Problem's with 2015…
 

Throughout the NYC regional day one, I have noticed a few problems with the game.

1) it's kinda boring. Your really just watching an aggressive factory line. Kinda a let down after last years robot on robot action.

2) The final score board was glitchy. Not that big of a problem, but really noticeable.

3) As always, alliances determine your rank. This is a problem for a team with a really good robot, but your stacked up with a robot who's code isn't the prettiest.

Does anyone else notice any other problems with this year game?

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

How is this different than any other year?

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

First, I'll address your problems
1) It's as boring as you make it out to be. This is a game where you have to appreciate the finer moments, instead of looking at it as a whole. I do agree that it was a bit of a letdown when I learnt what the game was at kickoff, but it's not as boring as I thought it would be.

2) Might just be a local issue

3)Yeah, but like you said, as always who you play with determines your rank unless you're a powerhouse team.

I honestly don't really see a problem with this game after watching a couple regionals. It has it's flaws but everything seems well-organized and methodically planned out.

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

When I first saw this game my jaw hit the floor and mentally I was like "they didn't just switch out of PvP did they? Oh god they did? What have they done?" But considering how drastic of a change this is from last year a lot of things that I would find problematic with the game I would just gloss over due to the fact that I don't believe the GDC does the level of game testing that lot of video games do to make sure everything runs smoothly. Or just the shear amount of time explored a lot of sports have to find little kinks.
Either way I did find a few slight problems with the game.
The litter felt underutilized and I really feel like more should have been done with it. There was way too much litter on the field doing nothing. Limiting to one noodle per bin made it seem like there was more litter then this landfill could actually handle (why are all these totes in a landfill and why aren't the nested in each other whoever setup this landfill could really do a better job optimizing space usage.)
The scoring was a lot more closed and it really showed. With auto situations where you had to meet conditions more strictly, then say one robot make it in the auto zone and you get x points. Instead it was team wide. This would have been really nice because it means the point difference is more defined and wouldn't punish teams who had robots that were either disabled or didn't have auto. That binary condition of "all in" punishes any team who wants to utilize the auto for anything that isn't short term scoring.
The actual process of scoring really limited the diversity of mechanisms. Mix it up a bit have some of the bit that wrapped around the entire scoring platform be a ramp, some of it have no ramp. Have some totes already be stacked but harder to get to. Personally I would have wanted to see a bunch of different color totes starting out either scrambled about the field and bonus points awarded for same color stacks or the inverse of organized colored totes and bonus points for rainbow stacks.
Asymmetrical fields are cool but this field layout was kind of stale. Going for a shot in the dark in that the platforms are laid out that way so no matter where you start on the field you couldn't attempt to pull bins off the step, and do a 3 tote auto. Other then that the actual scoring platforms didn't really enhance the game that.
The step didn't seem like a big factor even though the there was a rule that said "You may not react with the horizontal surface of the step." My first thought was that it meant we could utilize the step for scoring. My second thought was that "no they just don't want you climbing over the thing." (Got me with the phrasing GDC well played.) What would have been more fun IMO is if you got rid of the step except for where it elevated the recycling bins and where the coopertition stacks were placed and let robots travel anywhere up to the opposing sides staging zone while enforcing team specific safety zones on scoring platforms to prevent people from just knocking over other peoples stacks so you could take there totes but not destroy there stacks.

I absolutely want to see the GDC re-vist a lot of the mechanics in this game but tune them in a different direction.

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

I found it boring personally, even though my roll as a driver may have a part to that, but to those who are stuck in the stands scouting they indeed thought it was boring. The only ones I found honestly exciting at my regional was the finals with the amazing stackers that were on both alliances, and the fact that the 6th seed won without a third match.
Our main driver from last year in my opinion was unable to come to the task that was needed with the major shift in driving this year. Especially with the last two years, we needed very offensive drivers, even if for us at Ultimate Ascent that wasn't very long. He's amazing and does great offense but was terrible with the finesse we needed this year, so we had another driver work it but that caused a major conflict and a ton of stress for me with the way that our experienced driver was acting, but that's mostly on his part.
The alliances interacting was a big part of the game that I very much enjoyed, and I actually got the chance to see the other teams since I wasn't just focused on ours and the "assembly line" that was on our half. If I were to try and notice the other alliance I would be distracted for too long and have to look around the numerous stacks just for a glimpse. The whole thing about how the other alliance's well being doesn't matter until the final rounds is nice in a way, but it takes away a big part of what we had in the past with the winning and losing in a match since now it's practically just watching two separate games being played at once since apparently differences in the scores didn't matter for the ranking result.
The change in eliminations, no, playoffs or whatever they decided to change it to was hard to comprehend at first attempt of figuring it out but it's just a weird system overall that they went overboard way too much with the whole nicer gameplay along with the game.

On note of the new electrical system, it's amazing and the pneumatics block and radio block definitely help but it definitely needs improvement. We didn't figure out until we got to near the end of our inspection that our CAN on the PDB was broken which required us to remove and replace the entire board with one from Spare Parts and then remove that one and return it back to them after matches today. They had brought four spare PDB with them to GKC and in a very little amount of time on Thursday we were already the third team to have taken a spare PDB out of those and the guy had to call more in to have as backups.

