Does Aerial Assist achieve the goal?
 

For years and years, the GDC has tried to get teams to work together beyond simply being on the same alliance: Lifting other robots in 2007 & 2010, Minibot sharing in 2011, Balancing in 2012...

With three weeks done now, has Aerial Assist achieved the goal of really rewarding teams that work together, or do we still have a game where single powerhouse teams can win without much real "assistance"?

- Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox

Re: Does Aerial Assist achieve the goal?
 

Since my first year back in 2007, I would say that this year gives those who work together the biggest boost towards winning vs 1 team going solo in matches.

2007 you really needed the help of your alliance members to keep your tubes in a line to get the multiplier, but you could go solo more easily compared to this year in terms of the final score and winning/losing a match.

Re: Does Aerial Assist achieve the goal?
 

i think this game certainly achieves the goal of inspiring students.
We worked with several teams during build and we talked about strategies and they built robots to perform different kinds of tasks. We got to work with them to help them achieve their ideas...

I got news back today that one of them, who we had talked to about building a defensive robot (a blocker actually) came back a winner from their last district. The first time they had ever won... we are excited for them...

I would call this a success.

I know you are asking about the "goal" of more cooperation on the field and that remains to be seen I think.... but I also wanted to put my 2 cents in regarding the Goal of the game and of FIRST

Re: Does Aerial Assist achieve the goal?
 

I can probably count on one hand the number of matches we won without awesome teamwork over our last two competitions. Practice matches included.

Re: Does Aerial Assist achieve the goal?
 

The game definitely encourages teamwork more than any before. The downside though, is that an alliance of one decent team and two sub-optimal teams are at a greater disadvantage than they were in the past.

For example, this year my team decided to ignore our shooter at the competition and focus on the other issues we were having. As a result we could reliably accept the ball, pick it up from the field, score in low goal, score in auto low goal, and pass very well. Without assists the MOST we can score in a match is 1 point goals, 1/10 of the points that an alliance with a shooter can score. We had quite a few matches with teams who were unable to pickup or even heard the ball and we didn't fair too well in those matches.

I understand this is a somewhat rare case, and that it makes sense that an under powered team should not do as well as a more solid team. I'm just saying that in the past if you had at least one decent bot on your alliance, you had a shot at not being embarrassed. This year, individually you can look good, but your score won't reflect it.

Re: Does Aerial Assist achieve the goal?
 

No this game failed. FIRST keeps forgetting kids want to play the game. They made a game where teams never get the opportunity to shoot the ball because they are not the fastest or most accurate.

Re: Does Aerial Assist achieve the goal?
 

I would say that yes it is achieving the goal of rewarding teams that put emphasis on working with their alliance partners both on and off the field and puts those teams that think they can do it by themselves w/o engaging their alliance partners at a disadvantage.

Re: Does Aerial Assist achieve the goal?
 

Does the game reward teamwork, well, sure.

Does this game reward teamwork the right way, not at all.

Does this game punish teamwork, definitely.

This game rewards teamwork the wrong way by forcing it with assists, everyone touching the ball is good but only because the rules say so. Good teamwork is not forced on teams by the rules but rather something teams will choose to do because it means they perform better. To be fair there are ways this game rewards teamwork the right way, for example 2 ball auton and a goalie. However for the vast majority of the game, and especially in qualification matches where you don't get to pick which robots you play with, teamwork is often punished.

Giving robots who are anything but perfectly reliable the ball is a huge liability and that hurts teamwork. This game punishes an alliance for giving the little guy a chance because that little guy might get pinned, or not be able to eject the ball and the alliance is dead in the water. This game punishes teams for trying to play the game because if they fail they don't just hurt themselves but their entire alliance. Auton is a perfect example, sometimes it's very necessary to ask an alliance partner not to start with a ball in auton because they might miss, and missed auton hurts the entire alliance.

tl;dr Teamwork that is only a good idea because the rules explicitly say so is mediocre at best. A game where it's better for the alliance for a team to do nothing rather than try and play the game punishes, not rewards, teamwork.

Re: Does Aerial Assist achieve the goal?
 

Also because of how the game works. If one robot breaks in the playoffs your done. You can not win this game with 2 robots. The penalty of being the number one seed is dam near death in district events. They should allow the top seeded team pick where they pick from. Example number one seed could pick to be the 4th seed.

Re: Does Aerial Assist achieve the goal?
 

As compared to previous games where the weak robots on an alliance are made to play defense, feed their teammates, and are given the minimal amount of scoring objects possible.

Regardless of the game, bad robots aren't going to be asked to be performing integral scoring roles in winning a match. When the common goal of the alliance is winning a match, each team on an alliance must play their part to maximize the chances of winning the match, and for the bad robots this often means playing a non-integral role. This is a characteristic of coopertition, and cannot (and in my opinion should not) be avoided. Is it nice to let the little guy have a swing at doing something? Sure. But when it is risky enough to lose the match for the entire alliance, I believe anyone would agree it's not a safe bet.

