistently avoided mistakes.'

The winning alliance of 118-1678-1671 won or tied on the cans against the alliance of 987-2826-2512, but I think the real reason why 118-1678-1671 won was because they avoided mistakes and kept scoring totes in the finals, whereas 987-2826-2512 had their worst two Einstein matches in the finals. They scored 232 (5 RCs), 256 (4 RCs), 271 (5 RCs), and 283 (6 RCs) in the QF and SF matches with video on TBA... If they had scored at the levels they scored in the QFs and SFs with only the 4 or 5 RCs they got in the Finals, they could've won.

This isn't to dig up difficult memories for 987, 2826, and 2512... (although I know how hard it is to lose on Einstein; they honestly have a ton to be proud of with their machines, their performance at CMP, and their 270pt average in the SF of Einstein), but is a case-study in the fact that even at the highest levels, consistent performance was still more important than Canburgling... Granted, if both alliances perform 'perfectly' canburglars are still the tie-breaker, but if an alliance could score 250pts every single time with only 4 RCs (particularly if they sometimes capped a 5th stack), I think they would've won on Einstein.

[logank013]

I agree that banning the can battles is silly (if the concern is 'game-breaking')... particularly because even at the highest levels at CMP, they weren't game-breaking at all! It almost always came down to 'who scored the most totes, made the most of their RCs, and/or just consistently avoided mistakes.'

The winning alliance of 118-1678-1671 won or tied on the cans against the alliance of 987-2826-2512, but I think the real reason why 118-1678-1671 won was because they avoided mistakes and kept scoring totes in the finals, whereas 987-2826-2512 had their worst two Einstein matches in the finals. They scored 232 (5 RCs), 256 (4 RCs), 271 (5 RCs), and 283 (6 RCs) in the QF and SF matches with video on TBA... If they had scored at the levels they scored in the QFs and SFs with only the 4 or 5 RCs they got in the Finals, they could've won.

This isn't to dig up difficult memories for 987, 2826, and 2512... (although I know how hard it is to lose on Einstein; they honestly have a ton to be proud of with their machines, their performance at CMP, and their 270pt average in the SF of Einstein), but is a case-study in the fact that even at the highest levels, consistent performance was still more important than Canburgling... Granted, if both alliances perform 'perfectly' canburglars are still the tie-breaker, but if an alliance could score 250pts every single time with only 4 RCs (particularly if they sometimes capped a 5th stack), I think they would've won on Einstein.

I'm not sure that I agree. 148 and 1114 were putting up 6 or 7 stacks each match. If they have only 4 bins. that's a 72 point difference between no bins or bins on 3 stacks. Most of the alliances on Einstein were putting up 5-7 stacks a time. The difference between 3 or 7 bins was massive. this is just my opinion but, I'd like to see what others say too ;)

[AllenGregoryIV]

We are compromising at TRI.

The furthest left RC is off limits for each alliance. This means the two center cans are still up for grabs by both sides. The thought process being that most alliances at an average to weak off-season won't put up more then 4 capped stacks so protecting a single RC is enough and it allows the robots that are built to grab the center cans (610, 2587, etc) to continue to do that. We aren't adding RCs to the field.

[Nathan Streeter]

I'm not sure that I agree. 148 and 1114 were putting up 6 or 7 stacks each match. If they have only 4 bins. that's a 72 point difference between no bins or bins on 3 stacks. Most of the alliances on Einstein were putting up 5-7 stacks a time. The difference between 3 or 7 bins was massive. this is just my opinion but, I'd like to see what others say too ;)

148 and 1114 (particularly 1114) struggled mightily in their last two matches; SF 3 and 6. They scored 190 in SF3, possessing 4 RCs but only using 3... then scored 210 in SF6, with 4 RCs possessed and scored. By my argument, if they'd just scored that 4th RC in SF3 or if 1114 had just scored more totes, they could've gotten the 6 points they needed to make it to the finals. By your argument, if they'd stolen another RC from 118-1678-1671 in SF6 and scored it, they would've made it to the Finals.

Either way, 1114 had some of their worst matches of the season in the SF on Einstein... even if they and 1923 stole only 1 can collectively in both of those matches, and 1114 had just cleared the landfill and scored 1 RC, they would've moved onto the Finals.

[Citrus Dad]

Has a can launching into the stands ever been a concern? (This is a sincere question. I can't be at every event so I'm just curious.

The danger that Mike alludes to is setting up two hyperfast can grabbers with hair triggers.