I'm going to NYC to watch tomorrow so it should be interesting how I feel about the game

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

Way too many decisions to make on how to play the game, at the playoff level. But that probably varies considerably with the variation in abilities of the robots on your alliance. We spend a lot of time figuring out which robot would start where, which game piece they would start working with first, when they would be able to cap a stack that which other team made, etc. It made my head want to explode....fortunately another drive coach, and our driver were able to figure it all out. Some of the playoff matches were really exciting, some others not so much. Qualifying matches can get pretty boring, but I didn't have to watch many of them, only the ones we were playing in, and we did our best to make them at least a little bit interesting.

The technical challenge of making a robot that can effectively deal with the game pieces seems to be above the capabilities of many teams. This is not that unusual in FRC, but the killer is that there are very few ways for these teams to contribute in a match.

The new control system worked great for us, and for most other teams.

The match schedule is the same thing it's usually been, so if you want to do well, you better figure out how to make stacks, topped with cans, on your own. I thought this was obvious from the beginning.

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

Sorry, I beg to differ on the game play. I will do one caveat that I'm not going to events to watch. But I am watching on home on the streams and the matches that are posted.

I'm finding that I need to watch the match twice to see what the Red does then watch for the Blue. Because they are playing on different ends of the field it's hard to watch both alliances at the same time. There are lots of good interactions (and teamwork) when the alliance is working together. And there is lots of crash time when they are not.

This is a game that really requires alliances to communicate, figure out a game plan and execute that plan.

I think the stack building an the placement of the stacks is cook, love watching the RC wobble around the top. Will it fall or not?

I get the part about a factory, but in this case it's not a finely tuned factory. As a kid we did the General Foods tour in Dover when they bottled syrup there. Always fun to see one bottle get stuck and another come an smash and now there is sticky goo.

It beats watching a robot lock into a fill station and fling frisbee after frisbee into the goal.

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

I'm going to disagree with you here. I think of all of the years in FRC this is the year that is easiest to win playing solo. Last year was unwinnable solo because of the geometric scaling of assist points. This year on the other hand, a single robot can run a 32 point auto routine (if you're the only robot on the field) and make 3-4 stacks of 6 (42 points a piece). 158-200 points is definitely a winning score which is totally achievable solo. I think this year is the best in terms of not getting screwed over by your schedule, the only time you will be screwed by scheduling is if you face a team that grabs all the center RCs which limits you to 3 stacks instead of 4 which isn't nearly as big a deal as previous years.

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

You're welcome to your opinion on boring vs exciting, but it is one that I don't share. This is actually quite an interesting game, and I find it fascinating to see how teams have taken advantage of the new rules.

i like it when the GDC shakes things up a bit.

Jason

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

The only thing I don't like about this year is the ranking system, but it's still not really bad. Everything else is great.

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

This game is not about "winning solo" and I think your match schedule has a more drastic effect on your ranking than any prior year. In years past, if you were paired with 1114 for example you would likely win but you only gained 2 QP's. However, this year, if you play with 1114 and they (and you) put up a big number, that's a huge advantage over teams that don't get to play with 1114 cause it's not 2 QP's it's a huge boost to your QA that other teams won't get.

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

Lower ranked teams do get helped by good partners, but this is largely negated by their score being averaged over 10 matches. If they put up 180 points in one match, and only 40 in the rest, they have an average of 54, only 14 points higher than without the good match. Last year you needed 3 very capable robots to be able to consistently possess the ball 3 times and score it, and if you couldn't then you were probably getting 0 points for the match. 2013 was a very solo-able game similar to this year in the way that a single very good team could keep up with an alliance of 3 decent teams.

Also, I'd say this game is actually more easily playable solo (in both elims and quals) than 2013 because scoring lots of points while still losing a match doesn't hurt you as much (since it gets averaged out) as getting 0 qual points for losing, as you did in previous years. 1114 perfectly exemplified this, they essentially played every match in GTRC with little to no support from their alliance partners and still dominated the event, that could not happen last year.

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

The game is very interesting at the upper level of play. We all love rooting for our favorite team, or watching teams like 1114 obliterate the land fill, but it's easy to over look how the large majority of teams not represented on CD feel. From a lower to mid level team's stand point, it's considerably more difficult to do well than past years. Last year all we needed to get picked was a robot that could drive well and simply possess the ball. My team spent less than $50 dollars and had a robot made of pvc, yet we got picked 8th at the Arkansas Regional. This year seems much more difficult to be a useful alliance member than in the past because of the lack of defense. It has it's pros and cons, over all I like it though. I just wonder what kind of impression it left on the rookie teams who didn't do so great.

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

I voiced a similar concern in another thread, this I believe is the largest issue with this game it's not accessible for newer teams, and not as rewarding for veteran teams.

Here's what I said earlier http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...56#post1455356

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

As a FIRST team, I think there are a lot of neat challenges in this game, in figuring out the strategy, in building the robot (that's always a challenge in an of itself), in pulling the on-field alliances together...

