Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

Throughout the season I have seen numerous comments that the change to FRP and standardized wheels has leveled the playing field between the veteran teams who have advanced drivetrain designs and new/low resource teams who do not.

I submit that this is not true.

For starters:

The gap is not all that big in the first place. Since 2005 and the advent of the then IFI kitbot (Now AndyMark), the gap was narrowed dramatically. For those who were not around prior to 2005, the kitbot was a complete joke. It was nearly useless. This meant teams all but had to make a custom base/drive train. Many teams failed. I'd estimate that perhaps 20% or more of the teams could not drive reliably. Post 2005, everyone can have a reliable, robust base driving in under a week (and normally 2-3 days). Immobile robots are far less common now.

The introduction of AndyMark products in 2005 narrowed the gap even more. You wanted a shifting transmission prior to 2005? Well you had two options. Option one-use the drill motor transmissions that came in the kit and shift them with a servo. These were not shift on the fly. Option two-design, build, and test your own custom shifting transmission. Both of these options were labor intensive and were not trivial. Many teams who tried option number one couldn't do it reliably. Option number two was a LOT of work.

Along comes AndyMark in 2005. Suddenly anyone with $700 to spend can buy reliable two speed shift on the fly gearboxes for their robot. Now two speed robots are the norm, not the exception. Teams who normally made custom shifting transmissions can now use some COTS components to lessen the labor involved, or purchase the entire assembly to focus on other components of the robot.

These two events narrowed the gap between the haves and the have nots to a very small amount. The only physical differences between the very best 6WD drivetrains and a 6WD Super Shifter drive are weight and ease of maintenance.

Now along comes 2009. Everyone is thrown for a loop and forced to use standardized wheels and drive on FRP. What does this mean in terms of drivetrains? It's claimed that it will cause veteran teams to redesign and start from scratch.

I don't believe this is the case. If anything it made it easier for veterans. Shifting no longer became a priority. Drivetrains became simpler. We spent very little time redesigning our drivetrain and I think most veteran teams would say the same. Essentially all we did was remove one stage of gearing from our transmission and design/fabricate hubs to adapt the KOP wheels to a live axle system. We saved substantial amounts of time by not fabricating our own wheels and additional gearbox components.

With that time saved we were able to focus on a ball manipulation system (which gave veteran teams from 2006 an appreciable advantage. Our experience in 2006 was invaluable this year) and controls.

This is where the change gives the "haves" a huge advantage. Those teams with practice fields, practice robots, and more resources were able to do full scale testing on FRP and spend a lot of time developing traction control algorithms, as well as get their drive team tons of practice on the new surface. If anything this made the gap larger, as low budget teams cannot afford $1400 of FRP for a practice field or to construct a second robot.

In the end, I think the results on the field support this case. Look at the familiar faces on Einstein. Look at the elite teams. For the most part, they're the same as they always are. Sure there's some newcomers, but none are amongst the elite because of these changes. If anything the gap between the best robots and the worst robots was significantly larger this year than in past years. Prior to this year a bad alliance partner meant non contribution. This year it actively counts against you.

I think the game did narrow the gap in one sense only. This was the first year in which 3 average robots could beat 1, or even 2 great robots who had mediocre partners. But when it comes down to it, the best teams usually end up winning regardless.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

I'm with you, Cory. Sure, some teams came out and did well that normally don't. Happens every year, though.

With the 12 teams on Einstein, one was a rookie. You might argue that that means the field was leveled. No, it doesn't. Said rookie was an FTC veteran who knew the process and had mentor teams from all over their area during their transition. Other rookies with similar situations also did well. (Plus the standard disclaimer that it takes a few years to build up veteran status...)

Narrow the gap/level the playing field? No. If you want to do that, tell us "fit it in the box, you can't use x, y, and z, and oh, don't forget that there are three types of floor and 2 scoring objects to deal with, now get the robot out the door in 6 weeks". The more options you have, the more challenge you have--and a low-resource team can determine what they can and can't do and do what they can just as fast and as well as a veteran who can do more, but has a harder time deciding what to do because they have the extra freedom.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

I don't think you can entirely discount the greater presence and competitiveness of rookie teams this year. Perhaps I'm misrememebring, but I've heard that Team 2970 had very little in the way of experience prior to build season, and a falling-out happened with their mentor team. Despite all of this they managed to build an extremely competitive robot this year that got 2nd and 1st at two regionals and led a Newton team to the semis.

While it's my understanding that 2741, 2826, and 2775 (?) had help (as all rookie teams ought to), they were still extremely competitive robots that would not seem a bit out of place if you dropped the first digit from their team numbers.

