Chief Delphi

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   General Forum (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   A Recycle Rush Reflection (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136373)

AGPapa 06-04-2015 21:24

Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by artK (Post 1466878)
This reminds me, that based on how champs has ended in the past, I think this year, a #1 or #2 alliance will pick a robot with a really fast can grabber (w/o cheesecake) that the other alliances ignored, and said alliance will win champs because of this second round steal. It happens almost every year, with teams like 610, 16, 973, 177, 971, and 148 (the third champion robots from 2013-2008) falling to one of the last picks of the draft.

I wasn't around on CD back then, so can somebody inform me of how often on CD was the overwhelming importance of minibots discussed in 2011? I tried doing some searches and couldn't find much discussion until after champs.

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.

Rangel 06-04-2015 21:29

Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AGPapa (Post 1466937)
I wasn't around on CD back then, so can somebody inform me of how often on CD was the overwhelming importance of minibots discussed in 2011? I tried doing some searches and couldn't find much discussion until after champs.

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?

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 divisions.

I don't know the exact threads for 2011 but if you just watch Einstein matches, you can see how tube scoring that year became exponentially ineffective after scoring the top two rows of the scoring racks. A full logo on the bottom rack was only worth 6 points and since minibot scores varied dramatically if an alliance got 1st and 2nd, it was pretty much the sole decider of games at the highest level. I also think that awesome canburglers will make it to the very late picks since alliances will be weighing in different factors and not just canburglering. I think many captains might pick slower canburglers that are also good tote stackers vs a robot that is a awesome canburgler and not much else. Especially for the lower seeded alliances where they might still need help with tote stacking.

AGPapa 06-04-2015 21:35

Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rangel(kf7fdb) (Post 1466941)
I don't know the exact threads for 2011 but if you just watch Einstein matches, you can see how tube scoring that year became exponentially ineffective after scoring the top two rows of the scoring racks. A full logo on the bottom rack was only worth 6 points and since minibot scores varied dramatically if an alliance got 1st and 2nd, it was pretty much the sole decider of games at the highest level.


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:

Originally Posted by Rangel(kf7fdb) (Post 1466941)
I also think that awesome canburglers will make it to the very late picks since alliances will be weighing in different factors and not just canburglering. I think many captains might pick slower canburglers that are also good tote stackers vs a robot that is a awesome canburgler and not much else. Especially for the lower seeded alliances where they might still need help with tote stacking.

This is an interesting point. I can understand how something like this may happen, but I wonder if there are enough canburglars in each division that it will happen.

Sunshine 06-04-2015 21:40

Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
 
I'm betting/counting on an over abundance of burglars. Don't let me down....lol:ahh:

Siri 06-04-2015 22:43

Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AGPapa (Post 1466947)
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

I don't remember specific DC threads (not to say there weren't any, just to say that that was years ago), but I do remember that we as a team discussed it, and we were idiots in 2011. In fact, it must have been on CD quite a lot, or there wouldn't have been so much cloning. We won Philly that year with a minibot whose identical twins were all over the FRC world. As I recall a lot of that cloning was related to the "seriously, this is becoming a coin flip" discussion. Loud discussion. And I remember lots of "refs as garage door openers" complaints vis-a-vis not really knowing if people were deploying exactly on time. It was at least known aggravation and a serious enough game mechanic that people were loud about objecting to it. I have trouble parsing how much of that was CD and how much was in person, though.

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:

Originally Posted by Rangel(kf7fdb) (Post 1466941)
I also think that awesome canburglers will make it to the very late picks since alliances will be weighing in different factors and not just canburglering. I think many captains might pick slower canburglers that are also good tote stackers vs a robot that is a awesome canburgler and not much else. Especially for the lower seeded alliances where they might still need help with tote stacking.

Can an NE and/or PNWer talk about how selection played out at their District Championships? What was your depth in stacking and specialist(s), and where did which caliber of each end up in the draft?

