FIRST Rule Changes
 

Does anyone know where would be the best place to post a request to have a rule changed?:)

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

Off-season event planning committee.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

FIRST Forums maybe http://forums.usfirst.org/index.php

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

Well, if you want an official interpretation of a rule, then the Q&A is the place to go.

But that really isn't what you're asking. Asking for a rule to be changed should probably be done by contacting FIRST directly, perhaps through team support.

Another way is to post the rule you wish to have changed, and the changes you'd like to make, here on Chief Delphi prior to officially requesting the rule to be changed. That way you can get some suggestions and feedback on the changes you seek, and perhaps build a community of supporters for the suggestion.

A good way to do it might be to ask, "Does anyone know why rule XXX is "blah blah blah" instead of "blech blech blech""? Sometimes rules that seem silly only seem that way because we don't know the reasoning behind them... other times they are completely arbitrary, and set that way by the GDC because they thought it would be a good idea to make the rule that way.

Regardless of how you go about it, however, the likelihood of having a rule changed for this year's game is slim. The only time I've seen FIRST change a rule during the season (like they did this year) is when unintended consequences of a rule are significantly affecting the desired outcomes of the game.

Of course the rules for next year's game are all up in the air right now, and I'm sure the GDC is open to good ideas on how to make FRC better.

But rule changes during the competition season are rightly seen as disruptive and undesirable.

So post your ideas here and then e-mail them to FIRST, or just send your suggestion/request directly to FIRST.

Jason

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

There is really no way to request a rule change during the season, as you can imagine how chaotic it would be for FIRST if they allowed such a thing. The GDC monitors how the regionals are going and may update the rules to update/clarify rules of the game, very rarely do they ever change them entirely.

Q&A would be where to go for an interpretation of the rules.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

Someone posted a request for a rule change on Q&A a while back. They were denied, with a partial explanation for the rule.

If a rule change is accepted during competition season, especially after Week 2 events, the initiator may need a deep hole to hide in, as teams from the early events will not be happy at all.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

As mentioned before, the best thing to do would probably be to post the problem you have with the rule on these forums and let others see what they think. Maybe your problem could be solved from delphi feedback. If not, you can always post the issue on the FIRST forums, see what they say, and at the very least the problem will be known by the GDC.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

Just curious but what rule do you think should be changed?

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

Here's one I propose be changed:

Robots should be allowed to expand when in contact with EITHER TOWER
This would allow the looping exploit at the ball return drop, so effectively done by team 469 to be more FAIRLY defendable. I see no good reason to allow one team FULL ACCESS to such a ball control sensitive zone as the ramp drop point is, while effectively excluding ALL OPPONENT BOTS from reaching into this zone. What harm would this rule change cause?

-Dick Ledford

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

It would harm the team(s) that successfully identified this rule as presenting an opportunity to play the game more effectively by denying them the opportunity to play the game according to the rules. More significantly, however, it would harm the collective belief of FRC teams that good design will be rewarded with good results. We need to trust that if WE find a way to make a legal robot that can dominate the game that we will be allowed to dominate the game.

Its not like the strategy wasn't openly discussed here on Chief Delphi during build season, or that their design required resources that were beyond the reach of any of the rest of us. Any of us could have done this.

It's just that so far only one team... out of the several hundred to compete so far... has managed to find the will and the way to make it work with devastating effectiveness.

Let's celebrate their success, and find a way... within the rules... to deal with it.

Jason

P.S. In our first year (2004) 1241 -- then a rookie team -- came up with a complete game-beater robot. They would open a big net on top of their robot, and capture all the small balls as they fell on to the playing field in one fell swoop. After trouncing many more experienced teams, one clever opponent grabbed a big ball, and stuffed it in to the opening of their ball hopper, completely jamming the mechanism. Brilliant robots will generate brilliant responses. Just wait and see what the collective ingenuity of 1800 FRC teams will do given a month to contemplate this idea.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

I was asking how allowing expansion at either tower would hurt the GAME PLAY, not how it would affect any specific teams. Would it cause problems or increase damage possibilities? Obviously the loopers would be upset, since their exploit primarily depends on ONLY them having exclusive expanded access to this zone. It is also time for loopers to consider how their game exploit scheme might be having a detrimental effect on the quality of the competition. We will all deal with their scheme in whatever best ways we can come up with over the next few weeks. It just that, without a looper fairness rule change, it will no no longer be the same Breakaway game that it was earlier in the season.
-Dick Ledford

-Dick Ledford

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

OK wait, you want the rules changed because one team is doing too well? So by your thinking, should the Olympic committee have made Shawn White wear lead pants because he was having a "detrimental effect on the quality of the competition"? He had the gold medal locked up before he made his last run, how could that be fair? And of course Usain Bolt should have to wear lead shoes when he runs, it's not fair that he can't be beat. Did Michael Jordon hurt basketball? Jimmie Johnson seems to always win in NASCAR....

In 2008 (my first year in FIRST) 1114 made a machine that pretty much sewed up the match for their alliance by the end of hybrid, should the rules have been changed then? My advice to all who don't like the fact that a team is doing really well, is that you should come up with a way to beat them. Look at the rules that exist, devise a counter strategy, make a super scorer. Don't ask for a rule change or complain that they made a better bot than you did.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

Martin,
Give me a fair analogy PLEASE!
I'll give you one. The NBA implements a new rule that, in the 3-seconds crease, ONLY THE OFFENSE CAN JUMP FOR REBOUNDS. The DEFENSE MUST KEEP THEIR FEET ON THE GROUND.
This is the best analogy to the situation with loopers, and it points out why a rule change that allows expansion at either tower is clearly best solution.
Loopers will still be able to compete effectively, but they will have learn how to defend their turf too.
End of story.

-Dick Ledford

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

Fair enough... I can't see how allowing expansion at either end of the field would hurt game play.

But, I think you'll agree, it would hurt at least one team whose robot is designed to benefit from that aspect of the rules and game play.

What you're seeing here, I think, is that many of us... one day... want to be the team that has sufficient insight into the rules and the game that we are able to devise a unique solution that gives us a unique advantage. To us the game isn't just what happens on the field... it is what happens in the shop for six weeks and what happens in the school and community for a year. We are vigourously protecting 469's right to be dominant because we all want to be 469 one day, and have such a stunningly successful design that we cause a complete paradigm shift in how the game is to be played.

In some posts related to this topic I think some people have been a little more... vigorous... in their defense of 469's right to use the rules to their advantage than they need to be, but I hope you can understand why. Changing the rules to the disadvantage of a dominant team, for whatever reason, threatens the ability of any of us to dominate.

I think our resistance to a rule change is also based on years of experience seeing how teams react to a dominant machine. FRC is not a "static" competition... strategies and robots change and evolve over the course of a season. We've seen, perhaps, less than half of this year's robots. Lets wait and see how the game evolves.... its quite possible that 469 isn't actually as dominant as they might appear to be right now. They might have been wise to keep their "looping" mechanism under wraps until they got to Atlanta....

Personally, however, I want to thank you for presenting your argument in a calm and rational manner in the face of a fair bit of criticism. I might not agree with your argument, but I appreciate how you have presented it.

Stay tuned... and have faith in the teams... there is LOTS of exciting action to come without the need for any rule changes.

Jason

Jason

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

OK, I agree that the sports analogies I gave were not fair analogies to FIRST. Unfortunately, I can't give you a fair sports analogy because none exist. There is no sport in the world (except FIRST) where a brand new game is created out of whole cloth, published to teams, and played for the first time six weeks later. Any rule change that changes game play after the first week of game release (by this I mean early January) could have a major impact on a team that has based a design or strategy on the rules as published. The game-play rules have to remain static throughout the build and play season.

I'll try to give a FIRST analogy. Suppose in 2008, people complained that it wasn't fair that 1114 could score over 30 points in hybrid, and asked the GDC to allow robots to block in hybrid mode. That way, other teams could have a chance to win. It is a simple rule change like the one you are proposing. As it was, 1114 won every regional they attended (three of them), won the Galileo division at championships, and won on Einstein. They deserved to win because they made a robot that played within the rules, and that was, for all intents and purposes, unbeatable.

I don't understand why people are surprised at this tactic. I highly doubt the GDC is surprised. On Jan. 14th, this thread was started to discuss this exact strategy. Remember, the GDC is full of smart people. While it is possible that none of them foresaw this tactic as a possibility, it is highly unlikely. I might even venture a guess that they expected to see this, and wrote the rules to allow it.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

Anaolgies are given to emphasize a point by comparing to a more commonly known situation. The point of an anaolgy in this case would be to show how ridiculous your rule change proposal is.

It seems that rule you are proposing is ridiculous and unecessary, and thus any analogy given would seem ridiculous as well...