I mean, _something_ was different than in 2008. I'm not sure what exactly, be it the wheels or not having a gigantic game piece, but it's my understanding that rookies at least did a little better.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

Every year there's always a handful of rookie teams who's performance on the field is far above their team's experience level. I don't have any data to back this up, but it doesn't feel like there's significantly more or less of these high achievers this year than any previous year in recent memory.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

I agree totally. There are a handful of really impressive rookies every year; I actually expected there to see more of them this season.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

Well here's a question that my team has been wondering. What about this year's game made it so that one team could not pull the alliance, and that alliance members could pull you down?

Was it because of the FRP, meaning that it was easier to defend against one powerhouse robot (pin in the corner for the whole match)?

Or was it because the scoring locations were attached to the robots, meaning that teams that could not drive as well would be easy targets?

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

The powerhouse teams were able to evade those with simple drivetrains, meaning they were rarely pinned (in my experience of driving at two regionals this year)

[edit]As a driver, this has definitely been my most frustrating year because of this imbalance.(driven since '07)[/edit]

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

I don't believe that to be the case. What constitutes a simple drivetrain? Nearly everyone had 4 or 6 wheel drive or added a fan. The majority of those who didn't had swerve. I don't think there's any evidence to support the fact that more elite teams than not used swerve or fans.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

I mainly meant traction control.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

Just because a robot doesn't have traction control doesn't mean that it can't pin anybody on the field. A good driver proved to be a pretty effective traction control scheme this year.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

One robot couldn't pull an entire alliance because every robot out on the field was a liability. You won as an alliance or you lost as an alliance. It was as simple as that.

As for traction control playing a significant role in the game: simply not true. Watch 816 and learn what Jared and I are talking about.

Richard: a team with a simple drive train could outmaneuver the veterans with "sophisticated" drivetrains, it was a matter of drive skill and throwing your weight around. 2753 could hunt almost anyone down on the field because of their driver skill and practice. They had a 12 wd set up. Does that constitute simple or sophisticated for you?

All those rookies you listed had gifted mentors on their teams and other mentor teams helping them. Their design processes were solidified before build season and this structure lead them to success. I forget who said it, but its a quote I hold dear:

"Build a good team, and the robots will follow"

Truly a simple concept that these rookie teams mastered early in their careers.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

Great post Cory, I couldn't agree with you more. This years games saved us valuable time as far as the drive trains, we didnt have to fabricate nearly as many parts and had two more cims to work with. All we did was remove a motor on each side and set it in high gear.

-This game would have been harder for us to design if it were played on carpet because all of our cims would have gone to our DT. Our design would not have been nearly as complex as what we came up with.

-No matter how many rules FIRST puts out there the playing field will never be "level" because there will always be the teams who are willing to put in more hours, money, pre season prototyping.... In my eyes, teams like 67, 217, 254, 330... will always be good no matter what the game is.

-Keaton

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

I just want to add for '09, that drivetrains didnt make the difference, but man, the orientation sure did.
Wide bots were much easier to drive (turn and maneuver) than the long ones.
What made it worst for teams like us, is not being able to harvest from the ground, not with respect to loading up and scoring more, BUT with respect to being able to "hug" a trailer while scoring when your opponent is trying to get away.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

Cory, I agree with you too.

I don't honestly think trying to even the playing field is worth trying to do. The dominant veteran teams willl always be good. There are certain things veteran teams always do. For example,
A veteran team is much less likely to come into a match with a broken robot because they will build it robustly. (this will not change no matter what the game).
Veteran teams will finish early and get a lot of crucial practice time. (again this is something that will not change year to year).
Veteran teams will also generally pick a better design to play the game in general due to experience in designing and likely better prototyping.(However even the playing field is, certain design are always better than others and teams like 1114, 217, 111, 254, 67, 148, 330 etc are more likely to pick these designs.)
One things I've noiced is that veteran teams have many small ways to save weight. In 2007, I saw a rookie and a veteran weigh in, they both weighed just under 110, their claws were the same and so were their drivetrain, but the veteran had weight for a mainipulator and the rookie didn't.(this is another thing that will never change is that veterans will be more adept at finding ways to make weight for alll the subsystems they want and not compromise performance in any specific areas.

These are just some realities, the teams that are dominant will always be dominant no matter what.

Adding low friction didn't really help becuase many inexperienced teams were slipping around while experianced teams used very effective traction controls. (I'm not saying rookie teams aren't capable, they just aren't all as likely to make a good design as a most veterans are).

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

I am going to challenge one of the basic premises of this thread. It has been stated already in this thread (and several others) that one of the purposes for the changes incorporated into the 2009 game is to "level the playing field to close the have/have-not gap" for the teams.

Says who?

Can anyone show me where this assertion has been stated by any credible source?

Like so many other things, the "need to level the playing field" argument is urban myth. And like most urban myths, it is simply not true. While there are many, many factors that are considered during the design of a FRC game (some of which are obvious to teams, but many of which are not), I can state categorically that particular issue was never a consideration.

And if "leveling the playing field to close the gap" was not one of the intended effects of the game, then I am not sure why we are debating whether that gap was successfully narrowed or not.