And does a mod want to kick us all out, because I think we broke this thread topic. :o

EricAnderson191 06-04-2015 22:47

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

Ginger Power 06-04-2015 22:48

Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Siri (Post 1466977)
And does a mod want to kick us all out, because I think we broke this thread topic. :o

I was thinking the same thing haha. It should be moved to a thread called: "2015 Champs Discussion" or something along those lines. I've really enjoyed the conversation if that means anything.

artK 06-04-2015 23:10

Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AGPapa (Post 1466937)
I wasn't around on CD back then, so can somebody inform me of how often on CD was the overwhelming importance of minibots discussed in 2011? I tried doing some searches and couldn't find much discussion until after champs.

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.

I think people on Chief Delphi (at least sometimes) forget there are people in robotics who don't read Chief Delphi, Looking Forward, GameSense, Top 25, etc. I remember their being a large amount of discussion on CD last year about people doing mobility autos, yet at the earlier events, some teams didn't even plan on moving during auto. Just because the people who write on the above media have determined that the optimal strategy involves can-burglars, doesn't mean that every alliance captain at champs will know this. Some teams make suboptimal to really bad picks during alliance selections (the only time I ever was field rep, I made a bad pick*).

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

AdamHeard 06-04-2015 23:15

Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AGPapa (Post 1466947)
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?



This is an interesting point. I can understand how something like this may happen, but I wonder if there are enough canburglars in each division that it will happen.

There was discussion of it on chief. I distinctly remember posting that they'd be the only thing that mattered once a relatively low point threshold was achieved.

Just like this year, many people who didn't understand competition argued they weren't that important.

AGPapa 06-04-2015 23:35

Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamHeard (Post 1466996)
There was discussion of it on chief. I distinctly remember posting that they'd be the only thing that mattered once a relatively low point threshold was achieved.

Just like this year, many people who didn't understand competition argued they weren't that important.

Thanks Adam. For reference, this thread has some pretty good discussion about the importance on minibots.

Here are some selected quotes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamHeard (Post 1042518)
The minibot score can't be offset at the high level of play, every competent alliance come champs will fill the top and middle rows along with some ubertubes. The sole decider in the win will be the minibots.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt Krass (Post 1042483)
Seriously though, I think Adam is right, regardless of how well the minibot sensors work, or not, they're a little overweighted in the competition. I've seen a single minibot beat an entire other alliance scoring for the whole game. Just the minibot score. It's kind of frustrating, but it's probably also a topic for another thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery (Post 1042816)
You're missing his point. BOTH alliances will have robots like 148 and 1114. While the points scored by 1114 could offset a minibot if the opponent isn't scoring tubes, it's not going to offset the scoring from 148 AND 148's minibot.

There's a definite potential for the tube scores for both alliances to be both incredibly high, and incredibly close. That's where minibots are going to decide matches. It's not going to be a case where those 50 points alone are going to overcome the opponents scoring, but those 25 extra points from getting 1st and 2nd in the minibot race would easily offset the 2 extra tubes the opponent scored more than your alliance did.

Perhaps I'm overestimating the knowledge possessed by average alliance captain at champs. Especially since it'll be twice as easy to captain this year.

Citrus Dad 07-04-2015 01:09

Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jared Russell (Post 1466776)
I think there are plenty of 2.5 stack teams. The ".X" in 1.X, 2.X, 3.X buys you margin against screwups, dropped cans, cans ending up in the corners, noodles, "defense" from alliance partners, etc.

What seems to happen is that a lot of teams are left stuck at the HP station or caught on their way to the platform because they tried to get one more tote. That's where the step function becomes most readily apparent.

Kevin Leonard 07-04-2015 02:24

Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad (Post 1467055)
What seems to happen is that a lot of teams are left stuck at the HP station or caught on their way to the platform because they tried to get one more tote. That's where the step function becomes most readily apparent.

In scouting and strategy, I defined the extra half stack as either the ability to make another uncapped stack or cap another stack after they've made their primary stacks.

