![]() |
Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
Quote:
Similarly, how often was the importance of lap bots in 2008 or ball-stealers in 2012 talked about? Can people point me to threads that talk about these issues before champs in each of those years? This canburglar stuff has been beaten to death on CD, I seriously doubt that any division will leave a good canburglar to the end of the draft. And even looking at the teams that you mentioned, the more recent ones (610 and 16) were not the last picks of the draft, instead they were selected by the lower seeded alliances. I expect something similar to happen this year, with a lower seeded alliance of alright robots and great canburglars winning a few of the divisions. |
Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
Quote:
|
Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
Quote:
I know how important minibots were on Einstein, what I want to know is Did the alliance captains drafting in 2011 know how important minibots were? This year we have very active CD threads always discussing the importance of canburglars. GameSense talks about it, Looking Forward talks about it; did people in 2011 talk about minibots like we're talking about canburglars now? Quote:
|
Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
I'm betting/counting on an over abundance of burglars. Don't let me down....lol:ahh:
|
Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
Quote:
On the other hand, for you youngins' out there, we didn't have LF or or Ri3D or GameSense or Top25 or Top10 or... etcetera. (I wonder what Car Nack said that year.) So there's a limit to the ubiquity potential. Quote:
And does a mod want to kick us all out, because I think we broke this thread topic. :o |
Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
I have been reading the responses with great interest and wanted to add a new question connected to the discussion about alliance choice:
What do you think the expansion to 8 divisions does to the alliance choosing process. Also, if I was in charge of division placement I would work hard to keep the powerhouse teams spread out to avoid say 254 and 1114 having a chance to work together. Are division placements random? Eric |
Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
Quote:
|
Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
Quote:
And if a really good canburglar does fall to the last pick of the draft, I think stranger stuff has happened at champs. *Mistakes are made |
Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
Quote:
Just like this year, many people who didn't understand competition argued they weren't that important. |
Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
Quote:
Here are some selected quotes: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
Quote:
|
Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
Quote:
So a team that is capable of 2.5 stacks can make 2 fully capped stacks, then either cap a partner's stack or build an uncapped one before the match end. |
Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
I'd like to share my thoughts on this game. This is my first and probably last (unless I mentor) year doing FRC, as I am a senior. Because of this, my perspective is different than many of the other posters here on CD - I didn't experience the 2013 and 2014 games, I've never strategized around defense, etc.
Recycle Rush undoubtedly has flaws - high skill floor, strange skill ceiling, autonomous probably deciding Einstein matches, potential liabilities of 3rd teams, boring and complicated for spectators. I think, however, that this thread has focused mainly on defending or attacking the flaws of RR, and there are definitely some cool things about it that I didn't see in my cursory look at earlier games. First of all is the simply insane robots some teams have built. I realized more teams had realized the potential for adventurous designs so we would have more of these at Champs, but teams like 1987 and the other ConveyorBots, 1726, with their more-or-less pure stacker, 1212 with their double robot, Batman and Robin, Zenith and Zipline, 2840's robot, 1671's under-ramp... maybe this has always happened, but seeing 1212's robot at Arizona West was amazing to me, even though it was having trouble. Second is it seems to me like the human players, at least through the weeks of regionals, are more interesting this year. 2014 has them catching and re-introducing balls, and 2013 has them inserting and throwing (for a few seconds) the frisbees. This year, the human players have to load totes, something that has some level of skill to make it smooth and consistent, load noodles into cans, again, something that can done slowly or quickly, and most challenging, they can throw noodles for a fairly significant number of points. At championships, the best noodle throwers will be targeting robot's paths or aim for a side of the landfill. Finally, there have been complaints about the amount of clutter on the fields this year. I actually like the clutter - whenever I watch a 2014 game in particular, the game feels so empty. This year has so much going on, especially for middle level alliances in these last week (see 1726 at AZWest). One other note, someone earlier in the thread mentioned that there are two camps - an "FRC should be a Sport" camp and an "FRC should be a Engineering Challenge" camp, more or less. I personally don't ever foresee FRC becoming extremely fun for spectators without a major restructuring.