-dave



.

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.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

Yup, I believe several people have said their scouting data showed them to be #2 in scoring on Archimedes.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

Maybe 2009 was the year of upsets? Such as 71 and 1114 losing in the quarterfinals, or 968 getting pinned and losing in the Semi's. I realize every year has upsets, but examples like these are pretty shocking to me.

More so than previous years, I think veteran teams' advantage came not from their robot but from their strategy. 217 this year stands out to me in this regard. It is fair to say that Lunacy was won by the dumpers, but 217, a turreted shooter, strategized the heck out of every match and had one of the most successful seasons in FIRST history. So maybe, as far as robot design is concerned, the playing field was leveled, but thats not all it takes to win. Powerhouse teams recognized better than most that strategy (and driver training) was incredibly important, and were able to develop superior game plans to get the W.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

I think the larger indirect issue is that teams dont play enough matches to effectively evaluate and scout other teams in their division uniformly, consistently, and thoroughly. **No pun intended about the current 7 matches played as I understand about the logitics, cost, time constraints, etc.**
Its not like every team comes on CD or the FIRST forums frequently either to hear and observe other teams in other areas.
As one of the scouters for our team, its tough to evaluate 86 teams and sometimes all you have besides what you know/heard/seen on telecasts, is who you played with or against all weekend.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

At the same time, with all the practice and stategizing, these teams have a big target on their back and strategies from opposing alliances will certainly be focused on them somehow.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

1114's an interesting example. They were upset in the quarters of Midwest by some pretty great defensive teams, and in the semis of Archimedes by a high scoring alliance. Their robot certainly wasn't bad by any means. It seems that this is a game where any alliance could potentially be beaten, any strategy has a counter basically. And the teams that did the most well were the ones that could best form an alliance that covered weaknesses and had diverse styles of scoring and play. I haven't watched (m)any of 1114's matches, but they're proof that one great machine and team can't win matches alone, and no matter how great an alliance is you can be outplayed.

This is drifting off topic, but it seems the best strategies (and robots) are the ones that are hardest to work around. Robots with extremely fast shooters (ThunderChickens) or power dumpers that could get dozens of balls in seconds punish mistakes; robots with high capacity but slower shooters and dumpers won't be able to capitalize on a bad move by the opponent's as easily; I think this was the downfall for many shooter oriented designs.

(oh if you were wondering this was why i asked teams how many balls per second you could fire)

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

I wasn't saying that they weren't one of the best bots either. I was more of saying that it wasn't suddenly a rookie bot was the absolute best in a division because of the FRP flooring.
I agree that it was absurd that 2753 fell to where they did when we were projected them significantly higher. But anyone who watched their run through Archimedes will tell you it was all three bots that caused that to play out the way it did, not any one individually.

And I don't think there were really a whole lot more "upsets" this year than any other year (other than 2008, which was mostly upset free until IRI). Look at any previous Championship and you'll see a number of upsets. 1114, 469, and 1523 in 2007 (or the fact the 2007 champs were a #8 seed). 79, 469, 222 in 2006. 118, 229, 312 in 2005. And perhaps the biggest off all, 60, 33, and 1241 in 2004.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

Just like Rack n Roll: you do ramps, you do defense, or you do scorer, and if you're veteran try both.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

Do people want the field leveled?

Why?

How would you do it?

Don't answer any of these on here because they've been beaten to death in other threads.

If Dave says that the GDC had no intent of leveling the field, then that's good by me. I do remember hearing that specific phrase used as well though. Will have to dig through to find out where.

I for one don't want anything "leveled." This is a real competition environment and I'd like to keep it that way, regardless of team capabilities, money, blah, blah, and blah. This is my honest opinion and not my team's: If people want a "leveled" and "fair" competition, step down to a lower field like VRC or FRC overall. IF that sounds mean/whatnot, PM me.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

FRP Glassliner doesn't level the playing field, nor was it ever intended to do so.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

I'll go out on a limb and say that the FRP Glassliner didnt level the playing field, but instead limited what veteran teams either did in the past, wanted to continue doing, and/or what they wished they could do because of their capabilities.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

I'm fairly confident in the ability to factually say that the FRP actually made the playing field kind of bumpy, in a small, consistent fashion across the "crater." The levelness of the field in relation to what? Tangent to the Earth's surface?

On a more serious note, I think that the game challenge every year is to drive teams to innovate and strive to better play the game. I know that we never stop thinking of ideas to make our bots better and more efficient. Leveling the playing field should be the last thing that the game should try and do. Making every team equal (leveling the playing field) sounds kind of like socialism, and with the human thought process and flaws, it just doesn't work.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

You cannot point to any one individual team and say their results this year proved or disproved any "leveling" concept. Teams change from year to year all on their own. Case in point, a couple years ago we got down to the final pick by the #1 alliance at GLR. I suddenly realized that two unpicked teams still on the sidelines had been on the Einstein winning alliance the previous year. At least one of them wasn't going to be in the finals at GLR.

