Game design /w surface leveling the competition?

[Andrew Schuetze]

Question to all who competed or attended Week One region events, Is this year's game design /w RFP leveling the competition so that there is not dominating robot design? Has the surface and bumper envelope restrictions resulting in scoring being dominated by HP and robots getting caught in the corner?

I've watched only a few dozen matches from DC and now OKC and I don't observe dominance from traditional powerhouse robot teams. Can anyone add to or shed new data/observation to my hypothesis?

APS

[Koko Ed]

The concept of "leveling the playing field" is a complete joke.
The usual suspects are still making things happen. No one came close to 45 all weekend in DC. So long as those veteran teams have their adult coaches who've been there and done that and their scouting and organization they'll continue to be successful.
Why would changing a couple of things make it otherwise?

[Vikesrock]

From what I have seen on the webcasts the "chain is only as strong as it's weakest link" to a greater extend than in the past. 1 amazing robot cannot overcome two poor alliance partners in this game if the opponents use appropriate strategy IMO.

Having said that, the teams that have traditionally done well will continue to do well this year, as Ed said, this type of success results from having the complete package as a team.

[waialua359]

I will add one note.
After spending hours watching multiple regionals at the same time all weekend, there were a lot of rookie teams and teams 2xxx and above that did outstanding.
Championships on Einstein will definitely have a rookie team on there this year LEADING an alliance.

[DMetalKong]

At NJ, we didn't see this at all. The winning alliance was 2753, 1923, and 2344 (Note the lack of teams under 1000). From my observations, the 'leveling' effect wasn't so much directed towards experience as it was towards gameplay. The sole strategy that seemed to evolve was pin and dump. In the end, it made matches pretty predictable, which was disappointing to watch.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Question to all who competed or attended Week One region events, Is this year's game design /w RFP leveling the competition so that there is not dominating robot design?


Absolutely not.
The game is being dominated by those whom understand the game and all of its impact


Has the surface and bumper envelope restrictions resulting in scoring being dominated by HP and robots getting caught in the corner?


HPs are scoring, and scoring well, but generally only when a robot is pinned near the HP. The best scorers in NH are fast power dumpers (those that can store a lot of balls and dump them quickly).


I've watched only a few dozen matches from DC and now OKC and I don't observe dominance from traditional powerhouse robot teams. Can anyone add to or shed new data/observation to my hypothesis?

APS

The traditional powerhouses are still the powerhouses. They, for the most part, have the understanding of what is required in this game to win.

[Wayne C.]

At NJ, we didn't see this at all. The winning alliance was 2753, 1923, and 2344 (Note the lack of teams under 1000). From my observations, the 'leveling' effect wasn't so much directed towards experience as it was towards gameplay. The sole strategy that seemed to evolve was pin and dump. In the end, it made matches pretty predictable, which was disappointing to watch.


I agree with much of the above but I must add that the real leveller of the alliances was the alliance random assignment during seeding. It seemed that some teams ranked pretty high because of lucky pair ups and some of the top teams really didn't seed very high (ex:1923) because they succumbed to rounds where a dead or poorly functioning robot on the field destroyed the chance of winning. In this game a single robot really couldn't compensate for dead robots on the floor and they were sitting ducks and auto didnt offer much reward if you mastered it but you were screwed if you didnt move..

The smash and dump nature of the game was kind of fun to watch. The initial rounds looked like old ladies dancing with walkers. But the action got faster as the elims got further. I can live with this game .....

WC :cool:

[Daniel_LaFleur]

I agree with much of the above but I must add that the real leveller of the alliances was the alliance random assignment during seeding. It seemed that some teams ranked pretty high because of lucky pair ups and some of the top teams really didn't seed very high (ex:1923) because they succumbed to rounds where a dead or poorly functioning robot on the field destroyed the chance of winning. In this game a single robot really couldn't compensate for dead robots on the floor and they were sitting ducks and auto didnt offer much reward if you mastered it but you were screwed if you didnt move..

The smash and dump nature of the game was kind of fun to watch. The initial rounds looked like old ladies dancing with walkers. But the action got faster as the elims got further. I can live with this game .....

WC :cool:

In previous years a dead robot was something that a team could overcome, this year it's a death sentence.

People, make sure your partners can move and have autonomous ... else you risk an inevitable loss.

