Re: Game design /w surface leveling the competition?
 

I agree that empty cells are a risk because you are vulnerable to pinning but from what I saw in OKC it's hard to beat a quick thirty points. A lot of teams here were wide eyed amateurs who couldn't block empty cell delivery as well as some of the lower number teams, so I'm sure we'll have to mix things up a bit when we get to Atlanta.

Re: Game design /w surface leveling the competition?
 

At the Peachtree (GA) Regional, using the serpentine selection with this year's game seemed to give an advantage to the lower seeded alliances.

With the exception of Alliance 3 vs. Alliance 6 in the Quarter Finals, every elimination was an "upset" (the lower seeded alliance defeated the higher seeded alliance).

One possible explanation is that the higher seeded alliances would have two really good robots, and one that wasn't so good that got scored on a lot, and cost their alliance the win. Unlike previous games such as Overdrive (2008) where two good robots could easily outscore three below-average robots, in this game one bad robot will get scored on a lot and drag down the alliance.

This year, an alliance is only as good as their weakest team.

Re: Game design /w surface leveling the competition?
 

What has been neglected so far in this discussion is the impact that defense has played on the game. From what we've seen so far, many, although not all, of the offensive powerhouses are veteran teams with much experience. However, in the elimination rounds, there seems to be a good market for defensive tanks to pin and neutralize the opposing scorers. That means that any team with a hefty chassis, good drivers, and maybe a solid human player is a viable third alliance partner. Many rookie teams have seized that opportunity to become an integral part of a winning alliance, even if their human player is the one scoring instead of their robot.

So far, there's no doubt that the veteran teams are seeding higher, scoring more, and playing better during the qualifying matches. I do think though that the strategy change we've seen in the elimination matches (defense starts to matter) has left the door wide open to many different teams to be successful, including newcomers.

Re: Game design /w surface leveling the competition?
 

I know what happened with our alliance at Peachtree which was the #1 seeded alliance, was one of our robots broke in 3 out of the 4.5 quarterfinals matches. Our alliance was set up with one purely defensive bot that couldn't score, 1 scoring robot that ran empty cells, and 1 very high scoring robot. When the second scoring bot went down and couldn't move we couldn't win. Even with only 1 scoring robot, we managed to tie one match and only lose by 4 points in another match. The one match we were all functioning, we one by a very large margin, invoking the wonderful G14 penalty.

I guess the moral of the story is that no matter how good an alliance is or how good of a robot you have, there is still a great deal of luck involved in this competition.

From what I have seen the field really hasnt changed much. Teams that traditionally do well have continued to do well. The only big difference has been the influence of the human player. Now, teams with a so so robot can end up seeding very highly due strictly to an amazing human player.

Re: Game design /w surface leveling the competition?
 

A rookie team [s]won[/s] was a finalist in the Wisconsin Regional.

I think that's pretty level.

Re: Game design /w surface leveling the competition?
 

??

Re: Game design /w surface leveling the competition?
 

Well According to blue alliance that is not true, anyway,

Is this years game leveling the competition? I don't really think so, its just showing how teams response to different engineering challenges. Some teams are taking on complex drive trains and ball delivery systems while other teams are using KISS methods. Both work in this game since the game object is pretty simple, and I think that is what the GDC was looking for this year. Also, with the new controller and such, they probably wanted a game that was easier for new teams and also a game where it was harder to break things (even though we still are).

Also completely agree, 3v1 is basically a death sentence this year.

Re: Game design /w surface leveling the competition?
 

A (very good) rookie team, 2970, was a finalist, but 2039, 1625 and 2194 are not rookies.

Even if a rookie team did win, I don't think that is 'proof' that this year's game leveled the playing field. Rookie teams win regionals every year. What would be intersting to see if someone computed the ages of regional winners this year and compared it to past years. That may be messy, though, as there may be an unequal ratios of rookie teams over the years.

Re: Game design /w surface leveling the competition?
 

.02

In the world of science and technology, where can it be found that fields have to be leveled in order to be developed, researched, implemented, discovered, enhanced, shared, understood, or tackled?