When I show our team's victory to an outsider, be it a family member, a friend, a potential sponsor, I think their experience is something like this: "BLUE ALLIANCE WINS" - Ok, so they won. Now what? They get to go to Championships and lose against teams I have never heard of? Uh... Very few outside viewers care that we are learning about programming / engineering / design / teamwork / leadership. NOTE: Please let me know if any of my opinions about earlier years are misinformed, I'll be honest that I haven't spent much time researching. |
Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
One aspect off this game that I like is that the performance of teams is obvious on the field during and at the conclusion of a match.
Like LogoMotion (2011), or Rack-"N"-Roll (2007), the scoring implements are apparent at the end of the match. Rack-"N"-Roll's climbing on your partners Robot was a great endgame. In most games (Aerial Assist, Ultimate Ascent, Rebound Rumble, Breakaway, Aim High) the scoring pieces disappear and the only indication of scoring progress is with the Real Time scoring on the screen. The added bonus of stacks obscuring the view of the Drive Teams as scores are accrued is cool. Tethered bots scoring on the closest platform degrade the ability to work the landfill. Say what you will about the game this year. It is what it is. I understand the concerns about engaging the General Public in STEM activities. The energy of the students dancing (witness the PNW championship) make the events pop! Looking forward to this weekend's District Finals in Michigan, Mid-Atlantic, and New England. Watch them if you can as they are precursors to the CMP. |
Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
Quote:
I didn't like tape measures in 2002. I didn't like minibots in 2011. I don't like intentional litter on the floor this year. I am trying to keep an open mind about canburglars. Like others, I fear there is a wasteful and uninspiring arms race looming. |
Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
Quote:
The statistic that hasn't even been evaluated, probably because it's tough to acquire the data, is what % of canburglaring turned into points, and whether or not those extra points changed an outcome of Elims averge ranking. If we could get that data and analyze it I think (IMO) it'd translate back to the average team's design decisions in Week 1-2 to not do canburglars given the efficiency in match flow of few high stacks vs many short stacks at a typical event. ----- Moving forward to champs, niche things like this seem to be the only publicly-discussed thing that matters for the average champs-bound team. While I don't think canburglars are the only thing a team who can't solo > 2 capped 6-stacks, I think it's almost a must. Such a shame too. Where would a canburglar specialist be picked in selections? Where do they fit, outside of the 2-3 elite alliances who can do 5+ capped 6-stacks? |
Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
Quote:
|
Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
Kinda funny
My biggest complaint with this year is what to do with the robot(s) at the end of the season. We generally keep one in for demonstrations or teaching. We already have the same drive train on past assembled bots so that's useless. We have made "forklift bots" in the past, so no need for displaying that element. And showing our sponsors, potential sponsors, admin or community how we pick up totes or a garbage can truely isn't very glamorous. So, I guess I need to agree with some of the thought process represented in this thread. This game has aspects of boredom. I know that the experience my students had was phenomenal but we were lucky to end up in the 2-5% winning two regionals. So obviously my/our opinions are a bit skewed. But having a forklift sitting around isn't very exciting versus a frisbee thrower or basketball bot that gets others a bit excited when they see it. |
Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
Quote:
At champs they matter even in Quals because there is a good chance that average teams are paired with elite teams who can use 4+ RC's. |
Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
Quote:
|
Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
"No, I would like to see FRC continue progressing toward "sport" rather than "game". It is much more exciting for the spectator to see a simpler game played with strategy and skill than to see a technical task accomplished. There are plenty of science fairs, but FRC is becoming the true sport for robots."
I said the above last December. FRC sort of shocked me with the introduction of this new game, because I thought they were moving away from such things. I get why they did it, I think:
But, put me in the camp of moving FRC toward "sport" still. Long term, I think that is the niche that FRC best fills. Other events are better suited to the science fair/complicated game side. I'm not disappointed in RR, but that's because it has turned out to be more fun than I expected, and my expectations were pretty low. My team had a great time rising to the design challenge, and playing the game, and FRC is not at risk of losing 1339 as participants because of RR. But, if this is the beginning of a trend, and future games follow this pattern, we might reconsider. |
Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
Quote:
I've been really amazed by the general lack of understanding of the value of cans on short stacks. |
Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
Quote:
3 totes = 1 can on 1 tote 6 totes = 1 can on 2 totes 9 totes = 1 can on 3 totes 12 totes = 1 can on 4 totes 15 totes = 1 can on 5 totes 18 totes = 1 can on 6 totes Such a shame to see any uncapped stacks. |
Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
As a freshman, this game didn't seem that bad to me. Of course, it helps that I've never participated in any other seasons before but I still had tons of fun.