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.

Necroterra 07-04-2015 04:25

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.
  • Too many qualifying matches - outsiders won't watch 80+ matches to find the really exciting ones for them. Maybe a Dakar Rally style recap series of videos would work, though.
  • Too much expected knowledge. Show 2014, a simple game, to someone new. They don't know how big the robots are, how hard it is do intake and relaunch the balls, they aren't going to intuitively keep track of the different robots, they don't understand the strategy of the scorign systems...
  • The matches are designed in such a way that no one really cares. They are short, preventing you from getting invested, it's often easy to tell who will win 1/2 way through (not just in RR). You spend 5 minutes explaining the game to someone, and then play them a 2 minute match and they don't get anything out of it.
  • They stakes of winning aren't presented to the audience - partly because they don't exist. I would think the culture FIRST wants to foster doesn't care about winning as much as learning and the experience (evidenced by Chairman's and many other decisions), but spectators want a reason to root for their team.

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.

MooreteP 07-04-2015 06:10

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.

Richard Wallace 07-04-2015 09:39

Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad (Post 1466743)
Only by stepping outside of the usual comfort zone for most of us focused on STEM and appealing to a broader audience can FIRST truly change the culture.

This is always true, and never more so than when are playing a game that 'sucks' -- from the viewpoint of (some) top-tier competitors.

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.

JesseK 07-04-2015 10:00

Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamHeard (Post 1466996)
There was discussion of it on chief. I distinctly remember posting that they'd be the only thing that mattered once a relatively low point threshold was achieved.

Just like this year, many people who didn't understand competition argued they weren't that important.

To be fair, this year the canburglars only matter insofar as the point values that can be attained after the cans are acquired. In 2011, a fast minibot gave points regardless.

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?

jvriezen 07-04-2015 10:16

Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JesseK (Post 1467150)
To be fair, this year the canburglars only matter insofar as the point values that can be attained after the cans are acquired.

Not really true. If you can grab three cans off of the step to own six total, the other team can cap at most four stacks. You probably only need to cap five stacks to win. If you grab all the cans from the step to own seven, you only need to cap four to exceed the three capped stacks the other alliance has.

Sunshine 07-04-2015 10:19

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.

Siri 07-04-2015 10:19

Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Necroterra (Post 1467092)
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.

It's true, you get some crazy looking awesomeness when you lift size restrictions. You also get something similar when you get teams climbing a 10-foot pyramid. These examples are hard to find for two main reasons: first, they're probably about as common as the really crazy ones this year (a couple conveyors, a couple powered tethers). Second, 2013 did screw up the scoring if this is what you're looking for; high climbs weren't weighted enough.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Necroterra (Post 1467092)
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.

This is probably an issue of deceptive simplicity. Uber-fast frisbee loading took technique and practice for both HPs and drivers. It was actually pretty cool to see the different speed demons that had really cool techniques. If you're thinking sports models, just because it's fast doesn't mean it's easy (usually means it isn't, actually). Also, 2012 was even bigger for that, if we go all the way back in a standard high school tenure. Throwing those balls through the opening to make them all the way across the field, with robots trying to score and block you on the near side? Not easy at all. It's also a good year for clutter if you like that, and the bridge balances could get quite crazy.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Necroterra (Post 1467092)
"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...

Maybe I just haven't been in high school recently enough, but this process seems quite familiar. District tournaments, regional tournaments, state championships... We do Worlds, which is maybe more baseball-y, but it's not like parents know every team in (at least the larger) states anyway.

JesseK 07-04-2015 10:46

Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jvriezen (Post 1467160)
Not really true. If you can grab three cans off of the step to own six total, the other team can cap at most four stacks. You probably only need to cap five stacks to win. If you grab all the cans from the step to own seven, you only need to cap four to exceed the three capped stacks the other alliance has.

