Do we want another game without defense?
 

Recycle Rush had to be one of the most controversial games since 2009. Separating the field and eliminating defense was a bold decision, and we must now ask ourselves: was this decision the right direction for FIRST?

Let's start with some of the complaints that we originally had. The game would be boring with the lack of defense. This was true for week 1, but as teams made final adjustments, they started to contribute more to their alliances. With the lack of defense, teams could spend less time repairing their robots and more time making improvements. Watching teams constantly improve is very exciting to see, and is a major component of FIRST.

Autonomous mode would be overpowered.
Scoring in autonomous mode was useful, but never was overpowered. Teams that could score 20-28 points in auto were rewarded, but would still have to score their best to win.

Teams can't upset or make comebacks.
This year was rather predictable. In Michigan, 17/18 districts the #1 alliance won. Even at MSC the #1 alliance won. This was reflected at most regionals. However, 4 out of the 8 alliances that won their divisions weren't #1. Upsets can happen. As for comebacks, the #1 alliance in Archimedes scored only 43 points in their first semi-final. They scored 197 in their next, but not enough to bring their average up. It was in their last match when they scored 274 and went on to win their division. Comebacks and upsets did happen.

Now let's look at some of the positives that came from a lack of defense.

Teams could build unique and creative robots
Without robots clashing against each other, teams could build outside of traditional frame perimeter restrictions. Back in 2010, there were two robot designs: 469 and a box. There were very few teams that could have creative designs. This year, however, every team could be a 469. There were teams without drive trains, with unique drive trains, and even dual robots. Teams could focus more on solving the challenge than surviving it.

Teams were competing against themselves, rather than each other.
Teams had to constantly evolve to compete. The high score from last week would be the average for the next. Teams would compete against each other at events, but learn from each other when they're not. Some saw others use a tethered ramp, then proceeded to double their average at their next event.

Scoring was more visible.
In previous years, scoring was in real-time. Soccer balls and Basket balls were automatically counted as they were scored. Frisbees were stored in the goal; the final score being announced after they counted everything. With Recycle Rush, totes stayed (hopefully) where they were scored. People looking at a field could easily see which alliance was scoring more. This is a small nitpick, but looking at a row of perfect stacks your team put up is pretty cool.

I would like to now address the cans in the room.

Recycle Rush was an experiment of trying to have a "competition" without defense. Or that's what it looks like. Recycle Rush had a single element of defense: can wars. If you look at Einstein, the alliances that won were the ones that won the can wars. Once an alliance lost the can war, they lost. They couldn't score anywhere close to the can race winners. This led to matches being determined in the first few seconds. Those matches were still exciting to watch, but you knew who would win.

Recycle Rush was an experiment. I personally enjoyed watching this game. I loved seeing all the creative and unique ways of solving the challenge. Teams could learn from each other and try new things, preparing them for years to come. I would love to see future games without defense. However, if we see another defenseless game, I want it to be free of defense. No can races, no stray litter, just teams scoring their best.

So what do you think, would you like to see a split field in future years, or go back to more outplays and upsets?

Re: Do we want another game without defense?
 

no step please. not again.

Re: Do we want another game without defense?
 

On contrary to "Teams can't upset or make comebacks," at the two regionals I went to, the winning alliances were the #6 and #7. Prior to this year I had never been to one where an alliance outside the top 3 won.

I loved Recycle Rush, and I feel the awesomely creative robot designs are more fun to watch than a game with defence. What other game would have harpoons and multiple robots?

If there's an issue I have with this game, it's the average points ranking system, not the lack of defense.

But by the poll it seems I'm in the minority on this one.

Re: Do we want another game without defense?
 

I can't say yes/no, but I would say not back to back. There is a place for another later though.

Re: Do we want another game without defense?
 

I had no major issues with this game, except that it encouraged me to root for others to fail so that my alliance could move on (which happened a lot time at worlds: the Curie finalist alliance of 3663 1574 2046 and 5586 got there because other teams messed up big time and we only had minor screw ups. that and canburglaring). however, I really liked 2014, where it was easy for a team with few resources to do well by getting really good at defense. In all, I dont really want another year of no defense next year, but I dont think it would be harmful for this to happen every once in a while

Re: Do we want another game without defense?
 

No defense is fine as long as there's more interactions. You can't tell me an FRC sized "Clean Sweep" wouldn't be fun.

