Originally Posted by Ty Tremblay (Post 1487108)

I'll admit it. Recycle Rush is not an exciting game to watch. It was a fun puzzle to try and solve, but not a fun game to play. There just aren't that many exciting moments. The one exciting moment Recycle Rush does have, however, is the can battle. And removing can battles turns an already boring game into a snooze fest.

Now before you hit the reply button and say that can battles ruined the game, I agree with you. But as we've seen before, games with no interaction with the opponents (or no opponents, a la 2001) are boring. They simply dissolve into a race against the clock. There's no change in strategy between matches unless an alliance member breaks, no affecting the other alliance, no off-field chess matches like 2014 Einstein. It's just robots doing a task until time runs out.

Why take the only interaction between alliances out of the game? The answer is balance. Canburglars are overpowered. If you have a the fastest one, you have a huge advantage over your opponent. Losing all 4 cans in auto is a devastating blow for your alliance, making it almost impossible to win the match. It's unfortunate that FIRST didn't manage to balance canburglars, but that doesn't mean they should be eliminated from the game.

There are two ways to help bring balance to a game with an overpowered element. You can remove (ban) the element or you can reduce its effectiveness (nerf it). As I said earlier, removing canburglars from takes an already boring game and turns it into a set of drills. Why not nerf canburglars instead?

IRI and Chezy Champs have already taken steps toward nerfing can battles (if you ignore the fact that they're also explicitly banned), by adding 2 and 3 cans to each side of the field, respectively. They've reduced the advantage an alliance can gain by winning all 4 cans in auto, nerfing the can battle. If an alliance loses all 4 cans in auto at IRI, they still have 5 cans to work with. If an alliance loses all 4 cans in auto at Chezy Champs, they still have 6 cans to work with. Remember, this is a game where the highest score in the world was achieved with 6 cans.

Don't ban can battles from your offseason, nerf them. Bring them to a point where winning the battle is an advantage, not a necessity.

Braces for impact.

Originally Posted by DareDad (Post 1487198)

It may put an extra strain on the refs, but what I would suggest is that no team may remove a container from the step unless all containers on that side are already scored on top of stacks and only one container may be removed from the step at a time.

That removes the can battle deciding the match in the first 2 seconds.

It benefits fast stacking teams or teams that strategically place containers on short stacks.

Sadly, it could be bad news for Wave (probably the best robot of the year) since their partners wouldn't be able to grab from the step until they'd capped their third stack.

But overall I think that's a significantly better solution than the "let's throw more containers on the field" plan.

Originally Posted by DareDad (Post 1487198)

It may put an extra strain on the refs, but what I would suggest is that no team may remove a container from the step unless all containers on that side are already scored on top of stacks and only one container may be removed from the step at a time.

That removes the can battle deciding the match in the first 2 seconds.

It benefits fast stacking teams or teams that strategically place containers on short stacks.

Sadly, it could be bad news for Wave (probably the best robot of the year) since their partners wouldn't be able to grab from the step until they'd capped their third stack.

But overall I think that's a significantly better solution than the "let's throw more containers on the field" plan.

Originally Posted by Kevin Leonard (Post 1487200)

If this were implemented at the beginning of the season, tons of teams would have completely different robots.
It makes traditional-style can grabbers near-useless, makes capping far more valuable, and makes for some other interesting play, like (lets make 3 stacks of 1 so we can get the cans, then pick those up and turn them into stacks of 6).

I don't think its a useful rule change for an off-season, especially not a high end one.

Originally Posted by logank013 (Post 1487113)

Has a can launching into the stands ever been a concern? (This is a sincere question. I can't be at every event so I'm just curious.

Originally Posted by Kevin Leonard (Post 1487200)

If this were implemented at the beginning of the season, tons of teams would have completely different robots.
It makes traditional-style can grabbers near-useless, makes capping far more valuable, and makes for some other interesting play, like (lets make 3 stacks of 1 so we can get the cans, then pick those up and turn them into stacks of 6).

I don't think its a useful rule change for an off-season, especially not a high end one.

Originally Posted by DareDad (Post 1487404)

Not useful?

As opposed to banning noodles? That removes about the only defensive capacity teams have.

Or perhaps you mean as opposed to just throwing so many cans on the field that can grabbers are pointless. That gives a huge advantage to a couple of machines and removes that competitive interaction over the cans on the step.

The 2 second can war is a chokehold so to address the chokehold you address the chokehold. By forcing teams to meet criteria before a can may be removed from the step, it removes the chokehold without removing the need for competition over the step cans to win a match.

Originally Posted by dodar (Post 1487201)

Totally agree. If this were the rules from the very beginning, we would have seen a lot more 1986-esque robots.

Originally Posted by dodar (Post 1487405)

Not allowing noodles to be thrown vs changing the stacking mechanics is totally different; and one doesnt change a team's robot design/strategy.

Originally Posted by Qbot2640 (Post 1487408)

Not true (albeit rare) 3971's innovative litter-grabber was responsible for their high rank at NC...and their subsequent ability to captain the finalist alliance (of which I commend their partner choices)...and their wild-card invitation to Championship

...

If memory serves, 3971 put up 39 points in one match, and those two finals matches were decided by three and seven points respectively.

Originally Posted by AllenGregoryIV (Post 1487125)

We are compromising at TRI.

The furthest left RC is off limits for each alliance. This means the two center cans are still up for grabs by both sides. The thought process being that most alliances at an average to weak off-season won't put up more then 4 capped stacks so protecting a single RC is enough and it allows the robots that are built to grab the center cans (610, 2587, etc) to continue to do that. We aren't adding RCs to the field.

Originally Posted by IronicDeadBird (Post 1487711)

Wow that is a really interesting compromise, shifts the game balance. Might have to steal this as an example of how subtle shifts in game rules can change a lot.

Originally Posted by Wayne TenBrink (Post 1487682)

If it were up to a vote, I would vote against banning the can battle. (I'm on the planning committee for WMRI, so I get a real vote there.)

Teams build the best machines they can to play the game they are dealt at kickoff. In a well designed game, it takes a well rounded variety of bots to form a winning alliance. By fundamentally changing a hardware-specific aspect of the game, you cut the legs out from under teams that built for that task. I understand that losing the can battle puts you in a big hole in short order, but if you aren't competitive then perhaps you built the wrong robot or picked the wrong alliance partners. This game isn't perfect, but it is what it is.

There are ways to address the valid safety concerns that don't involve throwing out the baby with the bath water. This isn't the first game where stored energy devices are a concern. FIRST does a good job promoting many aspects of safety. However, there is a lot of room for improvement regarding stored energy.