This is a game challenge and yes, the GDC presented the 2009 game with new elements including the new playing surface for the robots. Why does that or any part of the game have be looked at through the very narrow lens of leveling the field? Development, research, implementation, and continued discoveries have opportunities presented to each team and each region to be shared for a deeper understanding of the game, the constraints, and strategies - strengthening the field for everyone, not leveling it.

Re: Game design /w surface leveling the competition?
 

As usual, Jane is pretty well on the mark.

I don't think any game change is ever going to tip the balance away from traditional powerhouse teams. Teams are traditionally good for the same reason that any organization is traditionally good: exceptional human resources (i.e. talent) and good organization of those resources. Good teams know how to tackle a challenge, organize their efforts, and implement their solutions. Any changes to the game itself doesn't change this dynamic.

Re: Game design /w surface leveling the competition?
 

There are many rookie teams that could be called RINO's: Rookies In Number Only. Tons of rookie teams receive lots of mentoring from professionals and from other succesful teams. Ontario is awash in teams started or aided by 1114 (1503, 1680, 2056) that had very strong rookie years and remain strong as long as they last. Other rookie teams just 'get it' without mentoring, or come up with a strong design by sheer chance.

Mathematically, I think a truly level game would be one where a team's performance this year could not be predicted at all based on their past levels of funding and performance. I don't think that is the case, as we've seen historically strong teams continue to do well. There have been upsets, like 25/103 not winning NJ, or 1114 losing their first regional in a long time, but those teams still performed much better than the average team.

I guess that last paragraph brings up another question: how could you mathematically evaluate a "level" game versus a "stacked" game?. I would contend that Lunacy is somewhat more level than Rack N Roll, but how could I show that?

Re: Game design /w surface leveling the competition?
 

Oh, by "winner" I meant finalist. </lookinglikeanidiot>

Generally there were only a handful of teams I noticed that I could see as "rookie" (and it would be foolish to name them), and I noticed some robots from veteran years having trouble with the new playing surface. I think interesting little mixups like these make people think outside the box a lot more; then again since this is my first year participating in FRC perhaps I'm not the one to judge.

Re: Game design /w surface leveling the competition?
 

It does seem that this year the rules have boxed in creativity this year, and I think the speciality flooring has a little to do with that also.

Re: Game design /w surface leveling the competition?
 

I don't see this year as terribly different than any other year.
We will see special defensive robots that excel in regionals...We will see veteran teams with good resources (and an additional 15 lbs of allowable carryins) continue to adapt and alter their robots as the season goes on.

I think we will also see that in Atlanta... Teams will be looking for 3 good machines that can all score...

Defense is a game that can be played by most well-driven machines if they have a good drive train and a good driver. Few robots are designed from scratch to be a defensive machine... during the season they just grow to be one. There may be exceptions to this of course, but I would like to hear from a team that designed their robot to be a "pinner" straight from the first weeks of build.

Atlanta is a different ball game. In divisional play, alliances are picking from many GOOD well rounded robots...so why not pick three scoring robots...???

I do think that it behooves many teams to try playing defense...see what you can do.... try during practice...

It may be necessary during your regional elimination or at Atlanta.

All in all, I don't see this game as being the great "leveling".
Rookies still struggle, We need to continue to provide support for all of them both pre-season, during build, and during competition.

Teams with few resources and few mentors also struggle. Likewise we all need to band together to do what we can to buoy them up... helping in whatever ways we can...

Teams that are well-funded and well-mentored and that are willing to work hard are going to do better. This is the way of FIRST.

But isn't that what life is about... and I don't mean being well-funded...
Many teams that have these funding resources work HARD the whole year to provide this for their team... this effort should be rewarded.

Anne Sullivan once said:

People seldom see the halting and painful steps by which the most insignificant success is achieved...

I firmly believe that EVERY TEAM can point to its successes this year.
On the field, OFF the field, in the classroom, in the workplace.
Everyone comes out of FIRST with success...

I am constantly astounded at what teams and students are capable of doing.
It is why I spend so much of my time in this endeavor.