Re: Thank you GDC
 

Seriously read the first line of my signature.

Additionally, 1640 has not run mecanum any time in recent memory.

http://wiki.team1640.com/index.php?title=DEWBOT_X
http://wiki.team1640.com/index.php?title=DEWBOT_IX

Re: Thank you GDC
 

Ozuru,

1640 uses a Swerve Drive, not mecanum.

Re: Thank you GDC
 

My bad, I removed that section from my reply. Sorry, Canada. Thanks for the information.

Re: Thank you GDC
 

I do have to give the GDC credit - from a building a robot, mechanical design perspective, this is an awesome game. So much fun and creativity went into designing and building a robot this year.

I'm actually particularly pleased with the mecanum bit. Our mecanum drive gives us a distinct competitive advantage this year and I don't regret it at all. Are those words anyone ever thought I would be saying?

However:
I really think this is the worst year for not-top teams in recent memory. Not just the bottom, but the middle tier too. It's a function of the scoring, the 3x stack height for RCs in particular, and the near-worthlessness of one without the other. Forces teams to try to do everything, or accept mediocrity all season.

Re: Thank you GDC
 

I don't think they're any more visible than they were on bumpers. More numbers can be read on webcasts, but that is a function of more and more events creating HD webcasts. The numbers are still impossible to read at 360p on a full-field view.

In what way? Even your overly simplified answer (stacking grey on green) is more intricate and esoteric than overly simplified previous years (basketball, frisbee golf). This is among the worst games to explain that I can remember. The litter alone can be worth four different values (0, 1, 4, 6) after being entered on the field. Score multipliers aren't always immediately obvious to a casual observer, and I can't even imagine how the casual observers tried to grasp 330's 3 cans on 2 stack strategy. It's counter-intuitive to the uninitiated that stacked totes aren't worth any more than other totes. Co-op scoring is something without parallels in other sports. From an objective standpoint, there is simply far more going on to explain than any recent game. This isn't subject for debate, it's fact.

This is where I disagree with you the most. This is the worst game for lower skill levels in recent memory, and isn't particularly friendly to mid-tier teams. It's a difficult challenge, and there's no room to try and change the gameplan for the better teams. You simply can't beat an alliance that consistently scores more than yours. There are tons and tons of teams that do not contribute offensively. At no fewer than five events we've seen teams, including some high profile teams, that sat still in the playoffs because they posed more risk to their alliance than potential offensive contribution. If everyone could contribute, we wouldn't be having debates about the ethics of "cheesecaking" robots with ramps.


I don't see any more strategic change in the meta-game than the past few seasons.

Re: Thank you GDC
 

It's still possible to specialize and do well*. You can focus on capping stacks, get picked by a powerhouse, and go far. You can focus on the co-op points and rank high, relying on superior scouting to make a run in eliminations. You will be outclassed by teams that can "do it all", but is that any different from other years?

Along that line, this year, there are basically two ways to play the game, right? Each robot works on its own and builds its own stacks, or an alliance works together to build a few capped stacks. One shows two powerhouses working independently, and the other shows three specialists working on separate parts of the stacks. As of now, the individual strategy is winning, but it's pretty comparable to last year at this time (at least in MAR) - last year at this time, 3 assist cycles were losing to 2-assist cycles as I remember. SCH 2014 was won by a two-assist cycle. SCH 2015 was won by individual stackers. Eventually, three assist cycles came out ahead of 2 assist cycles, and I could see that happening again this year.


* It's still a massive engineering challenge and that is an element of this game that really has an impact on lower tier teams, but what I'm saying is that even in this game, you don't need to do it all to do well.

Re: Thank you GDC
 

Yeah, actually. In other years, robots with less functionality could do better than robots with more features, if they were good enough at their specialized tasks. Doing everything would at least slightly compromise your effectiveness at tasks. Take 2013 - the World Champions were two human load only* cyclers that hung from the lowest rung on the bar, and a similar robot with a floor pickup for autonomous. 610 was one of the fastest cyclers in the world, 1241 was very accurate and consistent, and 1477 was flexible and played intelligently as the alliance needed. All kinds of robots had more features than this alliance.

At the very least, if lower functionality robots weren't *better*, they could compete with the best. One winner of the 2012 IRI had no ability to shoot a basketball in any goal other than the 1 point goal. Where's the role for that style of robot this year?