Re: Does Aerial Assist achieve the goal?
 

In 2007 You also needed to stand on your partner robot for extra points.

Re: Does Aerial Assist achieve the goal?
 

I know, I was there.

Re: Does Aerial Assist achieve the goal?
 

I think it's fair to say teams go into competitions wanting to see their robots play the game by doing offensive things. It's inspiring to see the catapult you worked hard on fling a ball, not so much to watch it remain idle. Think of quals specifically, previous years it was okay if less effective teams on an alliance tried offense and failed, it wasn't good and most of the time it's not the optimal match strategy, but it was okay. Less effective robots failing didn't break the alliance and more effective robots could win matches without having to ask teams to give up the chance to see their robot do offense. This year less effective robots failing no longer results in just not getting points it actively punishes the entire alliance. There are many more matches where the alliance has to ask a specific team to give up the opportunity to see their robot in action for the sake of the match. I'm not saying those didn't exist before but it happens a lot more in this game than in others and that's not a good thing.

Re: Does Aerial Assist achieve the goal?
 

While it does give the idea of "teamwork" to everyone, powerhouse teams can still dominate and will dominate if they need to.
At the SD Regional, we basically played a 3 v 1 game with Team 987 (not calling you out or anything but you guys rocked the house) and they killed it, even when 2 of their alliance members were disabled for the majority of the game.

Re: Does Aerial Assist achieve the goal?
 

Wrong thread!

Re: Does Aerial Assist achieve the goal?
 

I agree with Sean to an extent.
The fact that no safe zone was created for this game, makes it nearly impossible for the majority of teams who cant make a shot if a defender(s) are whacking them constantly.

I feel we built a robot around defense and have experienced drivers. But with that, we feel its very tough to score regardless.

Re: Does Aerial Assist achieve the goal?
 

Oh but there is a "safe" zone, just not many teams have figured it out. I've seen a couple that have and they are pretty unstoppable because they can still make their shot even when they are constantly getting whacked.

Re: Does Aerial Assist achieve the goal?
 

This game isn't a total flop, but as far as I can tell, great robots are doing better, and average robots are doing worse, it seems to me like the best teams at each regional are pretty dominant.

Re: Does Aerial Assist achieve the goal?
 

Do tell. The only one I can think of off the top of my head is in front of the low goal, which is pretty awful for teams that have back intakes that have to move out of the way to shoot (like 148). Also, if you are right up against the edge of the field (otherwise, others can push you from the side), then you can't hit the high goal because its edge is further in the field (I believe 1114 was having troubles with this in the elims).

Re: Does Aerial Assist achieve the goal?
 

If you are referring to being in front of the low goal or wall, that is exactly how we shoot. Its been key to us doing relatively well this season.
But what about everyone else who cant?
Shooting from the white line is easy for a lot of teams.........without defense.

Re: Does Aerial Assist achieve the goal?
 

I agree completely and pretty much predicted this exact scenario back in the first week Aerial Assist and Ill Will thread: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...67#post1325467

While good teams can really cooperate and do well together, it almost always excludes at least one team (the third alliance picked member) to having to play defense. If you are lucky the third person can "herd" the ball long enough to get an assist. (Don't get me started on how possession rules are totally not consistent, a single hit won't count as an assist, but it will be enough for a penalty)

A single game piece is just not a good idea for FIRST games. Kids want to play, want to use their robot. It is not inspiring to play bumper cars.

Re: Does Aerial Assist achieve the goal?
 

From a student's point of view, one who's only seen three years of competition, I actually really like this game.

I think it kind of changed it up from the previous years. For instance, I don't really think that powerhouse teams are doing as well? Two of my favorite teams are 125 and 126 and I've seen them go all the way, both of them at Boston last year and they weren't as much of a dominating force this year.

Then at WPI, 5122, a rookie team, was a finalist along with two great teams, including 2648, who I've also seen go all the way before.

In addition to the powerhouse teams, in my opinion, not being as much of a dominating force, alliance selection has been really interesting. Now I can't credit all of that to the game because some or most of it may be an increase of scouting on a lot of teams, but it seems that there's a lot more variance in alliance selection, especially with 3rd pick.

In my previous years, at the regionals I attended, it seemed like for 3rd pick 8 would pick the highest seed available, and it would continue with that trend, but that hasn't seemed to have happened, at least not at WPI.

Also, for the one robot breaking and wrecking the whole alliance, there are back-ups. And maybe it's a shift in the game, but it doesn't seem as many are being called, although that is definitely subject to opinion.

Re: Does Aerial Assist achieve the goal?
 