[logank013]

148 and 1114 (particularly 1114) struggled mightily in their last two matches; SF 3 and 6. They scored 190 in SF3, possessing 4 RCs but only using 3... then scored 210 in SF6, with 4 RCs possessed and scored. By my argument, if they'd just scored that 4th RC in SF3 or if 1114 had just scored more totes, they could've gotten the 6 points they needed to make it to the finals. By your argument, if they'd stolen another RC from 118-1678-1671 in SF6 and scored it, they would've made it to the Finals.

Either way, 1114 had some of their worst matches of the season in the SF on Einstein... even if they and 1923 stole only 1 can collectively in both of those matches, and 1114 had just cleared the landfill and scored 1 RC, they would've moved onto the Finals.

I have to agree on the 1114 stand point. If they don't have a can on top, it fails them. also, their robot seemed to fail even with a can on top. I meant earlier on, they could score that high... my point is with all the powerhouse teams in essentially 1 division at IRI, then each alliance can put 7 stacks up. especially in finals. that is why the can battles are important. 148 would also put up 4 stacks each match with no problems. so it still was important

[Loose Screw]

... my point is with all the powerhouse teams in essentially 1 division at IRI, then each alliance can put 7 stacks up. especially in finals. that is why the can battles are important. 148 would also put up 4 stacks each match with no problems. so it still was important

I think this point works in favor of removing the can wars for offseason events. It places a greater weight on consistency and scoring beyond 7 or 8 stacks. Yes, adding two or three RCs to each side helps lessen the importance of the can wars. Scoring 5 or 6 42pt stacks is challenging for most alliances, but if you only have 5 or 6 RCs to work with, the other alliance just needs to score one more to get ahead and win.

With IRI in mind, a 7-7 split becomes a match of consistency and totes. If both alliances can score all their RCs (not hard with 2+2+3 split), then the other points come into play. After your alliance makes 7 42pt stacks, there are 21 totes left to be scored (auto totes can be scored), 3 noodles to throw, and 32 potential auto points. With most alliances being able to do a 20pt auton and the 4pt auto impossible with the tethers, that leaves an 8pt advantage for teams that can do a 28pt auto. 2*21+3*4+8=62 points. The alliance that gets the most of those 62 points will win IRI.

Let's put this in an example with 2826, 148, and 254 on an alliance, and a nameless alliance to go against. For this example, it will be IRI rules with the can wars still existing. 2826 gets their 28pt auto, but their alliance loses the 4 RCs in the war. 2826 and 148 clear out the HP zone and 254 clears the landfill, scoring 5 42pt stacks and 33 totes. They get all the noodles on the other side. With this set up, we can calculate the number of just 42pt stacks the other side would need to score to win.

2826, 148, 254
28+42*5+33*2+4*5 = 324 points

Unnamed Alliance
20+42*x > 324, x=8, or x=7 if they can score 10 points elsewhere.

You have a case here where an alliance can score every possible point available to them, but still lose. This is definitely better than Worlds as they have to score 7 or 8 42pt stacks rather than 4 or 5.

In my opinion, the 7-7 split is the best and most exciting option that IRI could have went with. It becomes a battle of consistency and scoring beyond 7 stacks, rather than a 0.1 second faster burglar. Another thing to note is that it won't always be 7-7; teams can miss their cans in auto and lose them to the other side in teleop. It is my belief that removing the can wars balances Recyle Rush to its fullest potential.

[Kevin Leonard]

I think this point works in favor of removing the can wars for offseason events. It places a greater weight on consistency and scoring beyond 7 or 8 stacks. Yes, adding two or three RCs to each side helps lessen the importance of the can wars. Scoring 5 or 6 42pt stacks is challenging for most alliances, but if you only have 5 or 6 RCs to work with, the other alliance just needs to score one more to get ahead and win.

With IRI in mind, a 7-7 split becomes a match of consistency and totes. If both alliances can score all their RCs (not hard with 2+2+3 split), then the other points come into play. After your alliance makes 7 42pt stacks, there are 21 totes left to be scored (auto totes can be scored), 3 noodles to throw, and 32 potential auto points. With most alliances being able to do a 20pt auton and the 4pt auto impossible with the tethers, that leaves an 8pt advantage for teams that can do a 28pt auto. 2*21+3*4+8=62 points. The alliance that gets the most of those 62 points will win IRI.

Let's put this in an example with 2826, 148, and 254 on an alliance, and a nameless alliance to go against. For this example, it will be IRI rules with the can wars still existing. 2826 gets their 28pt auto, but their alliance loses the 4 RCs in the war. 2826 and 148 clear out the HP zone and 254 clears the landfill, scoring 5 42pt stacks and 33 totes. They get all the noodles on the other side. With this set up, we can calculate the number of just 42pt stacks the other side would need to score to win.