I feel like this game made it somewhat easier for me to help out with. I'm sure we can all agree on its simplicity and this actually made it relatively appealing to me. No, there wasn't that ecstatic gameplay I've seen from last year's YouTube videos but there was still a sense of teamwork where I felt like I could help in some way. Sure, go ahead and beat a dead horse. It's a boring game to watch but on the back end, it was (at least for me) a hell of a time to participate in and I can't wait for next year. |
Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
Quote:
|
Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
Quote:
Oh, and welcome to FRC! |
Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
Quote:
However, this analysis makes a fundamental assumption that there exist alliances A, B, C, & D in the Semis who were capable of handling that quantity of game pieces to begin with. Maybe that's an easier data set to come up with - given the tote & container scores posted, which C & D alliances at what events would have benefited from more canburglaring. Again, not trying to say that canburglaring isn't absolutely critical for Champs - but rather trying to reflect on how design decisions are made early in the build season. |
Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
Quote:
I'm looking forward to seeing if and how many 300 point plus alliance totals we may see. |
Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
Quote:
|
Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
Quote:
This lack of uniqueness makes the game simple because the task isn't too hard. It doesn't demand thinking outside of the box. All you need to do is stack something. No more, no less. That being said, I still found the game very fun and I think it will be more exciting at Champs. |
Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
This is a very difficult game. Watch videos of matches with combined scores under 30 points and you will understand where I'm coming from. There are quite a few of them.
|
Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
Quote:
I think you had a fun time because you students were prototyping a lot. Think about how many prototypes you went through. I remember your original tote lifter, I am very happy you continued testing to find a vastly superior design. Not to mention how many intake ideas were traded back and forth with 3476. Your CAD team worked very hard this year to make sure everything work as designed. I am glad everything came together so smoothly and simple. There were pitfalls along the way, your robot was vastly different before the intake was finished. The funny thing this game was anything but simple for robots, a lot of the tough stuff was in the details, intake geometry, space for the tote lifter, geometry of the tote lifter. A lot of the unique stuff is in the details. i am sure when our 2 robots are side by side each other sometime this summer your will notice a lot of similarities but also a lot key differences when you look up close. for one 3476 holds up a stack using a disc brake and you have a second set of pneumatically driven latches. These are 2 very different solutions to the same problem. If dig under the hood of most robots you will find plenty of outside of the box ideas. |
Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
Quote:
Jesse K: Quote:
|
Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
Quote:
Or, will we finally see the values changed? Hmm... |
Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
Quote:
(And I'm saying this as a student on a team that hasn't put a large focus on them and probably won't be that affected by a change like that. But I think it would be completely unfair to teams who have done this to have the entire game changed right before champs.) *Can't = will avoid this if it is at all possible (i.e. they have the ability, but almost definitely won't) |
Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
Quote:
At the same time, those stratospheric teams are capped in the literal sense in terms of game pieces. I guess it's not so much that it's a low ceiling as it's a ceiling no one really wanted to break. This isn't trying to squeeze in another 3 assist cycle or nail the triple balance or design that 6 second climb. This is minibots: an arms race for a coin flip. Quote:
|
Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I did enjoy this game a lot more than I thought I would, but the barrier to a competitive robot was the highest imo since 2010 (oh the 0-0 soccer scores!). |
Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
Quote:
That is all very true. I never took a step back and thought of it from that angle. Thank you for the different perspective. |
Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
Quote:
|
Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
Quote:
Quote:
I think the incentives in Recycle Rush are overall more rational that the incentive for climbing was in Ultimate Ascent, so the chance of any score change happening is even lower. For that decision to make sense, the GDC would have to conclude that the benefits of making such a change would outweigh the backlash from teams who spent a season building and competing with a robot designed around the current incentive structure. |
Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
Quote:
|
Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
Quote:
|
Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
Quote:
|
Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
Quote:
So yes, they can change the values, but they basically change the entire game. And they definitely can't change it without a very long thread on CD discussing whether they should or shouldn't have done so... I'm not saying I like the fact that games will be decided in the first 0.1sec or so. I'm just saying that it has been this way so far, and to change it at this point will be...very interesting. |
Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
I may be afraid to say this too, but I have heard that the FMS may have a subtle micro-delay between when each alliance is enabled in autonomous.
FMS Enabling Sequence |
Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 16:18. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi