Re: What if...
 

Really? Where'd you guys go?

At San Diego (which then was a Week 2 regional) the minimum was more like 2 robots assisting, and 1 playing defense. I will note however in matches like this one, sometimes, but for the most part it was generally 2 assists, even if it was a slow match with only a couple cycles on either side. However, this may have just been because we were matched with/against some pretty good teams who could assist in some way or another.

But in AA you were usually supposed to play defense if you didn't have to currently do anything related to the ball.

In the Elims, it was always 3. 1 inbounds into another, that one trusses, one after that scores usually, which was why robots like 3250, 4574, 4583 and 4486 were such good strategic picks.


All in all, I think we can all agree that the simplicity of Aerial Assist was its strong point and it's downfall. On one hand, the game was fairly easy to follow, and even if you didn't understand what assisting was you could still get a basic grasp of which side was winning based on general activity, like in Ultimate Ascent, or Rebound Rumble. On the other hand, to engineers it wasn't very challenging, and there were only so many designs that could be innovated. Plus not to mention the sometimes speculation-based rules, and the lack of a 2nd objective (which lead to a heavy focus on a single game piece).

Re: What if...
 

Judging from the kitbot extrusion drawings that were released, I doubt this.

Re: What if...
 

Can you expand on why you think this please?

Re: What if...
 

Well think about games like Ultimate Ascent, the whole "pyramid climbing" goal.

Sure, it wasn't worth very many points, but to have a robot that actually did that was eye candy for spectators. Everyone I talk to about Ultimate Ascent outside of FIRST cites the Pyramid as the most amazing thing about the game, because of the complex mechanisms robots had to do them. Like, this and this.

In terms of shooting frisbees it was just a spinning wheel with a piston to push the frisbees in, with varying input methods like floor pickup or human player feeding. Though the latter was easily a larger source of points, it was still easier to engineer, whereas the former was a harder, but more visually appealing task.

With this game, all the robots really had to be successful was have a consistent way to hold and release the ball. You didn't even really need to launch it, and there were a lot of cases where launching it would've just created more problems than simply holding the ball and then letting goal of it.

What this lead to is many "cookie-cutter" robots and strategies, which is the main reason people don't like games like Lunacy. Even though nobody is really "copying" anyone, it's hard to bring a new innovating idea that will actually work and be consistent.

Re: What if...
 

Of all the reasons I despise Lunacy, cookie cutter robots is not really one of them. In fact, this is the first time I've heard that particular criticism levied at that game.

Re: What if...
 

lol that's an interesting way of loooking at that.

On the topic of creativity in AA, adding a good endgame would have been enough to make it more creative. 2013 was just shooting frisbees with wheels, either with a linear shooter or a single-wheel shooter. However, it would have been very hard to top 148's pyramid climb in terms of creativity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxGa8Z8LUYE

Re: What if...
 

I don't understand how those examples are that much more amazing than this and this.

This statement (with small variations) could probably be said for any game. For example: "[With Ultimate Ascent], all the robots really needed to be successful was to have a consistent way to hold and release [discs into the low goal]. You don't even really need to launch it, and there were a lot of cases where launching it would've just created more problems than simply holding the [discs] and then letting go of [them]."

It seems that you are more commenting on unique designs here, which is a very different issue than a game that did not provide a difficult engineering challenge.

Re: What if...
 

Sorry this is off topic but... http://youtu.be/MsRTBzIZonc?t=1m
Looks awesome, but its probably the worst possibly way to climb - especially if you're the driver. :)

Re: What if...
 

Aerial Assist played on the field of Lunacy with two pyramids in the center that you had to send a minibot to the top! There are 4 goals you can score in and in center there are two bumps that span the width of the field! It's basically a mashup of the past 5 games.

Re: What if...
 

We've played at the Bayou Regional in Kenner, LA. 3400's the median team number at Bayou for 2015 (between 3337 and 3468), so most of the teams are still relatively new, and last year, we had about a dozen robots that consisted of only a drive system, a drive system with a "box" to hold the ball, or had essentially non-functional manipulators. Curiously, we have no rookie teams scheduled this year - the newest were rookies last year. However, of the regionals I checked out on video (perhaps four, but I don't recall which), the effective game strategies didn't seem much different.

I also generally agree with the criticism that AA didn't offer enough "engineering challenge". While dealing the big ball was hardly trivial, there were no competing requirements that forced compromise. Apart from the 10 points of "mobility" which simply involved driving forward about ten feet in autonomous, every point to be earned involved manipulating the ball. With UA, there were competing space requirements - we'd have loved to be taller or heavier, but then we wouldn't have been able to get inside the pyramid for the much easier "inside climb", and/or been slower about it. For RR, there were definite height (for basketball) vs stability (for crossing bridges or the hump) tradeoffs. Checking back on some research I did this summer, every game since 1999 excepting 2000 and 2014 seemed to involve an "endgame bonus" which was distinct from, and often in design conflict with, the "main game".

Re: What if...
 

I did not see one successful alliance in Ultimate Ascent whose strategy was entirely focused around the low goal. The same cannot be said for AA, where quite often it was the better option.

Re: What if...
 

Agreed. Mathematically, it just makes sense. A robot scoring 4 discs in the high goal scores 200% more points than a robot scoring 4 discs in the low goal. In AA however, a robot scoring a 3 assist ball in the high goal scored only 29% more points. There is a clear advantage to the robot that can score in the high goal.

Re: What if...
 

In 2013, a robot that scored 2 low goal auto discs and 4 4-disc low goal cycles would have been an above average robot. In 2014, a robot that could successfully pick up and score the ball in the low goal, doing both of these tasks consistently and quickly was probably above average (although I don't have solid data on this). These tasks seem to be of comparable difficulty to me.

The reason entire strategies in UA did not revolve around the low goal was that there were almost no robots that were designed to score there. In contrast, almost all robots in AA were designed to have the capability to gain possession of the ball and release it. The lack of low-goal strategies in UA does nothing to discredit their potential in my opinion. An alliance of 3 successful low goal scoring robots (especially if they could 10 point climb) in UA could easily have been a force to be reckoned with come elims.

Re: What if...
 

If you consider why nobody designed for the low goal, you'll find why nobody used low goal strategies.

Re: What if...
 

In my personal opinion, the reason many low-resource teams did not design for the low goal was because they incorrectly assumed that high goal shooting would be required to be successful. However, this is now becoming something like a circular argument, and it is difficult to tell what event was the cause and what event was the effect.

4656 was a local example of a successful low goal scoring robot. As a rookie team with a single active mechanism besides their drivetrain, they got picked early in the second round, beating out many veteran teams with far more complicated designs.

All that I am trying to say is that there is always a minimum competitive concept each year, and I don't think that making the MCC for AA was a drastically easier challenge than making the MCC for any other game.