2826, 148, 254
28+42*5+33*2+4*5 = 324 points

Unnamed Alliance
20+42*x > 324, x=8, or x=7 if they can score 10 points elsewhere.

You have a case here where an alliance can score every possible point available to them, but still lose. This is definitely better than Worlds as they have to score 7 or 8 42pt stacks rather than 4 or 5.

In my opinion, the 7-7 split is the best and most exciting option that IRI could have went with. It becomes a battle of consistency and scoring beyond 7 stacks, rather than a 0.1 second faster burglar. Another thing to note is that it won't always be 7-7; teams can miss their cans in auto and lose them to the other side in teleop. It is my belief that removing the can wars balances Recyle Rush to its fullest potential.

You forget step totes! :D (And upside-down totes, but that's just too ridiculous to even discuss as a joke)

Depending on how consistent your top teams at IRI are (1114, 148, 118, etc.) It is possible (although unlikely), for an alliance to want to score step totes as well (meaning they'd want 225, because no one else has shown they can do it that is going).

The conditions for this to occur are very difficult, though. It would require two robots to together clear the feeder station of totes, and some of the landfill, and that they can do this while using up all 7 cans they have available on stacks of 6.
With the ability to start with a can inside your robot, as well as begin the match with a stack partially built (yellow totes), I think its possible an alliance would want the ability to score those.

I really want to see the game progress to that point, but I doubt it will.

As for banning can battles in off-seasons, I think it was necessary for IRI and Chezy Champs. Team have been known to make major changes (sometimes even building entirely new robots) to be competitive at IRI, and an arms race for the fastest can grabber before IRI would be unproductive.

At other off-seasons? I would keep can battles. No one is making an entirely new can grabbing system for the Tech Valley Robot Rumble (or so I hope), because its a fun off-season event not intended to be super-competitive. Teams will use the can grabbers they had from during the season, and teams will retain the edge they had in-season when can grabbers were so important.

[orangelight]

I'd be more worried about a carbon fiber rod splintering into many pieces and flying everywhere.

I believe we only broke one rod during the season. Broken carbon fiber hurts.

[Doug Frisk]

I'll admit it. Recycle Rush is not an exciting game to watch. It was a fun puzzle to try and solve, but not a fun game to play. There just aren't that many exciting moments. The one exciting moment Recycle Rush does have, however, is the can battle. And removing can battles turns an already boring game into a snooze fest.

Now before you hit the reply button and say that can battles ruined the game, I agree with you. But as we've seen before, games with no interaction with the opponents (or no opponents, a la 2001) are boring. They simply dissolve into a race against the clock. There's no change in strategy between matches unless an alliance member breaks, no affecting the other alliance, no off-field chess matches like 2014 Einstein. It's just robots doing a task until time runs out.

Why take the only interaction between alliances out of the game? The answer is balance. Canburglars are overpowered. If you have a the fastest one, you have a huge advantage over your opponent. Losing all 4 cans in auto is a devastating blow for your alliance, making it almost impossible to win the match. It's unfortunate that FIRST didn't manage to balance canburglars, but that doesn't mean they should be eliminated from the game.

There are two ways to help bring balance to a game with an overpowered element. You can remove (ban) the element or you can reduce its effectiveness (nerf it). As I said earlier, removing canburglars from takes an already boring game and turns it into a set of drills. Why not nerf canburglars instead?

IRI and Chezy Champs have already taken steps toward nerfing can battles (if you ignore the fact that they're also explicitly banned), by adding 2 and 3 cans to each side of the field, respectively. They've reduced the advantage an alliance can gain by winning all 4 cans in auto, nerfing the can battle. If an alliance loses all 4 cans in auto at IRI, they still have 5 cans to work with. If an alliance loses all 4 cans in auto at Chezy Champs, they still have 6 cans to work with. Remember, this is a game where the highest score in the world was achieved with 6 cans. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3h6WeeZBRI)

Don't ban can battles from your offseason, nerf them. Bring them to a point where winning the battle is an advantage, not a necessity.

Braces for impact.

It may put an extra strain on the refs, but what I would suggest is that no team may remove a container from the step unless all containers on that side are already scored on top of stacks and only one container may be removed from the step at a time.

That removes the can battle deciding the match in the first 2 seconds.

It benefits fast stacking teams or teams that strategically place containers on short stacks.

Sadly, it could be bad news for Wave (probably the best robot of the year) since their partners wouldn't be able to grab from the step until they'd capped their third stack.

But overall I think that's a significantly better solution than the "let's throw more containers on the field" plan.