Re: Do we want another game without defense?
 

I personally dislike not having defense very much, but if FIRST is going to do a game with no defense again, they need to have only 2 robots on each side of the field. However, this would mean that everyone would get fewer matches at each event they attend. So...defense, please!

Re: Do we want another game without defense?
 

That bothered me rooting for others to fail.

Re: Do we want another game without defense?
 

How? How can it possibly be exciting if the ending is already ruined for you? If someone spoils your favorite TV show, you're not going to extract as much enjoyment out of the dramatic ending that you would otherwise.

I think a good way to judge the excitement of a game is to watch Einstein and watch the crowd and the people there. This year, the crowd was completely dead, as far as I could see/hear. This was a far cry from any previous year, where sometimes it felt like a minor earthquake in the arena during the finals.

This was due, in my opinion, to exactly what you stated. The crowd knew the match would be decided in the first second of auto, and barring major screwup, they were guaranteed a win. It felt to me like, in football, if the team that loses the cointoss has all their players kneecapped and sent back onto the field with one less guy.

Also,

I do not agree with the premise behind your statement. The "favorite" is not always about seed. At regionals, where scouting quality is lower, the alliance that will obviously win may not be the #1 seed. Often the 1 seed just won schedule roulette and picks a bad first pick. You could take one look at the alliances and say "Whelp the #? seed is stacked, it's all over" and be right most of the time.

At the district championship level of competition, the #1 seed holds much higher value because the scouting is far higher quality and the top team might not just be the schedule roulette winner. The 1 seed would usually pick the right teams and be the best alliance, therefore getting a near guaranteed blue banner. In four of the five District championships, the #1 seed took home the trophy. The exception was PNW, in which the #1 seed lost in the finals.

I promised in January to hold my judgement until I saw this game played. What I saw was incredibly creative and awesome machines playing an atrocious and boring game.

On to 2016.

Re: Do we want another game without defense?
 

+1

The difference is that in previous years, upsets could occur because of smart gameplay and well-placed defense. This year, upsets happened when the favorite to win accidentally toppled a stack over or broke entirely.

These upsets were often because the favorite alliance had one bad match in quarters or semis that was impossible to make up, due to advancement by average score, not because the lower seeded alliance figured out a smart way to stop the opponents from scoring or other cool strategy. Strategy at the highest level of play was "Win autonomous can battles, make stacks on your own."

Re: Do we want another game without defense?
 

This was a very fun game to play in vex and I'm certain it would a great one to do in FRC. Autonomous ranged anywhere from basic drive forward, to a complex series of movements going about the field collecting and then scoring pieces in the auto period. Also in this game defense is an option. Should something like this come to frc, at least 1 team (most certainly more) would make a robot that could put up large wall to defend their side.

Re: Do we want another game without defense?
 

You nailed it. Robots could be big, and have complex mechanisms, making them unique, and game changers without needing to worry about it being knocked off by a defensive robot from the opposing alliance.

However, defense is what makes the game fun from the point of the crowd in my mind. Its not just about scoring, its also about preventing the other team to score.

Re: Do we want another game without defense?
 

It saddens me that the dominant form of play was so segregated. I still feel, even after Einstein should have shown me better, that there was room in Recycle Rush for collaborative alliances that build stacks in an interesting way: like 1986/233/4575 in Queen City, 1089/365/423 @ MAR Champs, or 1325/3683 here: https://youtu.be/Dd-SQmZg8tQ?t=71

Looking back at the game (heck, even looking at the game in January), I see potential for all these collaborative roles; bin managers, cappers, stack movers, immobile stackers - but none of it was competitive enough.

It seems like a real shame. However, I can't find a strong relation to the lack of defense. Was it that teams, when they don't have to think about making a machine quite so robust, try to do more?

Re: Do we want another game without defense?
 

I personally liked the approach to Aim High: limit only 2 robots to defense for a portion of the match. Defense is good, but too much of turns the game into a robot sumo. I think there's a middle ground which is superior to unlimited defense and no defense.

Re: Do we want another game without defense?
 

The biggest problem with the game for me was the fact that playoffs still used the average system. One bad game in quarters when you are still trying to find the best strategy with your alliance. I understand the average scores for the rankings, but i would rather see the playoffs going back to the old elimination format.