How teams adapt to the challenges given each year by the GDC determines whether teams are a perennial powerhouse or a one-flash wonder. Or anywhere in between.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

I just want to correct this statement. While 217 certainly played with great strategy all year, it really was their ROBOT that was so good.

There's a very common misconception this year: DUMPER = GOOD, SHOOTER = BAD. This is very far from the truth (at least the whole truth). The REAL maxim this year should be: HIGH THROUGHPUT = GOOD, LOW THROUGHPUT = BAD.

The reason why the turreted shooters got a bad rep is that very few teams built a turreted shooter with high throughput. 217 was an exception (as was 1114 and a few others). 217 could unload 20 balls (er, moon rocks) in about 3-4 seconds - very dumper-like throughput levels. What made 217's ROBOT so great is that they could unload as fast as any dumper, but they had the turret so they didn't have to be well aligned. THAT is what made 217 so deadly - they didn't have to hunt someone down and pin them with perfect alignment to score. Their turret allowed them to score while chasing or when they were in an otherwise poor orientation, while us dumpers had to be sure the planets were properly aligned. Heck, I've seen 217 score when they themselves were being pinned. It was a truly impressive machine.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

217 certainly did shooters right. They basically maximized on all of the advantages of a shooter design while eliminating the disadvantages with sheer speed. And that "shoot over robot that is pinning us" trick was one of the things that made me go "man I wish I thought of that!".
at least we got the speed part down
Meanwhile, other well-built robots with high capacity that could only shoot 1-3 balls per second did not do as well, "giving shooters a bad name". The ones that could needed a pinning partner or extreme mobility to go in, get a few balls in at a time, then leave.

By the end of the season I just ended up calling all of the fast shooters "turreted dumpers", as that's really how they acted.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

Just to add to the shooter discussion, 217, 1114, 1771, 1717, 188 and 40 could all pretty much compete with the best all types of robots.

If I could do the game over again I'd build a power dumper, but there is nothing wrong with shooters.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

These two statements, in the same thread, made me chuckle.

Anyways, as in past years, teams who figure out how to play the game effective, and build a robot that can do it, and learn to use that robot well, will end up doing very well. The game challenge changes each year, but there will always be teams that do better than others. It's not a problem.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

Now that Glenn brought that up, it reminds me that I forgot to mention this.

This was the one drivetrain related decision that did take a long time. We spent the entire first week debating long or wide. Ultimately we went with long because it made designing our ball handling system easier.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

A semi-related tangent based on some of the discussion on the last page about dumpers vs. shooters.

I was talking to some other mentors before Einstein started, and the general attitude among the group was "I wish I built a turreted shooter instead of a dumper." Granted, these were teams who were very capable of building shooters with high rates of fire (one of these teams did just that in 2006). But given the style of play, particularly in Atlanta, the ability to aim without repositioning your robot was very valuable. The amount of time it took orienting and lining up with some of the dumpers was a definite disadvantage, even if they had a slightly higher firing rate than the shooters.
After all, in many ways it's cycle time that matters, not just firing rate.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

This was especially true for alliances that employed strategies based on field starvation - such as 217, 68, 247.

The goal was to maximize your own alloted 60 moonrocks, while giving as few away as possible to your opponents to score. Net scoring principles applied this year to full effect - a moonrock missed by your human player, dropped by your robot, then scooped by and converted by your opponent was a double whammy.

What to do? Human load moonrocks into reliable volume scorers, never let those moonrocks hit the ground, and have no more than one robot rely on scooping off the ground the entire match, make sure your HPs take only the highest % shots. Make sure that ground loader robot is fast, and can convert shots quickly, as if there are only 4-5 balls in the area, it can scoop them up and score them lightning fast. The hope is, there are few, if any moonrocks on the field, and you've starved your opponents of ammunition, while you in turn have converted their misses.

Not a complicated strategy, but wholly effective when executed right.

Two top loaded volume power dumpers, and a quick-cycle turreted shooter would've been the right mix to execute this gameplan - and those of us on Curie saw plenty of it.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

I also have to say that we spend a lot of time debating wide or long. We had several pages of notes on the pros and cons of both orientations, but in the end we decided that long was better for two reasons... 1) Made ball manipulation easier 2) It allowed us to squeeze through tight gaps to get to our target.

If we had to make the decision again, I'm not sure that we would have changed our orientation.

Overall Lunacy did not level the playing field...

I think in terms of designing this game made it easier on veteran teams. As Cory stated in his first post, there wasn't nearly as much time put into the drivetrain design as there were in previous years. All we did was redesign Tough Boxes to fit with our 'West Coast Drive'. Really by mid week 2 our drivetrain out of the design phase and into the fabrication phase. This left us with a lot of time to work out the finer details of our ball manipulation systems. By the end of week 4 we already had both superstructures welded (and one Powder Coated) and had started running balls through them. The first few iterations were NOT pretty and far from where they are now. However, having all of week 5 and most of week 6 to refine the superstructures was a big part of why we had the success we did.