I don't think this is correct for 80-90% of teams at a typical event. In Quals, QF's and SF's you aren't directly competing with the opposing alliance, but also all of the other teams. Denying the RC's in one match is irrelevant unless their next opposing alliance can also deny the RC's. All that matters in Qual/QF/SF are individual scores - so Canburglaring is only effective if used as the means to that end. At a typical events, I seriously doubt they made a big difference before Finals.

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.

jvriezen 07-04-2015 11:46

Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JesseK (Post 1467172)
I don't think this is correct for 80-90% of teams at a typical event. In Quals, QF's and SF's you aren't directly competing with the opposing alliance, but also all of the other teams. Denying the RC's in one match is irrelevant unless their next opposing alliance can also deny the RC's. All that matters in Qual/QF/SF are individual scores - so Canburglaring is only effective if used as the means to that end. At a typical events, I seriously doubt they made a big difference before Finals.

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.

You are correct-- I fell into the W/L mindset. The closer you get to finals (and when you are competing against the stronger/strongest team, it can still be sufficient to deny the cans to minimize the opponents score relative to yours if you are both near the 'cut line' of who gets to advance.

mrnoble 07-04-2015 12:13

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:
  • Make it easier on referees and other volunteers
  • Help students see the specific application of their learning experience in industry
  • Give students a larger field of possible designs, with additional, new challenges

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.

MrForbes 07-04-2015 12:19

Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JesseK (Post 1467172)
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.

The cans are interesting. They can be placed on any size stack of totes, and putting them on a stack of two (or even one) totes does interesting things to your qualifying scores, at a typical regional that does not have many "really good" robots.

I've been really amazed by the general lack of understanding of the value of cans on short stacks.

Boltman 07-04-2015 14:03

Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MrForbes (Post 1467201)
The cans are interesting. They can be placed on any size stack of totes, and putting them on a stack of two (or even one) totes does interesting things to your qualifying scores, at a typical regional that does not have many "really good" robots.

I've been really amazed by the general lack of understanding of the value of cans on short stacks.

Yup wasted cans are wasted scores...

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.

itsjustjon 07-04-2015 15:20

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.

Citrus Dad 07-04-2015 15:57

Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JesseK (Post 1467172)
I don't think this is correct for 80-90% of teams at a typical event. In Quals, QF's and SF's you aren't directly competing with the opposing alliance, but also all of the other teams. Denying the RC's in one match is irrelevant unless their next opposing alliance can also deny the RC's. All that matters in Qual/QF/SF are individual scores - so Canburglaring is only effective if used as the means to that end. At a typical events, I seriously doubt they made a big difference before Finals.

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.

A superior chokehold is a virtual guarantee out of the semifinals. Assuming the transitive property holds (Team A is faster than B is faster than C is faster than D), so long at Team A puts up 5 stacks of 36 points in each match (and ignoring uncapped stacks) Team C can only advance by putting up 7 stacks of 42 points in its match where it is faster than D and puts ups 3 stacks of 42 in its matches against A and B.

Siri 07-04-2015 16:09

Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by itsjustjon (Post 1467291)
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.

(emphasis mine) I wonder what you mean by simplicity in this case. In terms of the minimalist engineering involved (e.g. minimum competitive concept), it's probably most complicated in modern FIRST history. On the other hand, the ceiling is lower in some ways. Can you pinpoint what exactly you liked about it and maybe how future games could bring a similar element?

Oh, and welcome to FRC!

JesseK 07-04-2015 16:12

Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad (Post 1467308)
A superior chokehold is a virtual guarantee out of the semifinals. Assuming the transitive property holds (Team A is faster than B is faster than C is faster than D), so long at Team A puts up 5 stacks of 36 points in each match (and ignoring uncapped stacks) Team C can only advance by putting up 7 stacks of 42 points in its match where it is faster than D and puts ups 3 stacks of 42 in its matches against A and B.

I get that this holds, and with the math it makes total sense. We did it from the perspective of quantity of game pieces score at their most valuable placement rather than total points.

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.