[Lil' Lavery]

In previous years a dead robot was something that a team could overcome, this year it's a death sentence.

People, make sure your partners can move and have autonomous ... else you risk an inevitable loss.

It's not quite a death sentence (at the regional level) always, although it is incredibly hard to overcome. Wise defense and quick scoring allowed for some of the top teams to win a qualification match or two (albeit closely) with a dead or almost dead partner. 2199, 1727, and 836 even managed to sneak out a QF match victory when 1727 lost drive power. They needed a penalty to do it, but the fact that 1727's trailer was essentially full forced the other alliance to score on the other bots. Most importantly, because 1727 was stuck, it became painfully obvious where the other alliance was going to score, so their alliance reacted properly and scored on the bots scoring on 1727.

As for leveling the field, yes and no. It's not so much a leveling the field effect as it just made making a dominant bot that much harder for everyone. The top level teams have been sunk down, so they are no longer immortal, but the bottom level has also fallen and often provides easy targets for the elite teams to feast upon.

The statement that rings the most true is that each alliance is only as strong as its worst member (assuming the other alliance isn't blinded by the strength of their good bots, which is often the case, and doesn't strategize properly). If the alliance has one bad bot, they will get eaten alive. If an alliance has three quality machines, they can make life difficult for the top teams, although not always beat them.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

It's not quite a death sentence (at the regional level) always, although it is incredibly hard to overcome. Wise defense and quick scoring allowed for some of the top teams to win a qualification match or two (albeit closely) with a dead or almost dead partner. 2199, 1727, and 836 even managed to sneak out a QF match victory when 1727 lost drive power. They needed a penalty to do it, but the fact that 1727's trailer was essentially full forced the other alliance to score on the other bots. Most importantly, because 1727 was stuck, it became painfully obvious where the other alliance was going to score, so their alliance reacted properly and scored on the bots scoring on 1727.


I should know better than to use absolutes.;)

I didn't see that match (being a bit busy at BAE this weekend :P ). Was that at DC?

[Lil' Lavery]

I should know better than to use absolutes.;)

I didn't see that match (being a bit busy at BAE this weekend :P ). Was that at DC?

Yes it was. Quarter-final 4-1. 2199, 1727, and 836 beat 2377, 272, and 1731 65-64 after a 10-point penalty. It was a nail biter in every respect.

[wcamp1742]

The pin game is huge this year. We were able to win OKC using effective pinning at the end of matches and the whole reason is because of the flooring. If a bot lost any sort of momentum they were screwed. In about 4 of our elimination matches we held an opponent down for at least 45 seconds at a time, which worked really well for the last 30 seconds. I will say though that the ultimate game changer is the empty/ super cells. If you can't get one in the trailer, you'll probably lose based on the matches I saw first hand. A good HP with a couple of super cells can decimate a teams chances of winning.

[Lil' Lavery]

The pin game is huge this year. We were able to win OKC using effective pinning at the end of matches and the whole reason is because of the flooring. If a bot lost any sort of momentum they were screwed. In about 4 of our elimination matches we held an opponent down for at least 45 seconds at a time, which worked really well for the last 30 seconds. I will say though that the ultimate game changer is the empty/ super cells. If you can't get one in the trailer, you'll probably lose based on the matches I saw first hand. A good HP with a couple of super cells can decimate a teams chances of winning.

The value of super cells is going to depend on the alliance you're facing. 45, 234, and 620 used several to win, but they benefited a lot more by the other alliances trying to use them. They would decimate teams who were doing "empty cell runs," especially by pinning them in the corner when they were exchanging them. There's a very definite reason why the trailers of 176 and 118 were full (both of whom did empty cell duty against that alliance during the eliminations).

[Tom Line]

Proof is in the pudding. Analyze the xml data from FRC spy and you'll see the same powerhouse teams at the top. And yet - two of the absolutely top teams, teamed together, got beaten in the quarterfinals by the eighth seed.

Good teams still can do well. But there has been a broad evening across the board. For the top teams - this will be a tough adjustment. You can't simply destroy the other alliance anymore. There's a big chunk of luck involved.

