Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
 

The rule itself is an amazing aspect of the game. What i'm saying is that creating a passive ramp and attaching it the the "main robot" seems like an abuse of the rule. You mentioned 1987 and 148 as prime examples of how this rule allows for very impressive robots. But I would like to point out that 1987 is not tethered, and 148 has a motorized component on their feeder station robot. Maybe criticizing teams as having less ingenuity was a misstep on my part, and I apologize. Adding a ramp is so much easier than fixing the original robot to complete the challenge, and that's the problem, it's just too easy. My issue isn't the fact that the rule exists, which I guess I failed to highlight in my previous post.

Also, I stated that fact that motorized components should have been a rule for parts of the robot TETHERED to another part of the robot. To my knowledge, 1114's grabber isn't tethered.

Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
 

What if adding a ramp is fixing the original robot to complete the challenge?

Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
 

I like the game for the fact that it allowed my team to take risks in the design and construction of our robot that we never would have in any previous game.

Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
 

Agreed. In 2013 FRC 4607 had to adapt after our ballast mechanism was deemed illegal. We then retrofitted our robot to become a blocker - and it served us well. Part of the process of FRC is thinking on the fly - and designing a robot that can adjust during the competition and still make an impact. The ramp/tether is this example in the 2015 game.

Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
 

When I referenced both 148 and 1987 I did so intending to say that they both designed their robots from the beginning to utilize the lack of restrictions. They are awesome examples of why this is a good rule. I think we agree that strings tied to ramps weren't the intention of the GDC when they designed the game.

Edit: I will say again that despite ramps with strings likely not being the intent of the GDC, they are an ingenious adaption that teams can simply do to become more competitive.

Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
 

Suppose there was a requirement that attached components had to be motorized. (Because that's how this proposed rule would have to read - you can't make a rule specific to a "ramp".) Would that mean canburglars need motors?

Back to the original premise: You have to watch this game differently this year. OK, there's no interaction between alliances, and I agree, sometimes that can be exciting. We'll probably see that again in future games. This year, you need to appreciate what the robots are doing for themselves rather than against their opponents. Yes, some matches with robots of lesser abilities can be less exciting - but that happens every year. Simbotics, Poofs or Wildstang don't play in every match in every event. But when you get those good matches with those good teams in them, it's every bit as exciting as other years. I'm really looking forward to seeing some exciting things at MSC.

Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
 

And how would you know what the intent of the GDC was?

Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
 

The issue that I see in this game is not that the excitement wasn't there to begin with, but that it's not picking up pace like it should. The game is getting more boring as time passes. In the earlier regionals, 6-stacks were much more rare, strategy was still a hurdle to overcome in terms of whether to go for co-op, and as I saw in the stands, people were excited. We went to a Week 1 regional, and even though our robot didn't perform quite as well as we hoped, I can say with confidence that a huge proportion of the kids that went to the event had fun and stuck around.

Fast forward to the later events. We're not seeing any bigger scores in terms of value per stack (aka 6 stack with can and noodle is still the max, better teams at this points just mean more said stacks), and many of the kids attending have already been in a competition. At Virginia, our second competition, I could tell by the look on some of our scouts' faces that they would rather count the ceiling tiles than scout yet another match. Strategy is much better-known, as there is no real defense, and people can see who's likely going to take home the blue banners. Sure, there are exciting moments especially in the finals, as with any FIRST game, but this one just isn't quite as good in terms of the whole enchilada. Championships will inevitably be exciting, and more teams will make elims than ever, but it may not be quite as good as previous years. That, and it's not a good spectator sport. We've beaten the dead horse already on that.

Overall, although this year was an interesting engineering challenge and fun to watch at first, I am likely not going to miss this game.

Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
 

I have to agree that this years game was very boring. The consistency was great for strategizing. I was strategizing for our team and, using the scouting information, was able to predict our matches score within ten points before we went on the field. The thing I loved about this game was how teams are very consistent at what they do.

Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
 

'Fun to watch in powerhouse finals' seems like an odd standard to measure a game against. Historically, that's almost apodictic. To my mind, a game that 1114 and 148 can't make look cool is not boring, it's just bad. You give those VEXers 6 weeks on speed phone book reading and it'd probably draw a crowd.

A game can be "boring" and still pass that standard, even when played by regional powerhouses. It's just a matter of audience. Boring to teams in the stands? Sponsors and VIPs? Volunteers or public spectators? This game has certainly had far more complaints about boredom than others of recent history, from those constituencies both on CD and at events. That doesn't mean everyone thinks it's boring (they don't), but it's hard to argue on evidence that it's equally or less so.

Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
 

I had been concerned from the beginning about this game having no audience appeal. I talked with several people who attended our first regional. Half had never been to a FIRST competition before, the other half had not been to an event for a couple of years. Both groups loved this game. One engineer (never been to event b4) commented on enjoying seeing a real engineering challenge versus a sporting like event. Two indicated (had been to events before) that they liked not seeing defense where inferior robots just try to get in your way.

I get the fact that predictably may concern some. But always knowing that a 16-17 year old is in control of the bot indicates that anything can and will happen. The human factor is still there giving unpredictable outcomes.

For those who complain about knowing outcomes when two great alliances get together............ Same complaint we hear year after year. It gets old.

Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
 

Recycle Rush is very different from any FRC game I've ever seen (2004, 2005, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014).

In many ways, it's a great game. The engineering challenge is fun and original and caught many teams off guard. This year, the best robot is more likely to win than in previous years. The less restrictive design rules were awesome too. Although some people think the ramps are cheap solutions that take away from the value of the game and may not have been anticipated by the GDC, I think they're amazingly clever simple solutions to difficult problems. Isn't that what engineering is about?

The average score system is also far superior to the old W/L/T system for providing accurate rankings. The rules are also really objective and fair this year.

However, Recycle Rush has some flaws. The game is very boring at a lower level, and is often dominated by one or two teams. Scoring is set up so that a simpler robot scores way too little compared to better robots. The lack of defense and robot-robot interaction really brings down the excitement because you usually know what's going to happen before the match starts.

At the level of eliminations, the third robot on the winning alliance doesn't have much of a role. If the alliance partners are unable to cheesecake the robot, the robot usually ends up in a corner, watching the other teams make a fortress of stacks.

The game is also deceptively difficult. Even loading totes from a hole in the wall is challenging because they don't land consistently or right side up. Was this additional engineering challenge really necessary? What does it add to the game? There are two game pieces, neither of which can easily be manipulated, but being able to manipulate both is required to do well.

Autonomous mode also was also a little disappointing. Outside of eliminations, there are rarely robot sets, tote sets, or container sets simply because a collaborative autonomous mode is very difficult. No teams seem to be using the landmark to help coordinate autonomous scoring. Most of the time when scoring happens in auto, two robots sit out of the way while a third gets a stacked tote set which gets old after a while.

Overall, I think that the positives from this game outweigh the drawbacks. It's refreshing to have a game that isn't about throwing things into holes above the other side's driver station - which is what I had for my first three years with FIRST. From what I've seen, the crowd still gets very excited when coopertition happens, or a stack falls over, or a robot does well. The GDC does have to try something different now and then.

Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
 

While this was the first year that we left before the pits closed on Thursday, it was not because we weren't interested, but because this is the first year that we bagged a robot that we had practiced with and only needed minor mods to be ready to go.

Scouting and pit conferences were at least as common this year as others at Bayou, With the wide variety of tasks to perform, and the handful of teams that could regularly make one or more tall capped stacks, it was essential to fill in the capability gaps, and no ranking or OPR is going to provide that.

Finally, while I expected the game to be boring, I found it anything but, especially in the last few rounds of quals and playoffs. Even watching 0-0 matches usually wasn't boring. Frustrating, but not boring. (Can't they at least bulldoze a single row of totes onto the platform?) Even the people who "wandered in off the street" whom I spoke to were cheering, especially after a couple of resets or a dance break explaining the basic rules.

Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
 

Full disclosure, Recycle Rush is the game I have been hoping to get from the GDC since the second or third year of my 13 seasons of FRC experience. I most appreciate the opportunity to execute a design without being harassed by an opponent's robot. That is not to say that I have not enjoyed previous games, nor that teams which I have mentored did not fully participate in and employ strong defense within the rules.

In terms of excitement. At QCR this past weekend, we had a large number of parents, school administration representatives and a sponsor in attendance. I did not witness a lack of interest from any of them. In fact, I had one parent ask if parents could help us with scouting when we compete at Worlds. There was plenty of enthusiasm from the parents. In fact, at one point, our Spirit Mentor admonished the students by informing them that their parents were outperforming them, the students.

Finally, I will share this anecdote, my wife commented after watching matches on the video stream from our Central Illinois event, "this is a boring game." After sitting in the stands with us at Queen City she found it to be very exciting.

Re: A Recycle Rush Reflection
 

I have absolutely no clue what the GDC intends. It's an uneducated guess based on the idea that strings attached to robots are confusing to an outsider of FIRST, and that the mission of FIRST is to bring STEM to the common culture through inspiration. That is not to say that ramps are any less inspirational. Just that they can be confusing which can take away from the inspiration.