Chief Delphi - Thank you GDC

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)

- General Forum (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

- - Thank you GDC (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=135909)

(with apologies to Jimmy Fallon)
Thank you for listening to our concerns about bumpers.
Thank you for making all team numbers clear and visible.
Thank you for giving us a game that we can design aggressively for, without fear of damage from defenders.
Thank you for making mecanums relevant.
Thank you for providing a game that is easy to explain.
Thank you for creating a game that all skill levels can play.
Thank you for a game that has a strategy that changes weekly.
Thank you for responding to our concerns quickly and with transparency, through email, phone calls, team updates, and blogs.

Thank you for Recycle Rush.

Re: Thank you GDC

Thank you for cheesecake.

Re: Thank you GDC

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taylor (Post 1459350)

While I appreciate the transparency and updates from the GDC, are we playing the same "game"?

Re: Thank you GDC

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taylor (Post 1459350)

Thank you for creating a game that all skill levels can play.
Thank you for a game that has a strategy that changes weekly.

Umm...are we playing the same game?

Re: Thank you GDC

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taylor (Post 1459350)

(with apologies to Jimmy Fallon)
Thank you for listening to our concerns about bumpers.
Thank you for making all team numbers clear and visible.
Thank you for giving us a game that we can design aggressively for, without fear of damage from defenders.
Thank you for making mecanums relevant.
Thank you for providing a game that is easy to explain.
Thank you for creating a game that all skill levels can play.
Thank you for a game that has a strategy that changes weekly.
Thank you for responding to our concerns quickly and with transparency, through email, phone calls, team updates, and blogs.

Thank you for Recycle Rush.

I feel that taking out the element of robot on robot interaction takes out a large area of skill that would set teams apart from each other. Last year is a great example. If you had an amazing shooter that uses mecanums or another low-torque drive train, you probably had to account for defender-based robots and increase your skill level to a point where you're able to circle around defenders. This year it feels like the game is the type of game where "nobody loses" -- you no longer play against a team; the noodle agreement at the beginning of the season was a great example.

The game feels like something known in the MoBA gaming world as a "base race".

I also don't see how the strategy changes every week; it's always been "stack as many totes as you can and then put a recycling container on top of them". In the preseason, before rule clarifications, people had some fairly wonky ideas but now they've been deemed illegal.

Re: Thank you GDC

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taylor (Post 1459350)

(with apologies to Jimmy Fallon)
Thank you for making all team numbers clear and visible.
Thank you for giving us a game that we can design aggressively for, without fear of damage from defenders.
Thank you for providing a game that is easy to explain.
Thank you for responding to our concerns quickly and with transparency, through email, phone calls, team updates, and blogs.

I think having the team numbers on the bumpers solved the clear and visible team numbers problem.

As someone who has been on both ends of heavy defense (putting defense on the other alliance and driving through said heavy defense) I would argue that it's usually driver skill, not design, that is the biggest factor in defense's success or failure. We had a ton of defense played on us in 2007, we were able to score anyway, which is one of the reasons we succeeded that year. But I think the merits of defense in FIRST games is just something that I will disagree with a lot of people on.

After trying to explain the new playoff system to veteran members and FIRST newcomers, I heartily disagree with your ease of explanation assessment. Not to mention the shear number of scoring options and combinations.

Yup, totally agree on this point. The response and transparency have been great this year, and was great last year as well. Not sure what that has to do with RR, but it's true none the less.

I'm a fan of the GDC, and I appreciate the work they do. I don't like the end result of that work this year, but I can still appreciate the difficulty and stress of the job.

Re: Thank you GDC

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ozuru (Post 1459361)

I also don't see how the strategy changes every week; it's always been "stack as many totes as you can and then put a recycling container on top of them". In the preseason, before rule clarifications, people had some fairly wonky ideas but now they've been deemed illegal.

How many teams week 1 had a ramp? How many teams do you think we will see week 4 with ramps? How many alliances were rushing for the RCs on the step week 1? How many alliances do you think will be rushing for the RCs on the step at champs?

Yes, stacking totes as high as you can and topping them with a RC is the objective every week, you are correct. However, the flow of the match changes as the season progresses and teams get better. 2011, 2012, 2013. None of these years had the flow of the match change at the season progressed.

Re: Thank you GDC

Quote:

Originally Posted by JosephC (Post 1459374)

This is just a trend of teams having unique ideas and then other teams implementing them.

Last year's competition was a great example. Almost no one in our region did a truss shot to the human player. By week 4, it became common. Almost no one had the idea of lining themselves up at the low goal and shooting into the high goal to prevent defense skewing shots. By week 4, it became common. Almost no one had the idea of a two ball autonomous. By week 4, it was commonplace for the better teams of the game to have a two-ball autonomous that implemented a form of vision tracking.

Re: Thank you GDC

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ozuru (Post 1459380)

You are correct, my apologizes for not thinking it through all the way. :)

Re: Thank you GDC

Quote:

Thank you for listening to our concerns about bumpers.

The most consistent complaint I've heard since 2009 was about the bumpers. The GDC abolished them, and I haven't seen a game with cleaner, more professional looking robots across the board.

Quote:

Thank you for making all team numbers clear and visible.

Especially on webcasts, it was difficult at times to read numbers on bumpers. There is no doubt with this game's setup.

Quote:

Thank you for giving us a game that we can design aggressively for, without fear of damage from defenders.

Teams have been liberated from the fear of robot mangling as a result of defensive play. There has been an explosion of creative, unique, elegant designs to play this game, and I believe many of these designs wouldn't have been considered if robots were being defended.

Quote:

Thank you for making mecanums relevant.

We've all got a set in our shops, whether we use them or not. Most of them collect dust; this year at least they were an option.