[A_Reed]

The whole idea of leveling a playing field is pointless. No matter how much you change the conventions and toss out an entire teams CAD library making them start from scratch, there are always going to be elite teams who have the smarts and resources to overcome anything you can throw at them. Every year it is obvious at first week regionals that some teams do start off way ahead of the pack and as the weeks progress they gain just as much experience as everyone else. Some will catch up after repairs and tweaks but some don't stand a chance to close the gap by the championship. Although it does get more exciting and competitive as the season rolls on it becomes kinda predictable.

[wcamp1742]

The value of super cells is going to depend on the alliance you're facing. 45, 234, and 620 used several to win, but they benefited a lot more by the other alliances trying to use them. They would decimate teams who were doing "empty cell runs," especially by pinning them in the corner when they were exchanging them. There's a very definite reason why the trailers of 176 and 118 were full (both of whom did empty cell duty against that alliance during the eliminations).
I agree that empty cells are a risk because you are vulnerable to pinning but from what I saw in OKC it's hard to beat a quick thirty points. A lot of teams here were wide eyed amateurs who couldn't block empty cell delivery as well as some of the lower number teams, so I'm sure we'll have to mix things up a bit when we get to Atlanta.

[Jimmy K]

At the Peachtree (GA) Regional, using the serpentine selection with this year's game seemed to give an advantage to the lower seeded alliances.

With the exception of Alliance 3 vs. Alliance 6 in the Quarter Finals, every elimination was an "upset" (the lower seeded alliance defeated the higher seeded alliance).

One possible explanation is that the higher seeded alliances would have two really good robots, and one that wasn't so good that got scored on a lot, and cost their alliance the win. Unlike previous games such as Overdrive (2008) where two good robots could easily outscore three below-average robots, in this game one bad robot will get scored on a lot and drag down the alliance.

This year, an alliance is only as good as their weakest team.

[JackG]

What has been neglected so far in this discussion is the impact that defense has played on the game. From what we've seen so far, many, although not all, of the offensive powerhouses are veteran teams with much experience. However, in the elimination rounds, there seems to be a good market for defensive tanks to pin and neutralize the opposing scorers. That means that any team with a hefty chassis, good drivers, and maybe a solid human player is a viable third alliance partner. Many rookie teams have seized that opportunity to become an integral part of a winning alliance, even if their human player is the one scoring instead of their robot.

So far, there's no doubt that the veteran teams are seeding higher, scoring more, and playing better during the qualifying matches. I do think though that the strategy change we've seen in the elimination matches (defense starts to matter) has left the door wide open to many different teams to be successful, including newcomers.

[sdcantrell56]

I know what happened with our alliance at Peachtree which was the #1 seeded alliance, was one of our robots broke in 3 out of the 4.5 quarterfinals matches. Our alliance was set up with one purely defensive bot that couldn't score, 1 scoring robot that ran empty cells, and 1 very high scoring robot. When the second scoring bot went down and couldn't move we couldn't win. Even with only 1 scoring robot, we managed to tie one match and only lose by 4 points in another match. The one match we were all functioning, we one by a very large margin, invoking the wonderful G14 penalty.

I guess the moral of the story is that no matter how good an alliance is or how good of a robot you have, there is still a great deal of luck involved in this competition.

From what I have seen the field really hasnt changed much. Teams that traditionally do well have continued to do well. The only big difference has been the influence of the human player. Now, teams with a so so robot can end up seeding very highly due strictly to an amazing human player.

[Chris is me]

A rookie team won was a finalist in the Wisconsin Regional.

I think that's pretty level.

[hillale]

A rookie team won the Wisconsin Regional.

I think that's pretty level.

??

[Lowfategg]

A rookie team won the Wisconsin Regional.

I think that's pretty level.

Well According to blue alliance that is not true, anyway,

Is this years game leveling the competition? I don't really think so, its just showing how teams response to different engineering challenges. Some teams are taking on complex drive trains and ball delivery systems while other teams are using KISS methods. Both work in this game since the game object is pretty simple, and I think that is what the GDC was looking for this year. Also, with the new controller and such, they probably wanted a game that was easier for new teams and also a game where it was harder to break things (even though we still are).

Also completely agree, 3v1 is basically a death sentence this year.

[XaulZan11]

A rookie team won the Wisconsin Regional.

I think that's pretty level.

A (very good) rookie team, 2970, was a finalist, but 2039, 1625 and 2194 are not rookies.