[Doug Frisk]

It may put an extra strain on the refs, but what I would suggest is that no team may remove a container from the step unless all containers on that side are already scored on top of stacks and only one container may be removed from the step at a time.

That removes the can battle deciding the match in the first 2 seconds.

It benefits fast stacking teams or teams that strategically place containers on short stacks.

Sadly, it could be bad news for Wave (probably the best robot of the year) since their partners wouldn't be able to grab from the step until they'd capped their third stack.

But overall I think that's a significantly better solution than the "let's throw more containers on the field" plan.

Oops, forgot to mention, the penalty for each infraction of removing a can from the step when not allowed would be to descore your highest scored container. That's a potential 24 point penalty for each container removed.

[Kevin Leonard]

It may put an extra strain on the refs, but what I would suggest is that no team may remove a container from the step unless all containers on that side are already scored on top of stacks and only one container may be removed from the step at a time.

That removes the can battle deciding the match in the first 2 seconds.

It benefits fast stacking teams or teams that strategically place containers on short stacks.

Sadly, it could be bad news for Wave (probably the best robot of the year) since their partners wouldn't be able to grab from the step until they'd capped their third stack.

But overall I think that's a significantly better solution than the "let's throw more containers on the field" plan.

If this were implemented at the beginning of the season, tons of teams would have completely different robots.
It makes traditional-style can grabbers near-useless, makes capping far more valuable, and makes for some other interesting play, like (lets make 3 stacks of 1 so we can get the cans, then pick those up and turn them into stacks of 6).

I don't think its a useful rule change for an off-season, especially not a high end one.

[dodar]

If this were implemented at the beginning of the season, tons of teams would have completely different robots.
It makes traditional-style can grabbers near-useless, makes capping far more valuable, and makes for some other interesting play, like (lets make 3 stacks of 1 so we can get the cans, then pick those up and turn them into stacks of 6).

I don't think its a useful rule change for an off-season, especially not a high end one.

Totally agree. If this were the rules from the very beginning, we would have seen a lot more 1986-esque robots.

[Amit3339]

I can understand why those offseasons want to ban can battles, in playoffs it can destroy an alliance score in a specific match and even cost them in advancing during finals. I can say clearly that can battles are the most interesting thing in this year challange therefor I would recommend on adding an additional bin/s to each alliance like they did on IRI but decreasing the amount of bins on the step. That move will allow alliances that couldn't get some of the bins to actually advance during finals and will make the game more interesting.
but again... that's my opinnion:)

[themccannman]

Has a can launching into the stands ever been a concern? (This is a sincere question. I can't be at every event so I'm just curious.

The danger he's referring to is the stored energy in most canburglars. If something breaks, that 200mph aluminum spear has no qualms about going straight through you. Even with multiple failsafes there are still opportunities for things to go wrong, particularly when teams are tensioning their mechanisms or when they remove the safeties after lining up the robot on the field.

It's especially dangerous when you're testing the mechanism. Making an error in the autonomous code could mean your robot spinning around before firing it's mechanism. I don't think any team has, or will ever go an entire season without making a mistake in auto. A mistake during auto this year could cost you more than just points.

[Doug Frisk]

If this were implemented at the beginning of the season, tons of teams would have completely different robots.
It makes traditional-style can grabbers near-useless, makes capping far more valuable, and makes for some other interesting play, like (lets make 3 stacks of 1 so we can get the cans, then pick those up and turn them into stacks of 6).

I don't think its a useful rule change for an off-season, especially not a high end one.

Not useful?

As opposed to banning noodles? That removes about the only defensive capacity teams have.

Or perhaps you mean as opposed to just throwing so many cans on the field that can grabbers are pointless. That gives a huge advantage to a couple of machines and removes that competitive interaction over the cans on the step.

The 2 second can war is a chokehold so to address the chokehold you address the chokehold. By forcing teams to meet criteria before a can may be removed from the step, it removes the chokehold without removing the need for competition over the step cans to win a match.

[dodar]

Not useful?

As opposed to banning noodles? That removes about the only defensive capacity teams have.

Or perhaps you mean as opposed to just throwing so many cans on the field that can grabbers are pointless. That gives a huge advantage to a couple of machines and removes that competitive interaction over the cans on the step.

The 2 second can war is a chokehold so to address the chokehold you address the chokehold. By forcing teams to meet criteria before a can may be removed from the step, it removes the chokehold without removing the need for competition over the step cans to win a match.

Not allowing noodles to be thrown vs changing the stacking mechanics is totally different; and one doesnt change a team's robot design/strategy.

[carpedav000]

Totally agree. If this were the rules from the very beginning, we would have seen a lot more 1986-esque robots.

OR a lot of 1024-esque strategies.