Having a second robot to practice with was HUGE. I cannot stress this enough. Going into our first competition with ~40 hours of practice time in was huge. Not only did our driver already know how to drive on the FRP, but our driver and operator had already been working on how to stalk and attack trailers. Our operator knew when it was okay to let loose on a trailer and when not to.

On top of this after San Diego we went back and refined our strategies and design. We put our drive team through the ringer, putting them in pinning situations and then forcing them to have to work throughit and get out of it. While they were practicing trying to score in trailers, we'd have another robot coming up and pushing them out of the way.

We did the same thing after Las Vegas. We would refine the design, play matches, create and play through scenarios.

Lunacy did have glaring flaws though that gave it the perception that it was 'leveling the playing field'
1) Too much reliance on alliance partners
2) Too much freedom for human players
3) Lack of pinning rule or vehicle for pinned robots to get out of a pin

I don't think these game features were put in to intentionally 'level the playing field' but instead these were overlooked by the GDC and once announced at kick-off they would have been too drastic of changes to implement in an update or Q&A.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

I don't know how it worked for robots like your narrow body, but with a wide body you can get out. It might take more time than you have to be stuck in one spot, but you can eventually spin out using the carpet on the edge. And if you had crab, you really were not pinnable as you could always just drive away using the carpet. (Of course, this all assumes one robot is trying to pin you. If it's a two on one, game over.)

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

The reason that there was a rim of carpet around the field was to get out of pins. Robots could be designed to get out of pins (stuff like swerve and a generally powerful drivetrain helps, which indeed did benefit the veterans who had them, but even that wasn't necessary and some veterans dropped swerve this year). Pinning was an issue that the GDC couldn't make more obvious was going to be a big part of the game, and teams that designed robots and strategies to get around rudimentary defense would win, big.

I don't see how relying on your alliance partners is a flaw for this competition at all. It's a team event intentionally; picking your team correctly is the difference between being a winning team and having a quality alliance upset in Round 1.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

18" of carpet is not enough carpet to give a pinned team any kind of traction advantage. Look at how many 'shut down' pins there were this year. It's not like the drivers just simply let go of the controls and said 'oh well, we're done'.

Really, there was only so much torque you could put into these wheels before you slipped (Here is a simple lesson on why). So I don't know how much having a 'powerful drivetrain' helped. Having a swerve didn't help that much with pinning either. I've seen several swerve drives get shoved in a corner and shut down. The one thing a swerve did help with was strafing left and right to follow a goal or break from a potential pin before the pin occurs (exampe, 111, 1717).

When it comes to relying on alliance partners, I was referring to qualification matches (the elims are a different situation). This is a team sport, alliances need to work together. However having a partner no-show or die in the middle of the match should never seal a victory for the other alliance. I've lost track of how many matches I've watched with no-show/dead robots this year. Out of those matches I saw two, maybe three matches all year where the under-manned alliance pulled off a victory.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

I believe Jon hit the nail on the head with this. Even Beatty and WildStang had some trouble maneuvering around GOOD opponents.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

I wasn't going to comment on this before, but why not.

973 wasn't a "have" team at the end of last season, and we decided we weren't happy about that.

Did we sit around keeping everything the same, the only action we take being complaining about large corporate teams and waiting for a sponsor to fall on us? No, we hit the pavement hard, in all aspects. We raised more money this season than any other, and with the exception of a NASA grant, actually LOST many of our main large sponsors (Big thanks to Laron for sticking around). We threw all conventional wisdom on the team out the window, and replaced with hard work and a focus on continuous improvement.

Our shop is one of the smallest (and leakiest) I have ever seen teams work in, our machine tools are extremely temperamental (and I think we actually lost more time with their temperamentalness than any progress we made with them), our neighborhood is poor and agricultural, our team is small, etc...

We used a lot of the money we raised to buy nicer tools and equipment (not machine tools, that's later on the list), and plan on continuing this process. We have some of the nice things the "haves" have, but our goal is to eventually have all of it.

We also started stressing that you have to do all the little jobs right for the big picture to add up, and the quote in Akash's sig from Paul Copioli sums that up great;



So, if you feel your team is at a disadvantage, or the playing field isn't level.... Do something about it.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

That depends on how you get pinned. If you get pinned into one of the alliance station foam pads, you are stuck there until an alliance partner peels off the pinner. However, in the middle along the sides 18" is plenty of carpet to keep from being pinned. If you are sitting at one of the ends of the field you are just asking for trouble.

Maneuvering in the open field and maneuvering out of pins are two completely different situations.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

eh, when you talk about two robots pinning one, they can do it anywhere they feel like it; carpet doesn't help a bit.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

In no situation was I referring to a two on one. You are correct, if they play it right two robots will be able to pin another robot for a whole match. However, now it's their third robot against your two alliance partners. It will not usually be a winning strategy to double pin any robot, unless it is a qualifying match where there is clearly only one scoring robot on a particular alliance.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

But if you have two robots on one, then you have two robots able to score versus one scorer, with two completely free targets to get hit by HPs and robots, there's a bit of risk and reward to that strategy. 2 on 1 pins were rarely beneficial for an alliance, unless each alliance basically only had one good scorer.

Shaun beat me to it.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

1717 used it very effectively against us in the galileo semis. They would pin and score, and 2775 would finish off the pin. game over for us.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

I thought it was because FRP came in 8x50 rolls, and 3 rolls would leave a gap on the standard 27x54 field.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

FRP does not come in 8' x 50' rolls unless it is a custom order. FIRST had to custom order the FRP. The 18" gap was intended to give teams a tractional advantage when they were on the side of the field.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

Haha, Gary is a master of logic. :D

If you did not realize, I was talking about you guys and your driving. ;)

And for those arguing about wanting to level the playing field, there is a reason I have this quote in my signature since the end of Championships this year and there is a reason for what my custom user title says. I agree with Adam about everything in his last post (#55) Well stated. People need to want something and reach out and grab it. Make the attempt, whether you succeed or fail in reaching your final goal the first time around, you have built a foundation for even greater development.

I hate that every year people turn this competition into whining rather than winning.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

Just curious, how would FIRST go about "leveling the playing field" if that was their aim? This has been my first season, but the way I see it the mere fact that the game changes every year should be more than enough in terms of keeping things level.

The fact that the game always is changing means that teams always have to come up with new ideas to adapt to the new game environment. This gives an advantage to both sides.

Rookies come in with no preconceived notions of how things "should be done" and are theoretically more able to think outside the box, though they may lack the technical understanding that comes with experience.

Veterans have to forget much of the strategies and rules from previous years and develop a totally new mentality, but at the same time have greater experience

So in a sense FIRST naturally balances the playing field.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

I don't think it did level the playing feild. Mainly because of the influence of the human player on the game. Large teams have a larger talent pool to pick from so their more likely to have a realy good human player, and they could have a better chance of having a good driver, which was what it took to win.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

Heh, that's a really good point. I like the way your mind works.

That's not really true. All a small team had to do was train a human player well, and they could have just a good a player as a larger team.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

But no matter what the game was the larger teams would have an advantage in terms of the driver. There's no way to set up a game to change that.

With regards to the human player they put that in to keep the field balanced. Leveling the playing field means having a game that favors no side. Like you said vets had a larger talent pool in terms of payload specialists, but theoretically their drivers were also put at a disadvantage due to the field (more so then the rookies as it was different than what the vets were used to).

Thanks jpmittins, same to you ^_^

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

This thread and some others all focus on the game and mechanical design. For me the biggest factor separating success from barely completing the build was not the design- build mechanical but the ability of teams to deal with change, documentation and following detailed instructions. I'm not looking at the championship level. I'm focusing on the regional and the actual build season.
This year was a year of change. Before this year veteran teams were familiar with the IFI system and ready to go from day one. Rookies had a low bar and many years of resources to get up to speed on the control system. With the new control system this year there was a new separation of the haves and have nots. The teams that had mentors and students with the ability to parse large volumes of technical documentation and detailed precise instruction did well. Those who could not had a very frustrating year. This year the game rules had more of a bureaucratic feel to them. Remember the long post and rants about the bumpers? Seams there were more than a few veteran teams that designed and built robots with illegal bumpers and did not have fun rebuilding there robot in the last weeks.
Should First level the playing field? No way. However, they need to help and pick up the bottom and push down on the top teams. Ensure that no team fails to complete a season and that the top teams do not take the technology so far that the high school students become disconnected from the mentors.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

So in other words make a game that isn't too complicated that it is too far beyond the students ability to work with it?

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

This is a very interesting view point - one which I have not yet heard. I would have expected the new control system to be a field leveler, not the other way around. This year, the veterans with their vast experience with the IFI controller weren't able to skip over that learning curve like they could in years past. All teams had to learn from scratch and were on equal footing.

I'm staying away from this, lest the dead horse be pulled from the grave for another beating.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

What I'm trying to point out is that the shear volume of documentation that a team needed to digest and the need to follow directions precisely added a new dimension to the "level the playing field issue". If a team mastered the technical documentation and the instruction to bring up the control system then the field was very level. That hurdle was a big one this year. Going forward next year, with some experience, Labview and the control system should be an enabling and leveling factor. In past years the mechanical part was the separator .

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

I will never accept a goal that says "push down on the top teams." (Pre-emptive response: I do not consider Lunacy <G14> to be supporting such a goal. It applies to everyone.)

That strikes me as a misdirected focus. Student/mentor disconnects do not occur only because of advanced technology.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

In fact, one could argue that student/mentor CONNECTS occur because of advanced technology. How many high school students (and for that matter people in general) can see a walking robot and not be curious how it works? If they are curious enough they will try to figure out how it all works. This will encourage them to seek out mentors. This is my perspective as a student/mentor.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

Okay so just to make the GDC happy lunacy did level the playing field to a very small degree. Lets be honest look at the teams that won the championship this year, these teams are good every year no matter what you throw at them. In fact 111 and 67 are two of the arguably the best ever. I don't know why people think the game makes a difference. Student, Mentors, sponsors and volunteers make a team. FIRST is purposely designed not to be a level playing field and that is why it is such a great real world model.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

No matter what, the playing field will never be level. All of this talk of leveling the playing field is really just a waste. This year was full of upsets and unexpected wins and loses but the playing field wasn't really level. Good teams still build good machines, some teams still build sub-par machines, and others still build machines that just blend into the crowd.

Look at Nascar, you only have a limited number of parameters in which to work and yet somehow, teams still manage to get a leg up on the competition through technique, experience, strategy, or Skill.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

It is sort of possible for us to level the playing field, right? In fact it happened a few times during this season. After a few competitions we began to see scoring mechanisms change, with shooters turning into dumpers and fans being added for propulsion. Because of the FIRST ethos we share ideas and make each other better. Many of the robots we saw at week 1 regionals reappeared differently at later competitions. It just depends on the teams and the resources they have available to them to make the changes happen.

I really doubt that FIRST would try to level the playing field of the entire competition. If that were the case they'd have to figure out how to limit the hard earned and developed resources of many of the teams out there. That really should never be tampered with, it would be like the salary cap in the NHL. The use of the wheels and the playing surface this year, from my perspective, is just a part of the game challenge and many of us just had to adapt.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

i believe you really can't level the playing field with FIRST. There will always be teams like HOT, Wildstang, Thunder Chickens, that have more resources than everyone else (money, kids, mentors). The real goal of this year, was to try and be as good as them, with half the resources. That is what i think a rookie team should shoot for, is being as good as the 'name brand' team.... Rookies have lots of help, but even with the new challenge of Lunacy and the control system, the veteran teams will always have a lead...and you can't get rid of that lead without getting rid of mentors, and i don't think we can do that.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

There's ways to heavily argue this but for the most part I'd agree. Money, mentors, and resources don't grow on trees for these teams and I hate it when people assume this.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

You dont need a crazy amount of resources to build a robot that plays on the same level as these guys, you just gotta think

us as an example

27ish kids
1 self employed architect
1 controls mentor
1 guy whos been in maintenance for awhile (knows too much random stuff)
1 retired mechanical engineer who only does our welding
and plenty of exuberant helpful parents

this years bot had no CNC'd parts on it, the most complicated parts were done on a manual mill, and there werent too many of those. The majority of teams ive seen at competitions could build our robot.

One of the biggest things ive seen that seperates the good from the best is the strategy the teams decide to play and how well they design the robot to suit it. I myself view week 1 and 2 of build when the idea is coming together as the most important step in determining your success that season.
Ive also seen team come up with an amazing strategy then start building the bot and keep making compromises and "settling" for less (dont do this lol).

So these "powerhouse do amazing every year teams" mainly just have their strategy system nailed down, and know how to build a robot to suit it, and also make it pretty because they've honed the efficiency to allow for the extra time of powdercoating anodizing etc.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

Aren has a very good case in 1625's example.

The other hand of this equation is that there are teams with the same resources as the teams mentioned prior, but do not put out the same quality robots.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

Strategy and experience developing strategy are everything, in my opinion. There's a reason the best rookie in terms of Atlanta placing this year, 2753, was where they were: They were an accomplished FTC team, so they already knew how to come up with an effective strategy and a robot to meet that strategy.

That's probably why you see the same higher number teams winning, too. It's not as much "resources" as "experience playing in FIRST". If there's one thing I've learned about FIRST, is that it is 5000% strategy.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

I don't think the root cause for the gap between the successful and unsuccessful teams is the amount of resources (mentors, money, tools...), but a varying level of commitment. I think that some teams view FIRST has an 'after school activity,' rather than a 'varsity sport' or something more. Some teams don't go to offseason events, do demonstrations, try new drive systems in the fall, work 4+ days during build season. Their goals and expectations are drastically different than the 67s, 111s, 217s, 1114s. It is almost as if they are playing a completely different game. I think that it's important to remember that the people/teams that post here are no where near representative to all the teams in FIRST.