Sunshine 07-04-2015 16:41

Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad (Post 1467308)
A superior chokehold is a virtual guarantee out of the semifinals. Assuming the transitive property holds (Team A is faster than B is faster than C is faster than D), so long at Team A puts up 5 stacks of 36 points in each match (and ignoring uncapped stacks) Team C can only advance by putting up 7 stacks of 42 points in its match where it is faster than D and puts ups 3 stacks of 42 in its matches against A and B.

Your scenerio is valid IF the fastest burglar team can actually capitalize on having additional RC's. If the burglar bot can do little but steel RC's the outcome could come down to great autonomous points and a great human player from a starved alliance. I can also see that outcome happening in some divisions.

I'm looking forward to seeing if and how many 300 point plus alliance totals we may see.

Sunshine 07-04-2015 16:50

Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Siri (Post 1467314)
............. it's probably the most complicated in modern FIRST history. On the other hand, the ceiling is lower in some ways.

Can you elaborate on why you feel this way?

itsjustjon 07-04-2015 16:53

Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Siri (Post 1467314)
(emphasis mine) I wonder what you mean by simplicity in this case. In terms of the minimalist engineering involved (e.g. minimum competitive concept), it's probably most complicated in modern FIRST history. On the other hand, the ceiling is lower in some ways. Can you pinpoint what exactly you liked about it and maybe how future games could bring a similar element?

Oh, and welcome to FRC!

I meant simple in the fact that most (if not, all) robots this year are similar in design. For me, I did not see too many designs that were unique (One exception being 2122 with their table for resting an RC). All designs have same/similar intake style and lift design. They all do the same thing except some are faster or more efficient. Of course there are other exceptions that I didn't name. One other dichotomy is that either your bot does landfill or feeder, and very few bots do both. I honestly do not know what I was necessarily expecting but I just feel that there wasn't room for uniqueness.

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.

Ginger Power 07-04-2015 17:03

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.

Mark Sheridan 07-04-2015 17:36

Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by itsjustjon (Post 1467343)
I meant simple in the fact that most (if not, all) robots this year are similar in design. For me, I did not see too many designs that were unique (One exception being 2122 with their table for resting an RC). All designs have same/similar intake style and lift design. They all do the same thing except some are faster or more efficient. Of course there are other exceptions that I didn't name. One other dichotomy is that either your bot does landfill or feeder, and very few bots do both. I honestly do not know what I was necessarily expecting but I just feel that there wasn't room for uniqueness.

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.

Hey Jon,
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.

Citrus Dad 07-04-2015 17:51

Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunshine (Post 1467335)
Your scenerio is valid IF the fastest burglar team can actually capitalize on having additional RC's. If the burglar bot can do little but steel RC's the outcome could come down to great autonomous points and a great human player from a starved alliance. I can also see that outcome happening in some divisions.

I'm looking forward to seeing if and how many 300 point plus alliance totals we may see.

I'm assuming that any alliance that can get into the semifinals of divisions (and certainly Einstein) can put up at least 5 stacks which seems quite reasonable. There will be almost certainly be at least one alliance in each division capable of this. Just a few uncapped totes puts this alliance completely out of reach.

Jesse K:
Quote:

I get that this holds, and with the math it makes total sense. We did it from the perspective of quantity of game pieces score at their most valuable placement rather than total points.

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.
Watch the PNW champs. I expect the Divisions to be of higher quality. 3 alliances were over 200 points in the semis. RC availability will be constraining.

bduddy 07-04-2015 17:51

Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamHeard (Post 1466996)
There was discussion of it on chief. I distinctly remember posting that they'd be the only thing that mattered once a relatively low point threshold was achieved.

Just like this year, many people who didn't understand competition argued they weren't that important.

The one thing that most shocks me about this game is that the GDC made the same mistake again. The scoring system was the biggest flaw in Logomotion (a game with many flaws) and led directly to the introduction of a rule, in all future games, saying the GDC reserves the right to change it. Now, once again, we have a game where, at a high level, one simple task essentially locks out the game and, barring catastrophe, renders the remainder of the match pointless. Now, perhaps the flaw is less apparent and less impactful this year, but I guarantee you'll see elimination matches at championship divisions, not just Einstein, decided by the cans.