Here's the thing though, we invite parents, sponsors, and guests to the competition, because the action really is the biggest draw for most of the un-initiated. I can always tell them what great value everything that the students get to learn, the value of team play - learning how to be a professional. The competition and the game is where I really get to draw the visitors in. This game, without some type of offense/defense is really hard to understand for my visitors.

Some of my sponsors all but bit their tongue in resisting the urge to tell me this year's game is "lame" - they said "different" and "not quite the same"... but I know the word they were looking for in trying not to insult me.

I completely get it - so I am ok with this year's game; it's just a hard sell when it comes to attracting parents and sponsors. I use the game to get the sponsors through the door - then I bonk them on the head with the truly inspirational stuff - once they have bought into how cool the game is...

Having watched the past 2 weeks - the field is really cluttered, the action is slow, and it's really difficult to explain to my visitors and get them to understand what the robots are doing and why this game.

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

I like that this year's game is easy to score, and that the refs and field judges are not going home emotionally shattered from the experience. I like that every team probably looked at at least one real-world machine as inspiration for their design; this will definitely broaden students' perspectives and options down the road. I like that the game is hard to play well. This means that, as usual, the best design work clearly rises, and there is little left to chance. I like the playoffs. I like not changing bumpers.

I dislike watching. It's not fun as a spectator. I dislike the lack of interaction. The exceptions of coopertition and RC grabbing are rare enough that it reminds me how much more vital matches seem when opposing teams can change how you play throughout the game. And, I dislike the awkward, middle-school style theming.

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

Here's what I've seen so far.

I like the game from the design standpoint. It's a challenge that hasn't been in previous years that makes Build Season that much more enjoyable.

What I don't like is that we knew on day one of our competition who was going to win. Their average was a good 40 points above second place, and they won every match by a large margin. Once the eliminations came, it was more seeing who would make second place, but even that was skewed as the #2 seed had a 20 point average advantage over the next team. The most exciting part of the finals was one team stealing a can off the step just before another team, in a match that was lost by 60 points with that can doing nothing.

Another note, at the event I was at, the finals were basically 2v2. The third picked alliance on each side say in front of a feeder station and did nothing the entire elimination round. When one team can be completely eliminated from consideration and the alliance still win, it points to a fundamental flaw in the game.

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

I don't disagree with any of your points, but these aren't issues that just occurred in 2015. The majority of events I've been to since I started FIRST had a pretty obvious winner. I agree about disliking the third robots not playing at some events. In past years those teams that couldn't contibute to scoring would just play defense, but this year there's no "easy" task. That in itself is a bad game mechanic, but it should hopefully push teams to strive to be better.

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

I disagree. There are some very simple ways you can contribute to alliance success. Anyone can put some forks on the kit bot and push totes onto a scoring platform. With a small amount of practice and work on autonomous, you could have a robot that pushes a RC into the auto zone, and pushes 5-7 totes from the landfill onto a scoring platform. With the low scores during qualification matches, a possible 10-15 points extra would be welcome to almost everyone.

What everyone seems to be confusing with there being no easy task is that going beyond your limits and failing gets you very little benefit this year.

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

I kind of take the games like contract bidding opportunities. I may not prefer the type of work (or the game) but me and my guys gotta eat (or play the game FIRST puts out). Some years are better than others but you try and put out the best product.

Contrary to some on this feed, our parents and sponsors did enjoy watching the game this year. But I can see how 3rd parties might not enjoy it. Our students definitely enjoyed the engineering challenge and learned much from it. Similar to many on this feed I was a little distraught over the roles played by 3rd teams in the higher seeded alliances. I know any robot can push a tote around but if there is a small chance they get in our way (and slow us down) or they knock over one of our stacks, a few points is just not worth the risk - tough decisions.

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

By the end of eliminations, our third robot, 4908, was contributing a huge amount to our alliance. They had some robot problems on Friday, but in the final matches they were putting up 2 stacks of 4. It was a joy playing with 4908 and I hope they get the recognition they deserve. I expect them to do very well at Northeastern.

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

Actually I think this game is one of the most intense games there has been recently.
Because you know what... teams actually have to play the game. Teams have to not rely on slowing down the other alliance but outscoring them in the most efficient ways.
For the 2 regionals I have gone to I have helped some teams with their strategy for playoffs and it honestly is a very very strategic game and a very interesting game to play and watch. And the game is progressing well throughout the season so it's just going to get more intense.

By no means is this game perfect, it is far beyond that, game play is weak at lower levels, and there is a huge variation between "good" and "bad" teams. But overall, I think problems arise is every FRC game but I am loving this one.

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

Wow, LookingForward has been unmasked!

While I've seen robots that I've gasped in admiration of, I've never been able to pick the final 6, much less than the final 3. Lets talk off season about your abilities and we can start a Vegas betting pool. :)

----

What I do like is the "OMG First / GDC has lost their mind " --> "This is a good game". Need a web cam of Franks chair as he slowly relaxes after week 2....

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

I picked two of the three teams on the Alamo regional winning alliance, on the first day...and I also did the same thing at the Central Valley regional. I was present at both events.

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

This game could have had potential, but it is boring in a particular way. Once I've seen a good robot run a couple of matches, what they do is so repetitive that I have little interest in watching them much until the elim rounds. And then in the elim rounds, I have yet to see a truly "on the edge of your seat" competition. I've watched at least a dozen regionals/districts on webcasts along with attending ours, and unlike last year when I was jumping around a lot, I don't feel like I'm missing much if I skip matches.

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

Noodle pushing is another "easy" task that an alliance partner can do. Our third alliance partner at the Kokomo event spent the majority of the matches pushing opponents' noodles into our landfill, swinging the score over 25 points in our favor most of the time.

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

may the most aggressive factory win!

In all seriousness, I feel like the game is what you make of it. if you like it and enjoy its strategic moments, it's fun to watch. I will admit though that I miss scouting out teams for weaknesses when they faced us in the next match... taking advantage of those won us matches we could have lost (and now there's no way to do that unless you have a heck of a noodler).

To address your concern about allies. yeah, that's why they made the game this way. you have to coordinate. Sometimes it really sucks (especially since we always seem to have more games with sub-par teams than some of the other teams do. yet and again, maybe we just think that when we aren't performing up to standard, but I digress), but in the end it is somewhat more fair this year than it has been in previous years.

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

And this points to a bigger problem. Remember that the core notion of FIRST is that we use the sporting game metaphor to reach to a much broader audience of students than just a "science fair." Yes many FIRST members enjoy the engineering/building aspect for itself, but those students would go into STEM majors and careers anyway. They are the core of the teams, but what FIRST wants are the cheerleaders, musicians and actors who have shied away from STEM because it's boring. Adding the readily accessible sporting aspect attracts those students--we should never forget that. In our case, two of our team leaders in the last 3 years joined our team for that reason--they didn't start out wanting to be anything close to an engineer.

This year's game seems to have forgotten the sports aspect (unless maybe if you're a golf fan, but that's a different conversation) and focused too much on the engineering side. The game difficulty is too overwhelming for too many teams and they can't find effective niche strategies that will put them on a potentially winning alliance. (The distribution of the abilities of the teams is going to be very interesting at Champs given this dynamic.)

So I'm sure many of you on CD who are really deeply involved in FRC greatly enjoy the technical challenge of this year's game. You are important members of your teams, but you're not the real target of FRC--it's those kids who start out on the periphery of your team who liked the excitement in the arena who are the real targets.

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

At GTR East, 14 points was the difference between the #8 Seed and the #34 seed. In years past, 2 QP's don't come close to swinging things that much.

Further, at GTR Central, teams playing with 1114 seeded on average 18.6 while teams that did not get to play with 1114 seeded on average 25.2

I think your alliance partners have a much larger impact this year than ever before.

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

^

Which you can see as a good thing because working together is better but most of the time the other 38 teams a the event can't all play with the top tier teams.

I loved 2015 from a design challenge but as many people said back in Week 1 once competition season started the views of the game would completely change because these small facets of the new game are brought forward. The reality of the year is that the gap between the top and lower tier teams just got much, MUCH bigger which is not a good direction.

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

There is enough discussion about how 1114 is a statisically outlier, so I'm not sure they are the best example to prove this point.

Even if your partners have a larger impact this year, you opponents virtually have no impact on your seeding.

I think this year is actually better than most at ranking the teams.

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

Agreed. Being ranked by points scored will give you a much better indicator of a teams ability to play the game vs. going strictly off of win loss. This is the perfect year for good teams to guarantee a high seed.

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

I agree that this is the best ranking system we've had. The discussion was though that your random qualification schedule has a greater impact on your ranking than in years past.

Regardless of 1114 being an outlier, clearly teams at the event benefited from playing with them as opposed to teams that didn't. Since the match schedule is random, some teams got lucky, and some didn't. This holds true for all the highest scoring teams at each event, not just 1114. And this year, playing with these high scoring teams is worth more than just the 2 QP's it would have been worth in years past.

Also, I disagree that your opponents having little impact on your rankings. Having a robot on the opposing alliance that can CoOp effectively is a huge advantage.

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

I'd say having 2 quality co-op teams playing against each other is just as helpful as a single high scorer on your alliance. The luck of the draw is the most significant this year than any other.

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

I agree. The majority of our schedule from Orlando was pretty terrible to say the least. We had 2 matches where we only had one partner besides ourselves. Luck wasn't on our side. Besides playing with your team, Bacon, and one match with Walton. We never played on the same side of the glass with any of the top teams at the regional.

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

OTOH, 1197 had a match at L.A. with a couple of what would normally be considered top teams on their side of the glass. I say "normally" because both of those teams happened to have issues that match for whatever reason, leaving 1197 as the primary scorer.


I'd like to see this ranking system return in the future, if the game makes it worthwhile.


BTW, 1197's third pick, 2443, was a key factor in making it to the finals. We could count on them to have at least one stack with a container from the landfill/step if something didn't go haywire.

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

I disagree. If you didn't have good alliance partners last year, it was very difficult to win. I know that from experience. My last match everything went wrong, with one robot being out of bounds to start and the other one fell over in autonomous. It was me vs three. It was not pretty.