I think this level of commitment is the true cause for successful and unsuccessful teams. I think there is very little a game can do to 'level the playing field'. Even if you make a game where only kitbots can be made to push blocks into goals, some teams will spend 100x more time making the kitbot perfect, dreaming up and perfecting strategies, and practicing driving. Those teams that do this will do better than the teams that just build the kitbot in a day or two and practice an hour before the competition.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

I wouldn't say all of 2753's success was because of FTC. Regardless of whether you've done FTC or not, it still takes a tremendous amount of skill and dedication to be good at FRC. It's a totally different challenge altogether to go from FTC to FRC. 2753 was just an absolutely amazing rookie team. Hats off to them on arguably one of the best rookie seasons ever.

I do agree that strategy is key though.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

The Case of 2753 (since you all are very interested):

Team Members: The members of Overdrive are highly experienced and dedicated homeschoolers. Dedication means they go out and learn on their own and from their very good mentors. Tyler, who frequents CD, is one of the most knowledgeable students I've ever talked to from a rookie team. The kids know how to run their team like clockwork.

Team Structure: very early in the season it was quite clear that Overdrive had one of the best team structures that worked for THEM. Find your own team structure that works for YOU. With a parent organization of Teen Technology they have funding and sponsor money when they need it.

Team Mentors: With awesome parents and engineers (some not even in the field of Mech E) Overdrive has flourished as an FRC team just as they did in FTC.

Team Bonds: Overdrive knows when to ask for help and who to get it from. If teams cannot understand this point that the education of a team is most important as soon as they start off, they cannot be as successful as Overdrive. They not only searched local teams for information (103, 25, 56, 11, 816) but also teams from far away (1114, 1771, 1323, many others). THEY DID THEIR HOMEWORK!!!

*Rant of Overdrive over*

My only hope for them is that they sustain this amount of success in the future. Success does not grow on trees, make the effort and "be excellent in everything you do and the results will just happen."

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

You asked. I answer. Take a game like the set between 1999 and 2004 (inclusive).

Wait, what?

The common element between the games included is that they all have multiple types elements to control. Some are easier. Some are harder. Strategy may be easy (1999, control the puck, win the game) or hard (2002, ball or goal? You need both...) or impossible (2004, my team's strategy discussion turned into rock-paper-scissors before we figured out how to neutralize one while doing another). Oh, and do you a) do the winning strategy or b) do a complementary strategy that will get you picked? In 2004, my team could team with any of a particular class of robot (not our class) and do really well. But if you paired us up with a team similar to us, we'd most likely lose. We had a winning strategy. But we picked complementary strategies given the chance. I've explained in some of my previous posts in this thread how the balancing works in this kind of setup.

To some extent, you're right, the field is self-balancing. However, this is only to a certain extent. Some teams have perfected drives that work really, really well. They didn't use those this year because they couldn't. But, given a chance to use them to optimum effect, they will. Same with arms/lifts. Same with ball collectors. It's not totally balanced, because those teams have the experience, but they are willing to share that experience.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

You're right, but for all intents and purposes wouldn't it be slightly impractical to try to take away a veteran team's advantage of experience.

Didn't the three different types of game pieces count as different elements?
I also thought that there were complementary strategies used this year as well.

By the way, thanks for mentioning the other games. I need to look up what some of them were.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

No, in 2004 you had 2 different game pieces and a completely separate goal, all three needed DIFFERENT manipulators. (Big Yellow balls, Small Purple? balls, Bar) This year there were 3 differently marked scoring pieces, all of which could be handled by any robot.

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

Experience is the one thing that you cannot take away. You also cannot get it without having it. (If that makes sense... if not, PM me.)

What I meant was that each individual game had several types of game pieces (game elements) worth varying amounts of points. It didn't matter much if they were restricted to one alliance or open to anyone. The variety was amazing, as you might see (to take 2004) a bar-bot that was tall and a mouth-bot that opened very wide on the same alliance.

As for this year having complementary strategies, that's kind of debatable. You see, there was really only one main strategy: load balls into your opponents' trailers as fast as possible. Reload. Repeat. Compare that to 2004, where if you were a herder that could handle the doublers (60/254, 980, for example), you might want a better small-ball robot (like 33), but if you were going up against a bar-blocker like 330 or 190, you had a much smaller chance of success. However, if 330 and 190 were on the same alliance, they'd have very little chance of winning because they'd score a hundred points, but as soon as their opponents scored 10 5-pointers into the mobile goal and doubled that, it came down to human shooting. So they wanted somebody like 980 or 60/254 to increase chances of winning.

This year, it was either pin or score, or both. (Or score on a moving target, which was understandably difficult.)

Re: Did Lunacy really level the playing field?
 

In my personal opinion, Lunacy or any other game will never truly be able to completely level the playing field. First of all, veteran teams will more than likely have effective strategy meetings at the beginning of build. Second, said veteran teams will more than likely have more resources (mentors, students, materials, time, and money). And lastly, those veteran teams will also know what they want to do during build because of EXPERIENCE. It makes a big difference to know what you and your team are doing.