Even if a rookie team did win, I don't think that is 'proof' that this year's game leveled the playing field. Rookie teams win regionals every year. What would be intersting to see if someone computed the ages of regional winners this year and compared it to past years. That may be messy, though, as there may be an unequal ratios of rookie teams over the years.

[JaneYoung]

.02

In the world of science and technology, where can it be found that fields have to be leveled in order to be developed, researched, implemented, discovered, enhanced, shared, understood, or tackled?

This is a game challenge and yes, the GDC presented the 2009 game with new elements including the new playing surface for the robots. Why does that or any part of the game have be looked at through the very narrow lens of leveling the field? Development, research, implementation, and continued discoveries have opportunities presented to each team and each region to be shared for a deeper understanding of the game, the constraints, and strategies - strengthening the field for everyone, not leveling it.

[Chris Hibner]

As usual, Jane is pretty well on the mark.

I don't think any game change is ever going to tip the balance away from traditional powerhouse teams. Teams are traditionally good for the same reason that any organization is traditionally good: exceptional human resources (i.e. talent) and good organization of those resources. Good teams know how to tackle a challenge, organize their efforts, and implement their solutions. Any changes to the game itself doesn't change this dynamic.

[Bongle]

A rookie team won the Wisconsin Regional.

I think that's pretty level.

There are many rookie teams that could be called RINO's: Rookies In Number Only. Tons of rookie teams receive lots of mentoring from professionals and from other succesful teams. Ontario is awash in teams started or aided by 1114 (1503, 1680, 2056) that had very strong rookie years and remain strong as long as they last. Other rookie teams just 'get it' without mentoring, or come up with a strong design by sheer chance.

Mathematically, I think a truly level game would be one where a team's performance this year could not be predicted at all based on their past levels of funding and performance. I don't think that is the case, as we've seen historically strong teams continue to do well. There have been upsets, like 25/103 not winning NJ, or 1114 losing their first regional in a long time, but those teams still performed much better than the average team.

I guess that last paragraph brings up another question: how could you mathematically evaluate a "level" game versus a "stacked" game?. I would contend that Lunacy is somewhat more level than Rack N Roll, but how could I show that?

[Chris is me]

Oh, by "winner" I meant finalist. </lookinglikeanidiot>

Generally there were only a handful of teams I noticed that I could see as "rookie" (and it would be foolish to name them), and I noticed some robots from veteran years having trouble with the new playing surface. I think interesting little mixups like these make people think outside the box a lot more; then again since this is my first year participating in FRC perhaps I'm not the one to judge.

[Zach O]

It does seem that this year the rules have boxed in creativity this year, and I think the speciality flooring has a little to do with that also.

[Bob Steele]

I don't see this year as terribly different than any other year.
We will see special defensive robots that excel in regionals...We will see veteran teams with good resources (and an additional 15 lbs of allowable carryins) continue to adapt and alter their robots as the season goes on.

I think we will also see that in Atlanta... Teams will be looking for 3 good machines that can all score...

Defense is a game that can be played by most well-driven machines if they have a good drive train and a good driver. Few robots are designed from scratch to be a defensive machine... during the season they just grow to be one. There may be exceptions to this of course, but I would like to hear from a team that designed their robot to be a "pinner" straight from the first weeks of build.

Atlanta is a different ball game. In divisional play, alliances are picking from many GOOD well rounded robots...so why not pick three scoring robots...???

I do think that it behooves many teams to try playing defense...see what you can do.... try during practice...

It may be necessary during your regional elimination or at Atlanta.

All in all, I don't see this game as being the great "leveling".
Rookies still struggle, We need to continue to provide support for all of them both pre-season, during build, and during competition.

Teams with few resources and few mentors also struggle. Likewise we all need to band together to do what we can to buoy them up... helping in whatever ways we can...

Teams that are well-funded and well-mentored and that are willing to work hard are going to do better. This is the way of FIRST.

But isn't that what life is about... and I don't mean being well-funded...
Many teams that have these funding resources work HARD the whole year to provide this for their team... this effort should be rewarded.

Anne Sullivan once said:

People seldom see the halting and painful steps by which the most insignificant success is achieved...

I firmly believe that EVERY TEAM can point to its successes this year.
On the field, OFF the field, in the classroom, in the workplace.
Everyone comes out of FIRST with success...

I am constantly astounded at what teams and students are capable of doing.
It is why I spend so much of my time in this endeavor.