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

After just completing my team's second and most likely final competition, I feel like I'm going to have as good a perspective as any right now. I'll try to keep my comments as brief as possible. Sorry for the long-windedness


My single greatest gripe about this year is that this year's game is not won on the playing field but on the drawing board. The practiced team with the best design is going to win. Now every year requires a good design to be successful, but the extent of that impact this year is what bothers me.

I'm going to pick on 1023 for a little bit because they're an awesome team and other teams should strive to be like them. At Woodhaven this past weekend, every single person knew that 1023 was going to win the event on Thursday night when they came in and demonstrated their 84 point independent routine. They were untouchable; no one could score anywhere near them, and come the playoffs, they swept as expected. People started referring to the quick increase in their rank score after being paired with them as Bedford Inflation.

I actually had teammates in the stands tell me that they quit watching 1023 because they were so well practiced and ran their routine so well, that you knew exactly what was going to happen so there was no reason to watch. They were desensitized by the robot's repetitive success.

In fact, some of the most exciting and breathtaking moments were when teams completely shot themselves in the foot and messed everything up with one false move (or noodle). Auto racing suffers from this to some extent when people claim the crashes are the best part (when they aren't, from any standpoint). People are looking for some action and methodical completion is anything but.

So far in FiM, the #1 Alliance is 9 for 9 (this isn't the case everywhere, but I don't live elsewhere). The best robot picks the 2nd best robot and that's the game, folks. Last year, you didn't know what to expect, and that's what keeps any sport interesting; the unpredictability of the outcome. Why do you think people don't like being told the outcome of a sporting event they've recorded at home.

But the biggest problem is that there is no way for a pure underdog to possibly win. After a bad match, my alliance sat on the sideline and knew (even though we had one more match left in the SF) that we were done unless everyone else screwed up. And I have to admit, when 469 (another awesome team filled with awesome people) knocked their stack over, I felt pretty internally conflicted. It was horrible that everything went so wrong so quick, but my alliance was done UNLESS this happened. That shouldn't happen. I should be allowed to stop them from winning myself, not have to hope that they goof. I am so glad that they still made it to the finals because it would have been awful if that accident had kept them out.

FIRST is about gracious professionalism, and rooting against the other alliance is anything but. I want to help my competitors off the field as long as I can stop them on the field. And I can't do that this year. If we can't score more than them, then we've already lost.

Why do you think TNA was killed so quickly? Because it was bad news.
I personally will be glad when interactive gameplay is reintroduced.

The very last point I have is that this game leaves no room for error. You have one bad match last year, don't sweat it. You've still got two to get it right. This year, you're probably done. No second chances here. I don't like that. FIRST should be fun. Perfection is rarely fun. People are flawed beings.

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

I can tell you that 1712 wouldn't have been the #5 seed at Chestnut Hill if 9/12 "opposing" alliances weren't able to get their yellow totes on the step. If we had earned the average amount of coopertition points at our event (~233) instead of the 360 we did, we would have ranked 11th.

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

The main issue with this game is that they have completely excluded the outside world from understanding or enjoying it. Yea, we all can get excited b/c the robots are so complex and so technically awesome, however, to the average spectator, coming to a venue to watch robots stack boxes and put trash cans on top? It's not very exciting.

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

Exactly this. This game is essentially a glorified skills challenge, save for the minibot race at high levels of play.

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

At SVR last year 2 qual points was the difference between 1st and 8th seed. It was also the difference between 9th and 42nd seed, that's a larger variation from a single match win/loss.

I still think this year is far more forgiving than previous years in scheduling. Scheduling this year helps teams improve in ranking if they get a good schedule but it doesn't punish teams nearly as hard for getting a bad schedule. Last year matches were completely unwinnable if you didn't have at least 2 capable alliance partners that could handle the ball. This year you can still have a very good average trusting your own robots performance each match, you don't need to bet on your alliance partners as much.

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

I'd like to turn this discussion on its head a bit--rather than focusing on the things we dislike in the game, let's suggest ways in which the game design could have been improved (either via major changes in overall construction, point value changes, or even just a minor rule change) and how such changes might have affected robot designs and/or gameplay in a positive fashion. Note: I'm obviously not suggesting changes to the game this late in the season, just talking about how the game might have been designed differently from the start. To kick it off, here are two ideas I've kicked around with a couple of people.

1) Make cooperative building of stacks worth more points (e.g. mix in a bit of the 2014 game concept of "handoffs"). If one robot stacks the totes and a different robot puts the RC on top, add a point bonus. If a third robot is responsible for getting the noodle in the RC, add another point bonus. The main downside of this is scoring is a lot more complex to keep track of, but there's some interesting possible upsides in terms of gameplay strategy. Right now the gameplay at the higher levels seems to consist of near-independent 2-robot operation (two robots each building their own stacks by holding a RC and stacking underneath), with the 3rd robot being often completely neglected (or not even put on the field!); only with lower level alliances do you see actual cooperative play with different robots doing different things to complete their stacks in parallel. I find the latter to be much more interesting to watch, but they simply can't compete with the #1/#2 paired dominant alliances (at least right now; maybe such strategies will evolve sufficiently to catch up in future weeks).