[Qbot2640]

Not allowing noodles to be thrown vs changing the stacking mechanics is totally different; and one doesnt change a team's robot design/strategy.

Not true (albeit rare) 3971's innovative litter-grabber was responsible for their high rank at NC...and their subsequent ability to captain the finalist alliance (of which I commend their partner choices)...and their wild-card invitation to Championship (which, regrettably, finances prevented them from using).

Considering that in the finals every competitor scored litter was converted from a four point deficit to a one point positive, this was a tremendous addition to the alliance. If memory serves, 3971 put up 39 points in one match, and those two finals matches were decided by three and seven points respectively.

While I did not particularly like the litter-throwing aspect of the game, it is not universally correct to say it did not change a team's design/strategy.

EDIT: I failed to note that they also won the creativity award at NC.

[Carl C]

Not true (albeit rare) 3971's innovative litter-grabber was responsible for their high rank at NC...and their subsequent ability to captain the finalist alliance (of which I commend their partner choices)...and their wild-card invitation to Championship

...

If memory serves, 3971 put up 39 points in one match, and those two finals matches were decided by three and seven points respectively.


Their robot was as close to a defensive powerhouse as you could get with this year's game. It was a work of genius.

[Wayne TenBrink]

If it were up to a vote, I would vote against banning the can battle. (I'm on the planning committee for WMRI, so I get a real vote there.)

Teams build the best machines they can to play the game they are dealt at kickoff. In a well designed game, it takes a well rounded variety of bots to form a winning alliance. By fundamentally changing a hardware-specific aspect of the game, you cut the legs out from under teams that built for that task. I understand that losing the can battle puts you in a big hole in short order, but if you aren't competitive then perhaps you built the wrong robot or picked the wrong alliance partners. This game isn't perfect, but it is what it is.

There are ways to address the valid safety concerns that don't involve throwing out the baby with the bath water. This isn't the first game where stored energy devices are a concern. FIRST does a good job promoting many aspects of safety. However, there is a lot of room for improvement regarding stored energy.

[IronicDeadBird]

We are compromising at TRI.

The furthest left RC is off limits for each alliance. This means the two center cans are still up for grabs by both sides. The thought process being that most alliances at an average to weak off-season won't put up more then 4 capped stacks so protecting a single RC is enough and it allows the robots that are built to grab the center cans (610, 2587, etc) to continue to do that. We aren't adding RCs to the field.


Wow that is a really interesting compromise, shifts the game balance. Might have to steal this as an example of how subtle shifts in game rules can change a lot.

[AllenGregoryIV]

Wow that is a really interesting compromise, shifts the game balance. Might have to steal this as an example of how subtle shifts in game rules can change a lot.

One of the main thoughts was we didn't want a really high level team (cough 118 cough) to be able to intentionally race another team on the left side, win, and then immediately go get the other two cans during teleop. Their alliance wouldn't be able to put up the 7 RCs but they wouldn't need to and would almost be guaranteed a win.

The single restricted RC seemed to do it's job well this weekend at an event with a very wide range of robot skill levels. The entire rule set for TRI (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EOdFwdYomYgFw_-XrNdoWSbEfMyVts87hW-l_BSSt7w/edit) played out very nicely in my opinion, it drastically reduced penalties, and allowed the game play to come through. We ended up not having chute doors, not by choice, but because the field we were using just didn't have them and it wasn't to big of a problem for most teams.

[Citrus Dad]

If it were up to a vote, I would vote against banning the can battle. (I'm on the planning committee for WMRI, so I get a real vote there.)

Teams build the best machines they can to play the game they are dealt at kickoff. In a well designed game, it takes a well rounded variety of bots to form a winning alliance. By fundamentally changing a hardware-specific aspect of the game, you cut the legs out from under teams that built for that task. I understand that losing the can battle puts you in a big hole in short order, but if you aren't competitive then perhaps you built the wrong robot or picked the wrong alliance partners. This game isn't perfect, but it is what it is.

There are ways to address the valid safety concerns that don't involve throwing out the baby with the bath water. This isn't the first game where stored energy devices are a concern. FIRST does a good job promoting many aspects of safety. However, there is a lot of room for improvement regarding stored energy.

I generally would agree with your sentiment, e.g., not changing the 2012-14 games because of the design parameters. However, this year is different. We are perhaps the most salient example of a team that built targeting the middle cans (and 118 might be another example). But for the Capital City Classic we're adopting the IRI/Chezy Champs rules. We see it as a challenge for our team in the fall, but it also makes it more competitive for other teams as well. (I might have approached this differently by changing the scoring, e.g., giving only a double point bonus to RCs instead of triple.)