Quote:

Thank you for providing a game that is easy to explain.

We put green things on gray things. What's tough about that?
For those that argue it's oversimplified, what about "We play soccer" or "We play basketball" when introducing past games?

Quote:

Thank you for creating a game that all skill levels can play.

While YMMV, I have yet to see a team field a robot that did not make a consistent offensive contribution to its alliance. In eleven years, I have NEVER seen that before. Once again, with the lifting of defensive play, teams were encouraged to actually PLAY THE GAME rather design to stop others from doing so.

Quote:

Thank you for a game that has a strategy that changes weekly.

Sure, this goes for all years, but that doesn't make it any less true for this year. The intricacy of the game has really developed, and we're only halfway through the regular season!

Quote:

Thank you for responding to our concerns quickly and with transparency, through email, phone calls, team updates, and blogs.

We had a direct encounter with HQ earlier in the year, and they responded with efficiency, grace and professionalism.

Quote:

Thank you for Recycle Rush.

It's a new concept to this crowd, and unsurprisingly there is quite a bit of opposition to this game right now. I wonder how it will be a couple of years down the road, after we've seen it played at the highest level, and after some concepts that were tested here reappear in different iterations in future games.

Re: Thank you GDC

Quote:

Originally Posted by JosephC (Post 1459374)

How many alliances were rushing for the RCs on the step week 1? How many alliances do you think will be rushing for the RCs on the step at champs?

The teams aiming for Champs were already thinking about the RC rush on Day 1 of the build season. They just don't need to use them yet because of the huge disparity in technological abilities and resources across teams at regionals and districts. That's much different than having a new strategy emerge, like the truss HP pass, inbounder and midfielder roles last year.

Re: Thank you GDC

Quote:

Originally Posted by James1902 (Post 1459372)

I think having the team numbers on the bumpers solved the clear and visible team numbers problem.

It didn't. Especially when the teams used, say, black on navy or black on burgundy. The white/white outline helped a little... if the team could make the bumper cover hold up (some teams... eh, not so much).

If that rule returns, I'm thinking that the GDC needs to require white numbers on red and on blue, no outlines.

Re: Thank you GDC

The best thing about this year has to be the lack of bumpers. I really hope it sticks. Making bumpers and bumper mounts was annually one of the most dreadful parts of our robot build.

I also enjoy the focus on mechanisms and the lack of defense this year. This year's game has allowed my team to take risks in design that we never would have in any previous game. I also like that our robot is not getting pinned down nor smacked into by others. To me, everything about this year was a welcome change.

From all of us at Team 696, THANK YOU GDC!

Now, for next year, can we get rid of the bag?

Re: Thank you GDC

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taylor (Post 1459419)

The most consistent complaint I've heard since 2009 was about the bumpers. The GDC abolished them, and I haven't seen a game with cleaner, more professional looking robots across the board. - Bumpers are still pretty important to the safety of a robot. Aboloshing them is a pretty strong word; I'm sure they'll resurface whenever we have another robot-on-robot challenge.

Especially on webcasts, it was difficult at times to read numbers on bumpers. There is no doubt with this game's setup. - Eric mentioned some good reasons that this isn't true above this post. It's still incredibly hard to see the teams' numbers on webcasts if you're viewing in anything less than 1080p60, and even then I've had some issues seeing numbers.

Teams have been liberated from the fear of robot mangling as a result of defensive play. There has been an explosion of creative, unique, elegant designs to play this game, and I believe many of these designs wouldn't have been considered if robots were being defended. - I don't see how this is a valid excuse for taking out an entire element of skill that drivers have to learn. There's not exactly an explosion of elegant designs from what I've seen; aside from a few outliers, almost every design follows the forklift or pneumatic lift system. Robot designs can be summarized to either a pneumatic/gearbox elevator or a tether bot (that also implements a pneumatic/gearbox elevator.

We've all got a set in our shops, whether we use them or not. Most of them collect dust; this year at least they were an option.

We put green things on gray things. What's tough about that?
For those that argue it's oversimplified, what about "We play soccer" or "We play basketball" when introducing past games? - "We put green things on gray things" is quite the oversimplification and doesn't give the spectators any idea of how scoring works. It's at the point now where I have to pull out the periodic table of stacks to try to explain the game.

While YMMV, I have yet to see a team field a robot that did not make a consistent offensive contribution to its alliance. In eleven years, I have NEVER seen that before. Once again, with the lifting of defensive play, teams were encouraged to actually PLAY THE GAME rather design to stop others from doing so. - Teams learn. Our team started off with a "box on wheels" but quickly adapted to the atmosphere and learned what defense was and even how to defend. That's like saying hockey or football would be better without any defense because then the best of the best could excel and even the worst of the worst drafted could do okay. Aren't linebackers just so annoying?

Sure, this goes for all years, but that doesn't make it any less true for this year. The intricacy of the game has really developed, and we're only halfway through the regular season! - All because a challenge has strategies that appear to emerge due to the unveiling of unique ideas at competitions doesn't mean that the game is developing.

We had a direct encounter with HQ earlier in the year, and they responded with efficiency, grace and professionalism. - I'm also grateful that the FIRST HQ is responding to inquiries.

It's a new concept to this crowd, and unsurprisingly there is quite a bit of opposition to this game right now. I wonder how it will be a couple of years down the road, after we've seen it played at the highest level, and after some concepts that were tested here reappear in different iterations in future games. - I've pretty much argued my point by now but I just want to iterate again that the highest level of play here is still lacking a much-needed element that doesn't exist. Watching teams simply pickup totes and stack them like mundane, automated warehouse bots doesn't require much skill and doesn't require as much of a high level of operation -- the only thing you need is a solidly-built robot.

My comments are in red.