In this game, alliances of three specialists can work, and they certainly put up points, but they get crushed by alliances of two do-it-all robots, or even one do-it-all robot with a strong semi-specialist partner. It's an uphill battle to say the least.

*Ignore 1241's auxillary auto intake here, they didn't use it in their key matches.

(and I don't know what you're talking about with 3 assist cycles losing to 2, in 2014 - that was certainly not the norm across the country at all)

Re: Thank you GDC
 

My point was that 2 assist cycles were plenty viable against 3 assist cycles at this time in the game's development, and I've been looking through some old footage, and I really do see it. If we look at week 3 gameplay* in 2014, you can see 2 assist cycles trumping 3 assist cycles a bunch.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAR:
Both week 3 events saw only two-assist cycles in the finals.

Michigan:
Both week 3 events showing fewer assists beating more assists. In Howell, 469 & 67 beat a three assist cycle with two assists. In Escabana, 1023 ran single cycles in finals 1 and won by about the same margin (12 pts off) as they did with a 2 assist cycle in finals 2.

North Carolina:
900 was certainly running 2 assists, but we can fairly leave this out. 900 was a special case.

St. Louis (Regional):
All I saw were 2 assist cycles from the winning alliance. It seems they were trying for 3, but only got 2 assists.

New York Tech Valley:
I saw a whole lot of 2-assist action from the winning and finalist alliances. That was probably due to 1126 being broadsided a lot, but it still happened.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think we can all agree that later on in the season, 3 assist cycles became the dominant way to play the game, but in 2014 week 3 it sure wasn't universal. The same kind of development could happen to this game, with specialists coming to be more and more powerful as the season goes on.


* The whole reason for week 3 is because that's all we've seen so far with Recycle Rush.

Re: Thank you GDC
 

In the 2014 Curie Quaterfinals 4-1, we(135) and 1241 managed to outscore the other alliance with 2-assists, but we lost the match due to a penalty :(
Sadly, there is no match footage, so you'll just have to take my word for it. It was pretty amazing to see 2-assists still relevant that late in season.

Re: Thank you GDC
 

Thank you for putting a hokey theme to this game.
Thank you for separating the two sides of the field.
Thank you for taking away wins and losses until the final matches.

Thank you for Recycle Rush, the largest FLL game ever.

Re: Thank you GDC
 

Thank you for showing me that by eliminating every concern we had last year, we end up with a game that we like even less.
Bumpers, heavy defense, too few game pieces, etc.

Thank you for showing me that every game has its flaws, and that there will always be a group that suffers from that game.
Last year teams on alliances with robots that didn't move couldn't get assists, now we have the fact that 2 robots could win by themselves

Thank you for making me think about the real purpose of the games.
Is it an engineering challenge for those inside, or a way to draw people into STEM?

Thank you for making me think about what winning means to me
WLT was simple: you win or lose, and the other alliance loses or wins. With QA it could be either I want everyone to do their best, or I want everyone else to fail so we can win. I'm still not sure which one I prefer.

Thank you for showing me that despite all the changes, many things are still similar.
There's still a huge divide between top and average; still an issue of what most teams can do on the field; still qualification matches where many teams can't move, but elimination ones that are incredibly exciting; and still all the old arguments.

Thank you for making me rethink what I knew.
Change is here. This game has taught me how we deal with changes.

Re: Thank you GDC
 

Great post. It definitely made me give pause about this year's game, and how things have unfolded thus far.

Thank you GDC for essentially giving us exactly the game so many have wanted...

...as Rachel alluded to, you probably could've taken all the complaints anyone has ever had about every single FRC game prior, addressed them, and ended up with Recycle Rush.

Also, thank you GDC for not saying "I told you so!"

:o

Re: Thank you GDC
 

Re: Thank you GDC
 

^ Apt... because I still couldn't tell you how I feel about this game yet.

I don't think I've ever hit week 3 and still wasn't able to formulate an opinion.

I still think I could be easily swayed either way...

If CarNack was around, maybe he/she/it would've predicted this would be the most divisive game in FRC history?

Re: Thank you GDC
 

I just want to point out that a lot of Jimmy Fallon's thank you notes are sarcastic. So if you see any thank yous in this thread that you disagree with just assume the poster was being sarcastic. For example: