Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

Aside from the fact that few, if any teams could push them, no.

The rules that year allowed metal on the carpet (for the last time). Team 71 built a "flop-bot" robot (started in the box, then tipped over) that would race out while it was falling and grab three goals (there were 3 mobile goals in the middle of the field). About the time that it grabbed the goals, it finished falling down, engaging their file-card walking drive. They then proceeded to take the remaining minute and a half or so of the match to crawl the goals to scoring position. Team after team after pair of teams tried to push them or disengage the goals. Either of those cases was extremely rare. They racked up their 3rd Championship that year, after winning the year before, becoming the only back-to-back champions in FRC history.

It was certainly within the letter of the rules. It was within the spirit of the rules, too--Zone Zeal was a push'o'war. But it was an unfair advantage. At least, certain people might call it unfair.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

Two goals + one defender implies more scoring was intended. Allowing two or three defenders at opponents goal zone would dramatically reduce scoring. Keeping the scoring zone un-clogged with bots makes perfect sense. The return ramp normally puts the scored balls back to midfield and heads them in the direction opposite of where they were scored => UNLESS A LOOPER IS DEPLOYED to neutralize this ball flow game design concept. Now you have ALL THE BALLS dropping back in the offensive zone AND and the TWO-ON-ONE advantage you describe COMBINED! Normally, ganging up on the defender only works briefly, until returned balls start flowing back toward the opposition's goals => UNLESS A LOOPER IS DEPLOYED.
So, what you confirm is another reason why the looper scheme opens the door for even more unfairness, since it facilitates maintaining the two-on-one defender advantage for the entire match. In a normal match, a lack of balls for scoring would eventually send one of the two bots ganging up back to get more balls from midfield => UNLESS A LOOPER IS DEPLOYED

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

Our rookie team did the same. We also concluded that a looper scheme could make us a highly desirable partner, even if it did not score, but only held balls in our scoring zone. Yet we abandoned the idea because, as rookies, we felt it was an unfair advantage, might be dis-allowed, and was too much against the GDC's intent of how the game was intended to be played within the spirit of the rules. So we bailed on the whole idea. We later saw that others were pursuing the same idea, but we never expected it would reach the almost unstoppable level of design refinement that 469 has achieved.
So, I agree that we all had the same fair chance to choose what I still consider an unfair rule exploit design scheme for gaining unfair access to the point where reversing the the ramp's ball flow becomes a game breaker strategy.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

Dick,

If loopers are so unfair, how is it that a 469 has been so much more wildly successful than all the others? Sure, 51 won Wayne Tech this weekend, but they never scored more than 16 points, had 67 on their alliance, and lost a match in the finals. Heck, the highest scoring match the Hot Wing Express had was when 51 didn't even get in position. Beyond that, they lost in the QFs in Kettering.
1731, 375, 422, 1024, and countless others attempted to play the same role 469 plays, but they haven't been met with nearly as much success and often abandon that role.

Simply put, Dick, it's not "loopers" that are "unfair" and cause blowouts, it's 469.

Or, rather, it's 469, 254, 217, 148, 1114, 67, 971, 359..... who cause blowouts.

And while you may cite your other sports analogies and "facts," I think these robots capable of blowouts are beneficial to FIRST. Parity may be exciting in sports. I love upsets (unless someone is upsetting the Washington Capitals, that is). But FRC isn't directly like professional sports.

These great robots are what has inspired me to stay involved with FIRST. Beyond that, even the greatest robots in FIRST are rarely so dominant that they aren't given extreme levels of competition (and great matches) at Championship (and IRI). Look at 71 in 2002 and 1114 in 2008. Despite their monster success at the regional level, they were tested to the limit at Championship.

The thing is, only a couple (if that) of elite level teams are at each regional/district event. You can't decide to change the game because one elite team teamed up with another elite team and won in convincing fashion.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

Let me get this straight for a minute.

You're saying that you didn't use this design "category" because you think 1) it's unfair, 2) it might be disallowed, 3) it's not the GDC's intention of how the game is to be played, and 4) it's not within the spirit of the rules. Am I correct, so far?

I'll start out with 3) to answer. The correct answer to that is that you don't know the GDC's intention except as they choose to reveal it. All teams operate under that same constraint. I haven't seen anything from the GDC, officially or not, saying that this is or is not how the game is supposed to be played. (Any GDC members that see this, feel free to chime in...)

2) is a moot point. It's been held legal by the GDC (and as the GDC holds it legal, so do the inspectors and refs) on multiple occasions. The loophole, if loophole there is, could have been closed at any time between Kickoff and Ship Day without too many complaints (other than 469, 51, and 125, at least one of whom also has a kicker, and few of whom would actually come out and complain loudly). Changing it now would of course generate massive complaints from Weeks 1, 2, and 3, not a lot of cheering from Week 4, and a "What did they do that for?" from Week 5. Not gonna be changed at this point in time.

1) That's your opinion, and I'm not going to try to change it. I think you've already figured out that you're in the minority on this.

4) See 3) for my response.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

YOU abandoned the idea, I want to emphasize that point. YOU made the choice to abandon that idea and that was your choice to make. 469/51/etc chose differently. That was THEIR choice. They ran the same risks as you did but came up with a different conclusion.

I must also comment on the notion of fairness. FIRST is not fair. Is it fair that 397 has only a handful of college mentors? Is it fair we have to spend 90% of the build season doing homework rather than helping inspire our students? Is it fair that we only have what we can make by hand? Is it fair that our students don't have access to classes such as Calculus or Physics? Get the point? You make due with what you have, complaining about it won't get you anywhere.

Finally, 469 is NOT unbeatable. 469 LOST 4 matches during qualifications. They are only really dangerous when coupled with a powerful scorer. 469 is designed to play Elimination matches but that often means they are somewhat at the mercy of the picking system.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

Along with what Sean has said: how many "copies" of a redirecting robot do you really expect to see on the field that works just as effectively as 469? The teams so far who have tried to recreate a similar mechanism haven't fared the same as 469, those who built their mechanisms during build season and DIDN'T ABANDON THEIR DESIGN will do pretty well (these teams are in the minority anyway).

Honestly, I'd like to hear what your students have to say about this and if they would take a different path had they the chance to remake the robot.

Seems like an "agree to disagree" situation since Dick clearly has a strong, unswerving (granted, somewhat flawed as demonstrated by many mentors) opinion.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

Obviously you are in a very small minority who think this is a game-breaker. The GDC attempted to fix a broken game with Update 16. They had opportunity to do the same with Update 17 if they felt 469 was a game-breaker - but they didn't. The people that made the game don't think it was broken. So why are you still trying to convince us that it is broken?

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

All the teams I cited attempted a design that redirects the balls during the build season. 469 just did it better than everyone else (we've seen so far).

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

Let me get this straight. You think a strong mid-field bot is against the spirit of the game and unfair? The GDC said that returning balls from the midfield would be really important for the all the reasons you stated. Many teams realized this and decided to build strong midfield return bots. I saw 148/2016/1817 at Dallas, and 2016 was playing the pushy unstoppable midfield returner to a T. Opponents started with next to no balls and stayed that way for the match. None of the robots there could stop them from serving up returns to 148.

So how is this different from 469's role? They're clearly just a really strong midfield return bot. Not much different from a strong unpushable robot returning balls from midfield. The only difference I see is that they don't have to move that much while they're doing their job. So I have to assume that your real problem with them is that they don't move much while they're winning. Perhaps we should push for an amendment to rules to make it illegal for teams to remain stationary for more than 10 seconds at a time?

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

One reason the GDC may not want others to expand when touching the opponents tower is that they could build a giant wall and just go back and forth blocking balls that are being shot from midfield. You could easily build a robot that contacts the tower at all times and expands to its Finale Configuration (84" by 90") with a giant wall. This gives a little over 4.7 feet (56.5 inches) of a clearance window on the side it's covering, and if it's set up driving parallel to the bump it could probably maneuver from side to side pretty quickly.

This is just my thinking, though.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

Please understand that I'm not complaining about any robots or teams. I acknowledge them for taking the risk for doing a looper scheme - especially those very well designed ones. I am ONLY pointing out what I feel is an obvious weakness in the rules. Because of this rule weakness, my team almost committed to doing a looper too, but we were too timid.
The Midwest regional this weekend had no loopers present, and we were able to both make the semifinals, and go home with the Rookie All Star award too.
I realize the 469 scheme is NOT unstoppable, and even our super fast high-traction short wheelbase 4-CIM super-shifter tank drive might give them some trouble in reaching their sweet spot under the tower, but I am still expecting the finals match in Atlanta to have one looper on each opposing team.
-Dick Ledford

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

No, I don't "think a strong mid-field bot is against the spirit of the game and is unfair". I only think it is wrong for the rules to allow an offensive bot to have exclusive access to the key spot on the field, such that they are allowed to block 100% of their scored balls from EVER returning to the mid-field, contrary to how the GDC seems to have FAIRLY designed the game. If BOTH teams had equal access to balls from the moment they reached the end of the ramp - THEN IT WOULD BE FAIR! Since, under the rules as they stand, they don't have equal access to this key location, I will always consider loopers to be a game exploit of the weak rule disallowing expansion at opponents tower. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it!
-Dick Ledford

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

When I asked them what they thought of the amazing results of 469 in those matches where they dominated, they still said that they would not have chosen to do it, even knowing what they do now. They implied that they would not feel comfortable winning matches this way. I will suggest they post here in their own words, since it seems I could use a few opinions that are a bit more sympathetic to my own views on this issue.
-Dick Ledford

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

My issue is only regarding the rules, and specifically the one rule preventing expansion at the opponents tower. I feel that at least within the rules, there is at least a good chance of keeping them and the game play fair. I don't expect all aspects of the FIRST program will ever come close to being fair, and as you say, we will all make due with what we have.
I am only questioning the fairness of a specific rule, and suggesting how a simple change to it could improve on fairness in game play. If you want to characterize this as complaining, that is just your assessment of my statements.

-Dick Ledford