2) Have only a single human loader station. I know the reason for having two was due to the rate limit of tote loading and the number of totes behind the wall, which is the main problem with this idea, but it would have the benefit of making alliance partner selection and elimination play a lot more interesting; in the current game there's not really any reason why #1 and #2 can't pair up regardless of their individual capabilities, but if there was only one human load station that would make the decision much more challenging.

Comments? Other ideas?

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

I don't think you can beat perfection. But I like this game too.
I was going to post about how many lower seeded alliances were winning competitions after I watched NYC and KC, where both 6th seeds won.

Then I decided to do some maths.
Week 1: Regionals 2.43 average seed won, Districts 1.5
Week 2: Regionals 2.2, Districts 3.5!
Week 3: Regionals 2.3, Districts 1.

Overall so far: Regionals 2.33 Districts: 1.96 All competitions: 2.13

I had a thought in an earlier post about the deeper the field, the greater chance that alliances from the bottom half of the seeding order stood a better chance of winning.
Shallow vs. Deep
So far I have diddly statistically. Hoping more evidence will show up in the next 4 weeks as the game gets better understood and teams gain experience and we add in the District Championships.
I don't feel as optimistic about Einstein. I don't think the Maroon Crew from 2007 is likely this year.

Unfortunately, this is more true than in recent games. People I have invited to competitions didn't last long. If you're going to invite "outsiders"
Make sure that they show up for the playoffs.

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

While technically correct, this analysis is flawed. The amount your average moves depends on where it is otherwise.
The 14 points added to your QA from a single match was under the assumption that your average was low otherwise (40). However, the average will move less the higher up in QA you go.
Crunching the numbers, the QA shift is still significant while there is a radically different on the table, but I just wanted to clarify that 14 points is not always 14 points.That isn't to say the phenomenon doesn't exist.

In fact, looking at GTRE, if you remove the highest scoring Qualifier (which had the top 2 OPR on the same team), then 1246 would drop from rank 6 to around 36 - assuming they kept their average for their other matches.
However, this is also a function of the low point-scoring of a majority of teams there - "low point-scoring" to me is averages less than coopertition + a few noodles. This leads to many teams being near the same QA, thus you get rank jumping.

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

My initial opinion of this game hasn't changed much (if you're curious) so I'll take your prompt.

1.) The step bisecting the field that eliminates robot interaction should go, but keep the landfill set up as is, an initial barrier with a small path to the other side that can be removed by stacking or moving totes out of the way.
2.) Establish platforms on either side of the field and punish teams for knocking down opposing alliances stacks. (Alternatively establish one scoring platform that teams will have to jockey for space on, but that might get difficult.)
3.) Reduce the number of totes available behind the drivers station.
4.) Go back to Win/Loss/Tie structure.

These changes would allow teams to play active defense without having the stack knockdown problem of 2003 and at the higher levels could turn the game into a struggle for scoring resources as teams try to gather totes and bins before the other alliance can steal them.

It keeps the interesting engineering challenge but doesn't diminish the feeling that each match is a direct competition.

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

I guess the big problem that I have with the game is the way that the rankings work along with coopertition points. Teams that may take an entire match to do coopertition points and never do anything else end up ranked extremely high seeing as co-op factors into your ranking at multiple levels. Then during playoffs, these robots who end up as alliance captains have almost nothing to do during the match and struggle to complete other aspects of the game, because all they needed to do throughout quals to get a reasonably high ranking was co-op. On the other hand, versatile robots that perform a lot of functions often get short-changed on the ranking.

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

Most of the FRC games are like this. In 2012, if a robot focused only on co-op they would usually seed higher than a robot that focused on winning. Then in finals, they wouldn't be able to score much outside of a double.

In 2011 robots that had a working mini bot (in competitions that didn't have that many) would rank high, but lose because the other top teams had faster mini bots and could score tubes.

I could go on, but my point is that as competitions go on, most quals will have co-op points and power house teams will be able to outscore teams that rely on them.

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

Further to that train of thought, the analysis is also flawed, because of the elimination of the NEGATIVE effect on ranking that playing AGAINST elites has.

In prior years: Your QS was boosted by a factor of probably 1.7 or 1.8 per match allied with an elite, and shrank by about the same for every match you played opposing one.

In 2015, playing against an elite has no impact on your QA (unless you yourself are an elite, and they're stealing step RC's you need). Playing allied with an elite boosts your QA. In 2015, there is no such thing as a 'hard' schedule (like in prior years if each match you were put up against elites). Just one that doesn't ally you with as many elites, which you can combat by simply being a little better yourself.

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

I completely agree that there are no hard matches this year. I think as teams tune in their robots this year, it'll be a match against themselves rather than against another alliance. Teams will have a set limit of how many points they can earn.

This, I think, is a problem with this year though. Using finals at Michigan States as an example, I believe that it will be extremely predictable. Anyone paying attention to what each single robot can put out will be able to add together that alliance scores and predict who will win. The only variance upon this is teams that grab from the center 4 RCs.

