Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

I don't think it would improve gameplay. One example was suggested earlier--the wall-bot. You might also get a robot wedging itself into its opponent's tunnel, just to prevent tunnel traffic.

And, as I pointed out earlier, it's too late to make the change. Any time between Kickoff and Ship Day, great. Between Ship Day and Week 1, not the best, but OK. After Week 1, you don't make a change unless you really need to--and the change that was made was made because the game wasn't being played the way that was intended, and it didn't really affect gameplay, just strategy. But if you change anything after Week 2, something just hit the fan. If the GDC did make this change, especially if they gave you the credit for suggesting it, you'd wind up on the receiving end of a lot of criticism.

As for equal access to the balls: Given no loopers, that is the fact. Having a looper, though, is like having an sports defense that has a bunch of turnover-creation specialists. Would you complain if you were watching an NFL game, and every time one team got the ball, the other team forced a turnover before the endzone? How about in basketball or hockey? It's not fair, but the rules are fair--they allow that team. They also allow the creation of the team that can go up against that team and never turn it over.

I think that's your beef with the rules--any team that can avoid the turnovers can't do it by expanding at that end of the field. Just means that the easy way is gone; if you don't like having to do it the hard way, then you don't have to do it at all. Instead of trying to get people to support making the easy way legal, use engineering skills to solve the challenge of doing it the hard way. A number of people proposed strategies to beat the loopers very quickly after the fact that there were loopers came out. I'm not saying that you aren't doing that, but when you're actively trying to get people to agree that there is a loophole in the rules, and seeming to spend all your time doing that, you're making yourself look like a complainer (or a lawyer or a politician or a lobbyist) instead of an engineer.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

Dick,

A number of things need to happen for a looper bot to be successful:

1> The looper bot needs to get into, and stay in, position. 469 does an excellent job of this in autonomous.

2> The pump (looping) needs to be primed. Without balls being scored the looping strategy is a weakness as it leaves teams 3 vs 2. 469 also does a good job at this in autonomous by shooting 2.

3> The looping strategy requires that the opposing defender bot be neutralized. This can only be done if the defender is poor, the striker is very good at pinning, or the looping alliance can bring forward the third bot. Cass Tech elim rounds showed the looping strategy at it's best, but if you look at the seeding rounds you'll see holes in the strategy. In effect, the looping strategy only works if the whole alliance in in sync with what needs to happen.

4> The looping strategy also requires that any balls that miss the goal (469 had quite a few) are then scored by the strikers. This again means that loopers require their partners to be good (and probably be able to change zones).

In essence, a looper bot can only be as good as it's alliance partners, and cannot carry any alliance. They are the ultimate alliance bot this year, much like the ramp bots were in Rack-N-Roll. Without their alliance partners being able to support their unique gamestyle they will be just another ineffective bot.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

Dick,

You're ignoring several key issues here.

• It has been shown, repeatedly, that not all "loopers" are dominant robots. Only one has been dominant in a small subset of their matches.
  
• I have yet to see a "looper" that can control both ball returns. While the strategy can potentially grant them what you deem to be "unfair access" (while the rest of you clearly state that you're alone on the matter) to one ball return, they completely ignore the other one. At that point, it becomes the responsibility of their alliance partners to try and ensure there are more balls in their return than their opponent's. The losses that 469 and 51 have prove that this is not always the case.
  
• Even pretending that "loopers" were unbeatable, great robots are not detrimental to FIRST or the game on the field. Blowouts are not bad in FRC.
  
• A match with a 469-quality "looper" on each side of the field would be absolutely incredible to watch. I can't think of a match that would be more fun.
  
• FIRST has clearly established that they don't want to change the rules to mitigate this strategy.
  
• FIRST does not alienate and harm small subsets of participants who developed a strategy that's successful, regardless of whether or not other people can or cannot think of a way to beat it.
  
• We still haven't seen how opponents will react to 469 given some time to prepare for them.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

A fun side note: This isn't physically possible due to the 84" rule. I believe this to be fully intentional.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

To all those pointing out to me how many weakneses there are in the typical looper strategy, I remind you that my issue is with the rules not any specific team or design scheme. The rules currently allow for a perfectly implemented and deployed on the field looper bot (which 469 comes close to being) to redirect nearly every ball straight back into EITHER of their goals with no way for a defenders to touch the ball unless they are super fast & can guess in advance as to which goal the looper will redirect. My issue is that the rules allow for a hypothetically perfect looper (scores two in autonomous) to be effectively unbeatable when they just have average partners.

It's true that even perfect loopers must still rely on their partners to get some free balls and missed redirects scored too, or they can lose matches.
Still, I ask you all the question, if your team has a decent kicking bot that's fast, gets over the humps OK, and can possess balls well, and then can also hang, are you going to choose an effective looper, assuming one is available, to be part of your alliance?

-Dick Ledford

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

There is absolutely no possible way for people to cross a road, except if they look both ways first, wait until there are no cars, then put one foot in front of the other and eventually they'll end up on the other side.

This is your same argument, just with a different situation. You state that it's impossible to beat a perfect iteration of 469 and then in the exact same breath, you list potential ways to actually beat 469.

And besides, perfect iterations of nearly every robot design would make it very, very difficult to play defense or to outscore them. But life is never perfect, and that's where strategy comes into play.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

I am getting tired of all the UNFAIR pro sports analogies. If you want the NFL model use a fair one=> They make a new rule that allows kickoffs after a score to be either normal OR the scoring team can try kicking a field goal instead. Gee, seems like there might be a lot of 3 points racked up in succession before a missed kick allowed the opponents to have access to the ball again..
-Dick Ledford

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

That is a pretty good analogy RRLedford.

I think everyone is taking 'unfair' incorrectly. What is really meant is that the game isn't well balanced. A good, competative game usually permits offense and defense to be a bit of a battle. Sports for years have shown that a good Offense/Defense balance make for more exciting games.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

If you can't read the full post, I also used other sports.

This is my last post in this thread:

Moderators, please close this thread. It's obvious that no agreement can or will be reached on this topic. (It's also not the first time I've asked this.)

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

Graciously to Dick Ledford and others wanting rule changes due to 469's strategy: As stated, several teams are directing balls. 469 just happens to be doing it VERY well. Although it may not be "fair" to you that they loop balls, the GDC has allowed it in their rules. They even specifically allowed the directing of balls in the rules by a passive mechanism, exactly what 469 is using (although it can flip other ways, at the time they direct it, the mechanism is stationary).

My view on the subject, and several others, is 469 is a good team who pulled off a great strategy with a good design. Would we ask the GDC to not allow teams to score TONS of balls in a match, or for them to limit the number of teams able to hang/suspend during a match? Of course not! That's the point of the game! To ask the GDC to change rules so you can more easily beat them, or completely shut down their design, is ungracious on your part. It's a game, and they happen to play the game well.


I agree with EricH also! Please close the tread.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

I never said "it's impossible to beat a perfect iteration of 469", only that once deployed, this scheme has an ALMOST impossible to overcome advantage, at least when decent they have partners in their alliance.
-Dick Ledford

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

But football teams are free try to do an onside kick and retain possession of the ball. Suppose there was a team that did it well and did it often. Would the NFL change the rule to prohibit onside kicks just because of that one team? That's what you're asking for here.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

Sounds like a tough challenge! Now where could I go to let kids and adults work together to solve really tough challenges to inspire them to pursue engineering? :rolleyes:

Competing against better teams is the best part of FRC for me.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

I third the notion to close the thread.

Dick and the rest of us just simply don't see eye to eye...



...Eventhough its week 4....

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

And this I believe is the perfect summary of why loopers aren't the unbeatable robot. We had a first week Regional this year, and we have been designing a looper bot from the very beginning of the season. Similar to 469 we have the means to lock onto the tower, and redirect the ball as it falls down our ramp. Locking to the tower was an obvious requirement because if you didn't you would be pushed out of position and thus incur a penalty for being outside 84". Redirecting was also obvious if you went the looper route because its better to keep the opponent guessing.

What we found at our regional is that without the pump being primed then the looper bot doesn't work. Lucky for us we also have an adjustable kicker and an awesome vacuum possessor because those were the only things that allowed us to win. We could not find a striker bot throughout the qualifiers that would score for us if even minimally defended. We did a good job getting one or two balls in during autonomous but with DOGMA those balls are back in play before you can lock to the tower. We had to do the scoring ourselves and since we couldn't be in two places at once, we spent most of our time jumping between midfield and the front to score. We hope to finally show off our looper bot once we can get some good teammates at Nationals.

Looper bots aren't the end all, be-all game ender, they are merely an important part of a well balanced aliance. You need strikers and defenders as well. As mentioned above, most of the actual people in the elims will probably have a looper bot, but then again every decent team in Rack and Roll had a decent ramp-bot. Being a specialist with a good team is how the real world works, because you can't do it all.

It is a team sport and diversity makes the game better. You will find a NFL team made up of the best quarterbacks will get stomped by a team that has mediocre specialists in the proper roles and positions. Pick your specialty and rise to be the best you can be, and enjoy the game. I am in awe of the tweaking it took 469 to be as good as they are, because I know how difficult it was to make a decent looper. There's a lot of work in that 469 robot and I wouldn't dare penalize someone for playing the game well.