I think the issue is FIRST is trying to push more Cooperation in Qualification matches. The issue is with the inherent randomness of the schedule, trying to play as a team is pretty difficult unless you get lucky. How is an alliance of three 'Type A' robots going to play as well as an alliance that has 'Type A' 'Type B' and 'Type C'? They aren't.

I always enjoyed seeing the teamwork really shine in Eliminations, I'd like to see FRIST try to force it less in Qualifications.

Re: Does Aerial Assist achieve the goal?
 

I think this is an excellent game, very similar to 2006. However, there were no "safe zones." 1 elite team could, and did, dominate a match. Bumpers were not required then and bots had to actually be built to take a hit. Teamwork consisted of "bad team = backbot."

Yes, teamwork is actually needed in quals for a change. Elite teams can (more than ever imo) be shut down by a good strategy, not great execution. How many teams have reached out to other local teams this year that otherwise wouldn't? I'm thinking more than ever. How have the "elite" teams helped the lesser teams be competitive so that they have a better shot at winning? How is 3 robots playing the game essentially solo, teamwork? How many years has strategy been essentially: this is what we do, and it doesn't really matter what you do except for where you line up in auto. Elite teams, how many other teams helped play defense for you during quals in the past?

What is more inspiring, being on an alliance that wins because Team 0 scored a ton of points like they do in every match regardless of what you did or being on an alliance where you had an integral part (which could simply be passing the ball or setting screens) in what allowed Team 0 to score many points?

Yes, robots break down and that severely hurts an alliance. Does this not teach teams to build more robustly, and encourage other teams to seek-out and assist fellow teams who are having issues?

Re: Does Aerial Assist achieve the goal?
 

This is it, but yes you would have had to identify it early on and design your robot to be able to shoot from there. I have seen other teams successfully use this strategy.

Our strategy team did identify it as a safe place and the need to be able to shoot from there by day 2, however our design team did not design around that, so we are out on the white line getting pushed around.

Re: Does Aerial Assist achieve the goal?
 

I think Aerial Assist definitely achieves the goal. Maybe it's because this is only my second year of FIRST, but I think this game forces teams to work together in order to win. After Palmetto, I remember teams that went solo didn't do as well as alliances that worked together, even with powerhouse teams. Our drive team had to work with the other teams to develop a quick strategy, and that means scouting is incredibly important in this game. Communicating scouting information to drive team and checking out the other teams before the match to see if they need help are important aspects, at least they were at Palmetto it seemed.

I feel like it gives rookies a good chance at winning as well. A kit bot can easily be on a winning alliance this year.

Also, of course teams will want to see their robot do what it was made to do, but sometimes bot designs can have hidden talents. To give an example, at Palmetto I don't know if 1311 (Kell Robotics) designed their robot to be a defense bot from the beginning or not, but they definitely proved to be one of the best defensive bots at the regional by eliminations. Also, our alliance partners, 4935 (T-Rex) had a shooter, but we saw from the scouting data that they also had an incredible defensive presence on the field. Maybe this game does not always allow teams to use their robots in the intended way all the time, but it makes us adapt to the situations we are thrown in with random teams and forces us to work with them quickly to find out how everyone can use their robot for the benefit of the alliance. This adaptability and willingness to cooperate seems definitely necessary in this game, and I think that's what FIRST wants.

Re: Does Aerial Assist achieve the goal?
 

I think the GDC could have taken a hint from the single most exciting strategy of last year's game--the full court shooter fighting it out with a blocking defender. When the FCS could get dialed in, the points pouring in was a crowd pleaser. But the real battle was when a blocking defender tried to get into position an offensive alliance member had to first help maneuver the FCS into position, and then counterblock to clear a path. Further, a ground pickup robot could collect missed shots at the other end.

Even though we were not an FCS, but we did have ground pick up. We won at CVR and Curie with the strategy, and several times we sacrificed our offensive capability to counter defend. We also picked our third robot to counter defend, effectively.

If the GDC has foreseen that strategy, it could have given bonus scores for FCS to encourage an activity that takes a full team--it really required 3 robots. Yes, the FCS is a difficult task that may limit the robots capable of it, but maybe we could come up with a more meaningful task for the 3rd robot, e.g., an autonomous activity that an FCS can't do easily.

Re: Does Aerial Assist achieve the goal?
 

This.

We had an alliance partner in a Quals match at Chesnut hill that said "We can inbound from the human player, but if we get tapped we lose comms for about 30 seconds."

We had to flat out tell them they shouldn't have the ball inside of their robot. We felt horrible, but what else would we be able to do? Of course, they went ahead and did it anyway. And I'll leave the rest of that match up to your imagination.

I think the GDC missed a huge point when designing this game: 65% of robots at your everyday regional or district event don't actually work as intended if at all. And the GDC just put an entire alliance including my team in trouble because one of those robots are on it. Sure, this game will be a killer come champs. But what about all those teams that don't make it? >5k down the drain.