To put that in contrast, 2011 Michigan States finals saw some of the most competitive strategies I have seen. The number 1 alliance was knocked out in the quarter finals by the 8th alliance from strategy alone. No team broke down, no minibots exploded, just pure strategy (sorry to bring this back up 217, 469, and 201).

The lack of defense this year is a double-edged sword. On one hand you aren't purposely trying to break your opponents so you can get points for it (looking at you, week one 2014), but on the other higher levels of play will lack any diverse strategy.

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

I was rather surprised by our playoff scores being over 100 at Alamo....we had an alliance that was better than the sum of it's parts. Using the robots together to best advantage can give you a pretty good score this year. #5 alliance was in second place in the quarterfinals, and third in semis.

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

I completely disagree. We just removed some factors from it. A match where you are playing with two toasters is a hard one not to have drop your ranking.

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

Different perspectives will lead to different conclusions on the match schedules and ranking systems. For teams with legitimate aspirations of the #1 spot, this ranking system is an improvement. You can't be completely "sunk" by alliance partners or opponents the way you could in some other games. However, this is not the vantage point of the vast majority of FRC.

For the middle of the pack teams, these rankings are just as random as always. Your average can be considerably buoyed by great partners, opponents willing/able to co-op, and some good luck. 708 vaulted from the middle of the pack to 9th at Chestnut Hill after scoring 165 points with 225 and 1218 in the last qualification match. Your average can plummet when paired with teams incapable of scoring (or worse, teams that knock over stacks) or working opposite of teams that fail to get their yellow totes on the step. There are still "easy" and "hard" matches this year, they just look different than in years past.

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

It was interesting (but heartbreaking) watching our rankings throughout the qualifications. We started out alright, but a string of mechanical failures and software failures prevented our robot from doing everything we wanted it to. Then, one of the few matches where everything worked, our two partner robots both died!

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

The change to eliminations really made elimination strategy one of my favorite things about this year's game. At Alamo, it was a little boggling before quarterfinals, but once we had a strategy down it worked really efficiently. Having a seperate strategy for each match was interesting as well.

"If they take the two center cans in auto, which totes should we clear first so that our alliance member can get the remaining cans on the step?"

Before actually working with our alliance members, I thought we'd be lucky to make it out of quarters, but by playing on each others strengths really well, we gave one hell of a fight. Before our last semifinal, the difference between us and the #2 seed was .33 of a point.

I think this year's game is great.

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

Your alliance was awesome, working in near perfect sync. From our perspective it was a little scary!

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

A while back I made a post about Stacking vs Capping vs ????. I talked about how the resource pile splits were interesting, two feeder stations, two scoring platforms, two landfill pits. I'm starting to wonder if the GDC underestimated teams abilities and thought teams were going to take one resource and tackle it instead of these teams coming off doing everything. I really wish at some point post season the GDC would step forward and say. "Hey this is what we envisioned would happen with the game, this is what we did to try and accomplish that." Just start an open conversation with the people who just played their game. A lot of game developers when analyzing game health do extensive research and review including interviews. Does the GDC just do this and I'm not aware?

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

Put the question to Frank Answers Fridays when that starts back up. That one could go a while...

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

This game has been great skills wise. I've seen some teams really excel, and some teams really have to explore new types of boundaries, thinking outside the box. Technically, this is a really cool game for engineering purposes. However, like I've said before, this game is really like playing competitive solitaire. For the past few years, between things like GameSense and the competitive and quick gameplay, I thought FIRST was going for an exciting, crowd enticing type of game, relaying it to more of a sport-atmosphere. However, they are completely cutting that aspect of gameplay out this year.

Honestly, saying "I helped build a robot that competes with and against other robots in competition, and we lunch 2-foot-big yoga balls through goals 10 feet of the ground!" is a lot easier to say and makes being a geek much more okay than saying "I helped build a robot that stacks boxes, and then puts a trash can up on top."

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

The game design appears to be an attempt to fix the problems with stack attack, which turned into a game of attacking (http://youtu.be/uiZQJLMgXVU), instead of building, stacks. Removing all defense went too far. One of the best aspects of Rebound Rumble and Ultimate Ascent was watching teams maneuver around defense to get to the protected zones.

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

I truly believe that this game is in alignment with a cycle...

Not just 'odd year vs. even year' or 'round game piece vs. other game piece' - but more in terms of the life-cycle of the RoboRio and the accompanying components.

We saw two games in that allowed for wide open fields in 2013 and 2014. Why? Because the CRio was in it's last stages of its life-cycle. Why not allow teams to 'have at it' and go after each other without question of the CRio? I know that FRC 4607 had it's share of CRio reboots on field when hit hard...

However, if the GDC allowed this style of gameplay (open field hits) and team's RoboRio resetting in the middle of matches - we would all be calling foul. I think that the GDC is safeguarding their investments and will eventually open up the field as the RoboRio matures (and more teams become acclimated to its nuances). This is a perfect game to keep the RoboRio 'safe' while the GDC works out other bugs...

So in my estimation - do not hold your breath waiting for another AA or UA style field for at least 2 more years. When that happens, hopefully you have stockpiles of the RoboRio... and when it does - Have at it!