Or, will we finally see the values changed? Hmm...

Rachel Lim 07-04-2015 18:14

Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bduddy (Post 1467377)
Or, will we finally see the values changed? Hmm...

The GDC can't* change the values now, not when many teams have been planning their strategy around them since kickoff. Unlike a minor change (like not allowing noodle throwing or something similar), that would be a HUGE strategic change for high level matches.

(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)

Siri 07-04-2015 20:10

Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunshine (Post 1467339)
Can you elaborate on why you feel this way?

Mostly because I use global team performance as a proxy for engineering difficulty per performance level. The contribution skew is the worst it's been in years, with more teams lower and some out in the stratosphere. Combined with the game's limits on contributions (essentially, it's really easy to get in the way), the effective floor to contribute is relatively high relative to that spread.

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:

Originally Posted by itsjustjon (Post 1467343)
I meant simple in the fact that most (if not, all) robots this year are similar in design. For me, I did not see too many designs that were unique (One exception being 2122 with their table for resting an RC). All designs have same/similar intake style and lift design. They all do the same thing except some are faster or more efficient. Of course there are other exceptions that I didn't name. One other dichotomy is that either your bot does landfill or feeder, and very few bots do both. I honestly do not know what I was necessarily expecting but I just feel that there wasn't room for uniqueness.

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.

I gotcha. Yeah, this isn't full-court frisbee shooting versus 10-foot pyramid climbing--I can see how that combined with the limited interaction makes things look very similar. That's not to say that, as Mark was, there's no devil in the details.

cgmv123 07-04-2015 21:37

Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rachel Lim (Post 1467384)
The GDC can't change the values now, not when many teams have been planning their strategy around them since kickoff. Unlike a minor change (like not allowing noodle throwing or something similar), that would be a HUGE strategic change for high level matches.

They specifically said they can change scoring values.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Section 3.1.2.4 Blue Box
As competition at the FIRST Championship is typically different from that during rest of the competition season, FIRST may alter each scoring value at the FIRST Championship.


Donut 07-04-2015 22:13

Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Necroterra (Post 1467092)
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...

This to me is not all that different than any other high school sport. Your season qualifies you for the playoffs, and the playoffs end with one team winning the State Championship. Maybe it is different because with other sports a State Championship is the highest goal to obtain, since there is no consensus National/World Championship for most high school sports even if there are national tournaments and attempts at rankings by sites like Max Preps. If that's the case the District system will eventually solve that problem; winning a District event is like winning a meet or tournament (helps you rank highly but not required to advance to the playoffs), and winning the District Championship is like winning the State Championship. Eventually with the growth of FRC attending the World Championships could be an unknown concept and not the ultimate goal for most, it already is that way with FLL (25,000 teams with almost 100 District Championships and only about 100 teams attend the World Festival). Competing with out of state teams for high school sports is typical only of very high level programs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by artK (Post 1466878)
It happens almost every year, with teams like 610, 16, 973, 177, 971, and 148 (the third champion robots from 2013-2008) falling to one of the last picks of the draft.

I still don't know how 148 (the fastest lap runner in the world) ever fell to the last pick of the #1 alliance in their division. There were only two track balls to use, what else was the third partner going to do?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ginger Power (Post 1467349)
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.

These game pieces were not conductive to teams that struggle building manipulators. Large, asymmetrical, heavy (8 lbs) game pieces require a lot of attention to detail, and the totes being either packed in the landfill or flipped over from the chute door didn't help. Mentoring a team that were effectively rookies from their experience level, we struggled even though our arm could lift totes because we made our arms about 1" too wide so that they ran into the totes neighboring the one we wanted in the landfill rather than fitting nicely into the gaps between them. We sized to give ourselves a little room to line up when picking up a single stationary tote but never tested on a landfill setup since we didn't have enough game pieces for it.


