Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

Personally I think the field/standardized wheels did less for leveling the field as the amount of Human Player participation. There is a high concentration of good machines in our area. That being said, this is one of the first years in a long time that a good human player could outscore a good robot.

When looking at a leveling of the field, I would say look more around the middle than in the top. The variation and deviation in OPR analysis shows that this year was more of a toss up match to match. There were a few standouts at the top, but the middle band had a tighter distribution of averages with a higher standard deviation than in the past.

Also, this year was a huge penalty for any duds. If you had a dud on your team, a decent human player would load up 16+ points in Auto, and usually get 20+ before the dud got moved. had we played this game in the pre-kitbot days, it would have been a whole different ball game.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

Dave and I have a fun history of disagreements, but I fully agree with what he said here. Games are designed to be fun, challenging, and/or match any new technologies or ideas the GDC want to incorporate. I think this perception is there because the games have matured in design and scope as the GDC has had years of practice, past games to reference, and a larger active community.

I see the KoP closing the gap more than the game ever has.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

Based on my observations this year and past, I have to agree with Dave. I see no evidence that leveling the playing field has ever been a goal of any game design. As supporting evidence of that observation, I offer Cory's concept that this year did not level the playing field.

What makes successful teams successful is not the resources they have at their disposal, it is the decisions that they make on how to apply those resources.

What I saw coming from the unique playing surface this year was a shift in how these successful teams approached their decision making about propulsion systems. The propulsion system changed from a very mechanical challenge to one that took a bit more thinking and involvement from other areas of the team. It became much more than simply transmissions and wheels. Instead of spending time on custom transmissions and wheels, effort on traction systems and alternative propulsion such as fans was rewarded with on field success.

This is the first year in my 14 in FIRST that I have seen programmers so excited about the design of the drive system. To me, that is the achievement of this game. It did not level any playing field but it did challenge what was considered to be the norm for design and construction of propulsion systems.

Personally, I hope to see more twists in future games that challenge us to look differently at design.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

How does such a claim that the game was made to "level the playing field" come about, if apparently it was never true in the first place? I mean I could have sworn I've heard it a dozen times, or talked with several teams about it. I don't like rumors anymore :confused:

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

I don't think anyone in this thread implied that the intent of game design this year was to level the playing field. People are merely discussing that a leveling of the playing field was not an effect of the unique challenge this year.

After kickoff there was quite a bit of speculation on CD that the drastic change in surface would have a leveling effect. I think the purpose of Cory's post was to show his observation that this did not occur.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

This is a thread that discussed some of this that was written in 2006. When you have time, read it. You will see that there are lots of opinions expressed, that emotions ran high, and that there was no resolution. The discussion was interesting and added insight and perspective but it did come at a price.

Many people involved that enjoy chitchat and idle speculation create this attitude and it becomes rumor. They don't take the time to check the facts or the mission of FIRST. As Dave said, it becomes urban myth but that is all that it is, urban myth. At one time there was a myth that the world was flat and if you traveled any distance, you would fall off the edge. We laugh at that now, but there were entire societies and cultures that believed it very strongly and would not put forth the resources to explore and find out for themselves. They chose to remain ignorant and closed to opportunity and discovery.

If the GDC and FIRST were to ever make an official statement (which they won't) that the decision had been made to level the playing fields for all teams involved in FRC, I would personally post that in my signature in ChiefDelphi, stating that they had become a closed committee and organization, no longer interested in discovery, opportunity, and obtaining knowledge. Then I would have no reason for being involved in FRC or FIRST in general. It's that simple. And, the sad part of that would be that Ms. Keller's quotation would be removed and her wisdom would no longer be considered valid.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

Yeah, I wasn't referring to the GDC wanting to level the playing field. My comments were based on the fact that I've seen many, many posts (and heard many people) claiming that the playing field has been leveled by the FRP/wheels/other game design elements this year.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

Dave, correct me if I am wrong but I distinctly recall mention of the phrase, "level the playing field" during the talks on the day of kickoff. I can't find video nor do I have the ability to search for it right now.

That being said, one of my concerns this year was the attempt to level the playing field. I don't believe that this should be a goal at any point. Perhaps raising the general level of competition, but NEVER level it. I do not believe that Lunacy leveled the field at all, and frankly I am glad for this. You know, I am proud to say that I got my butt handed to me by 217, 68, and 67 (never met 247 on the field) It gives me something to shoot for next year. Good Job powerhouse teams, don't let the people whining about losing bring you down, NEVER play at anything but your best effort.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

You could, however, credibly make the argument that, "A lot of experienced teams have sophisticated high-powered drive trains that have been refined over years of experience. The inclusion of a low-friction playing surface and standardized wheels may have had the effect of lowering the advantage of these drive trains. Did these factors this year decrease the competitive advantage that experienced teams with these drive trains have had in the past?" This permits discussion of the tactical and engineering aspects without trying to divine the processes and intentions of the devious GDC hivemind.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

I agree Andrew. I am fairly certain that Woodie used that phrase when hinting towards something that would change the game. I started watching the kickoff video, but it will not let you scroll through it to find a clip.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

Dave, if the GDC ever intentionally decides to level the playing field or bridge the gap, then you better not introduce yourselves at Kickoff.

If the playing field is level, and the teams are (largely) the "same", then who on earth (or Mars) are we going to look up to, imitate, emulate, and try to be? What will there be to make us think "That's really cool!"?

Like I said earlier, the best way to "level the field" is to run a game like the ones before 2005--multiple ways to score, worth varying amounts of points. In this case, "leveling the field" will not be the object. It will be a byproduct. And it will be on a voluntary basis. And we'll still have teams that we look up to and think "That's really cool! Why didn't I think of that?"

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

I recall from Atlanta 2008 a common opinion from many attendees (and CD posters) that the control system change was going to level the playing field as every team would be a rookie around the control system. That could probably initiate an additional thread on its own as to whether that actually had any effect.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

Nope, definitely didn't level the playing field (I don't really need to post the same reasons others have already beat to death), and I don't think it would ever be possible to level the level the playing field without destroying FIRST.

Teams that work hard to get good sponsors, good facilities, good mentors, and good resources (yup "those" "Nasa" and "GM" teams don't just get it handed to them) and then go on and bust their arses during the season will always be better on average.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

I think this is the real cause for a lot of the thinking that this game "levelled the playing field." This game was dependent on the 3rd robot more than any game since 2006. And in 2006, the 3rd robot's role was typically defensive, and you could easily get a solid 3rd bot with the 24th selection.
Keep in mind the rookie on Einstein was the 3rd member of their alliance, they weren't there because they alone dominated Archimedes. It was an alliance effort.

This game emphasized the alliance rather than the individual. But the powerhouses were still capable of building the best bots. That's not surprising.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

2753 may have been the 3rd bot, but they could have easily been in the top 8 (I think it's been beat to death that the top 8 hardly ever truly represents the true top 8 robots.). They were by far one of the best scorers on Archimedes. The fact that 2753 was still around midway into the second round is absurd.