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

I'm not seeing how this is true. 2014 SVR results Am I missing something?
1st seed was 11-0, 8th seed was 8-3 (6 QS difference)
9th seed was 8-3, 42nd seed was 5-6 (6 QS difference)

Each of these was a 3 match difference.

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

While I found your observations incredibly astute and thought provoking, I don't necessarily think the assertions made hold.

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

Playing with two "toasters" is always hard to carry. However, unless they are directly interfering with your robot, they should not affect how many points your robot can put out. For example, look at 1114 and other "powerhouse" teams, and compare that to last year.

Last year if you were placed with two "toasters", the other alliance could focus your robot and easily outscore you, resulting in the same amount of QP as the two "toasters".

With this year though, if your two alliance partners can't score, their average scores will show that. Likewise, if you can consistantly put out X amount of points, your average will show for it. For example, two "toasters" get placed with 1114. Sure their average score will get a boost, but because it's only for one match it won't matter in the long term. For 1114 though, even though they didn't score as many points as they could have, they still scored what their robot could put out, so their average won't be dropped that much.

The only robots that are affected by alliance partners are the robots that focus primarily on the RC. They could steal all 4 RC in auto and be able to cap 7 6-stacks, but that doesn't matter if their partners can't make them. That is a risk that I can imagine they took into account when they were designing their robot. Those robots, however, will do very well in high levels of play when their partners can easily spit out 6-stacks.

TL;DR
Average score > Win/Loss
RC bots struggle with Quals, but will kill in Finals.

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

While I agree with you in theory [1] in practice it doesn't quite work out. I watched a robot actively play defense on their partner in a few matches last weekend and it definitely hurt their average score. This robot was a toaster in the biggest sense of the word (incapable of scoring a point) and was simply getting in the way. It didn't help that they were ~4' long and had almost 0 control of their robot.

As for why my simulations didn't see it? Because I didn't want to deal with the flak for saying that, on average, probably 15-20% of teams are actually worth NEGATIVE points in that they do little more than get in the way of scoring robots.

[1] http://beyondinspection.org/post/108...-visualization

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

Which is why 2014 was amazing for alliance play! Top tier teams couldn't take their QPs for granted. They had to get into the pits before matches and really work on their partners to get them up to snuff. Instead of 6 teams doing their independent thing, alliances had to develop new strategies to eek out assists (our playbook was changing well into the post-season!). Matches, even ones featuring big-budget teams, were nail-biting. It was a fun, dynamic game.

I really hope the assist mechanic (or something like it) returns in future.

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

2014 was great for those reasons. I'm hard on this game because of the troubles it had week one, but once those were corrected it became a very great and exciting game. It was alliance-dependant, but that added to the level of quality and GP teams demonstrated to help their partners, and the FIRST community as a whole.

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

It's true that those teams exist, but they have always existed. Last year, for example, teams could slow down a match by holding onto the ball for a while, or dying. Those teams exist, and have about the same effect on both ranking systems (losing QP and lowering avg score), so we should not take them into account when comparing systems.

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

So we should ignore a portion of the system just because it exists in both systems we're comparing?

It's not a valid comparison if we do that because the negative point teams have drastically different results on the point floor.

Last year a solo bot could ignore their partners completely and put up X points. There was very little the NP teams could do to interfere with this unless they were being outright in the way. Yes, an alliance could put up drastically more points but the point floor was almost always the best team running solo cycles.

This year the solo bot can ignore their partners completely and put up X points but just by driving the NP teams can drastically alter scores by knocking over stacks. Meaning the point floor is exactly 0.

The teams are present but, due to the game design (crowded field, easily de-scored game pieces), they have a much more pronounced impact on point floors.

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

I agree with you now. Last year "toasters" could still "help" by playing defense. This year, however, they can't really do anything. I hope that we will see less of these as the season progresses. I would still like to think that it's similar to last year in the aspect that powerhouse teams would want to help these teams to raise scores, but there's a problem with that: powerhouse teams don't need to rely on their alliances like last year. Why help out a team that needs a lot of time and focus when you could just increase your robot's scoring potential? There is no competitive edge to helping these teams rather than your own. That is a problem with this game.

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

We broke the streak at St. Joe, but it only underlines your point. It wasn't about strategy, as both alliances just went out and did the same thing seven times. I suppose there's something to be said for a battle of robot design, but it's not very dynamic.

Re: Problem's with 2015…
 

if you look at the playoff round scores, i think you will find this is not true.

A quick look at some of the events shows a difference of 5 - 10 points for an alliance making it to the next round or packing up. That is 3 - 5 totes in 2 matches, just being placed on the ramps. Help you partners be able to score just a few totes, and that can make the difference.

Also, if you look at rankings, less than 1 point separates 3 - 4 teams. That can mean alliance captain or not getting picked. That is a difference of just a few totes scored over the course of the event by anyone you were partnered with.

So, unless you are so far above the crowd that you don't need any assistance, it is always in your best interest to help other teams. And if you are so far above the crowd that you don't need the assistance, you are probably helping the other teams anyway, just because it is the right thing to do.