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!).

itsjustjon 07-04-2015 22:50

Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Sheridan (Post 1467367)
Hey Jon,
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.


That is all very true. I never took a step back and thought of it from that angle. Thank you for the different perspective.

asid61 08-04-2015 01:03

Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by cgmv123 (Post 1467477)
They specifically said they can change scoring values.

That would make for a very interesting Championships. I sort of hope they do just to keep the game competitive after the first quarter of a second.

dcarr 08-04-2015 01:16

Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by cgmv123 (Post 1467477)
They specifically said they can change scoring values.

In 2013, the following was included in the manual

Quote:

As competition at the FIRST Championship is typically different from that during the competition season, FIRST may alter the value of CLIMBING at the FIRST Championship by up to ten (10) points per Level.
There was a great deal of speculation that the incentive for climbing would be increased at Championship, but this did not materialize.

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.

bduddy 08-04-2015 02:38

Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dcarr (Post 1467573)
In 2013, the following was included in the manual



There was a great deal of speculation that the incentive for climbing would be increased at Championship, but this did not materialize.

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.

IMO, quite the opposite. Climbing in Ultimate Ascent may have been less valuable than some people thought it would be, but ultimately the game was fairly well balanced and exciting to watch. Recycle Rush, on the other hand, is barreling straight towards a 2011 scenario where top-level matches are decided by a single action that wasn't supposed to be the main focus of the game in the first place... and I'm pretty sure that's exactly what the blue box was designed to prevent.

dcarr 08-04-2015 02:42

Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bduddy (Post 1467585)
IMO, quite the opposite. Climbing in Ultimate Ascent may have been less valuable than some people thought it would be, but ultimately the game was fairly well balanced and exciting to watch. Recycle Rush, on the other hand, is barreling straight towards a 2011 scenario where top-level matches are decided by a single action that wasn't supposed to be the main focus of the game in the first place... and I'm pretty sure that's exactly what the blue box was designed to prevent.

I think there's a difference between point incentives for game actions, and availability of game resources that are then used to score points. What score value change in Recycle Rush would eliminate the significance of the "single action" (presumably, the rush for RCs during the first < 1 second of autonomous)?. Lower RC value? Adding more RCs would not be a score change, it would be a game mechanics change. Not something that the GDC states is a possibility at least based on that blue box.

Citrus Dad 08-04-2015 16:51

Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dcarr (Post 1467586)
I think there's a difference between point incentives for game actions, and availability of game resources that are then used to score points. What score value change in Recycle Rush would eliminate the significance of the "single action" (presumably, the rush for RCs during the first < 1 second of autonomous)?. Lower RC value? Adding more RCs would not be a score change, it would be a game mechanics change. Not something that the GDC states is a possibility at least based on that blue box.

I may be afraid I said this, but the solution to ending the midstep rush in the first second would be to drastically lower the RC values and/or up the tote stacking value.

Rachel Lim 08-04-2015 17:11

Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by cgmv123 (Post 1467477)
They specifically said they can change scoring values.

Sorry, I guess my original post wasn't clear. The GDC can legally change the values, but can't without completely changing the game and what mechanisms teams should have focused on. For weeks everything has been focused on those center containers; by changing the rules the best designs will become those robots focused on stacking totes very fast.

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.

MooreteP 08-04-2015 17:15

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

bduddy 08-04-2015 18:22

Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rachel Lim (Post 1467840)
Sorry, I guess my original post wasn't clear. The GDC can legally change the values, but can't without completely changing the game and what mechanisms teams should have focused on. For weeks everything has been focused on those center containers; by changing the rules the best designs will become those robots focused on stacking totes very fast.

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.

In general, I agree with you. The GDC will have to, and I hope they are, consider what is the bigger problem: the unfairness caused by changing the rules, or the negative effects on the whole of FRC if the Championship games end up happening in the way many are predicting.


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