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

No matter how you look at it, it is too late to make any major rule changes. Adding the 5 pts to the winning alliance wasn't huge but it did change how people play the game. What it didn't do was change how people designed their robots.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

My sports analogy would be Yankee Stadium in 2009. The field just so happened to be designed to allow balls hit to right field to leave the ball park much more easily and resulted in many more home runs for the yankees than their opponents, based in large part on the heavy left-handed batting composition of the team. The field was probably not made like this deliberately and it couldn't be anticipated that the Yankees would be so dominant, much like how in FIRST, while the game designers may have anticipated this strategy, they could not have possibly thought an alliance would score every 4-5 seconds. Now with Yankee stadium, they didn't make the team change it during the season because that would just change a part of the game in the middle of the season; FIRST should treat this situation likewise. I think we could all agree that even though the Yankees may have gained a slight advantage because of the balls flying out of right field, they were also a very skilled team. And in comparison, a 469-looping-bot an advantage based on the rules (especially when paired with a good striker), but kudos to them for coming up with a great design, making it happen, thoroughly anticipating how to stop others from stopping them (border-line within the rules), and executing their strategy painstakingly well. All FIRST can do is learn from it and make the rules less one sided in the future, although in reality anybody could have done this. The only thing I don't like about it is that it makes for a less exciting game.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

A Team Update after that thread was posted confirmed it. And just in case you think no one on the GDC saw it, Dave Lavery posted in the thread.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

One point that I don't think has been made is that MANY teams thought outside the box and carefully examined the looper scheme early on. They then decided this design would be truely bad for the competition to the degree that it could and likely would end up either disallowed or weakened by a rule change. Many of these teams anticipated the GDC would not allow the looper advantage to remain in place once it was clearly demonstrated how massivly it could alter the game.

Ours was one of these teams, and we assessed it as both too dominating a game killer idea AND one that, as a rookie team, we considered too risky to pursue. We expected back then, and we still do feel that the GDC would at some point, and still should do something to reduce (NOT ELIMINATE) the looper advantage. We had lots of valid reasons for abandoning the looper idea, and in talking about it with our team Wed., despite knowing what 469 has accomplished, they still believe NOT doing a looper was the right decision. It is mainly a philosophical perspective with them that the looper scheme detracts from the game play. Even though we had considered loopers to be an ultimate strategy, and one we were capable of implementing effectively, we did not, and still don't want to be, a team altering the game so dramaticly in the direction that 469 has done.

So as we view things now, the GDC, by allowing the looper advantage, has created a monster . The genie is out of the bottle and it's too late to get it back in. We never expected it to be allowed out of the bottle, and we don't like the way that it has impacted the game. Still, this is the way it has gone down, so we will deal with the situation. It's not the end of the world , we will not wine or complain. If we see any new strategies emerge for equalizing the looper advantage, we will be encouraged, and we will share any that we come up with too.
All the Best.
-Dick Ledford

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

Of the reasons not to build a loop bot, this was not my team's reason. I was more motivated by the fact that I thought it would be really hard to get a mechanism like that to work consistently.

In a competitive game, including FIRST, most people build robots to win matches. I don't see why you'd look at a design, go "this is too good, it'll make every match a shut out" and then not build it.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

I appreciate you bringing this topic up. It worthy of discussion. I must say that I take exception to the phrase "game exploit scheme". Isn't having a different solution what all teams want? My elevator pitch to bring outsiders to a regional is that all 60 teams have a common challenge and there are 60 different solutions to that challenge. There are going to be teams that have very unique solutions.
Example: 2004 FIRST Frenzy: Raising the Bar. There was a 50 point bonus awarded for hanging on the 10' bar at the end of the match. We had one of those "game exploit scheme" ideas of moving back and forth across that bar and defending it. Only 3 or 4 teams total did that. We dominated our first regional and then got our butts handed to us once others understood what we were doing and how to defend it.

The competition is the big leveler. It will be defendable. We're looking for 1700 different ways to play this years challenge. That's why we keep coming back.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

We often think of exploitation as being negative. Dictionary.com gives 3 senses of exploit - positive, negative and neutral:
Taking advantage of game rules for the team's benefit is exploitation of those rules, but in and of itself that is neither positive or negative. It's how teams should look at strategy.

If a team thought any particular strategy or design would be negative exploitation of the rules and chose not to do it, that's their decision. That another team decided it would be a positive benefit is another decision. Neither is right or wrong.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

Dick,

Your whole argument is based around one core opinion that you have.

"Loopers hurt the quality of the game."

I, and many others, disagree.

Even ignoring the other fundamental differences and horrific flaws in your argument, the core that you base it around is a matter of opinion, not fact. Once you accept that, you'll realise why the GDC should not, and will not, change the rule you are suggesting to be changed.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

Did anyone stop to consider that the gdc may have thought of this design/strategy while creating the game and purposly written the rules in a way that would allow it?

When reading over the rules that govern these areas it strikes me how each is worded in a way that specifically allows this strategy and design as long as the robot is built in a very specific way.

Perhaps sensitive to the (IMO well founded) criticism that the rules of Lunacy limited the creativity of the competing teams the GDC chose to leave an Easter Egg for us to find. Only the most creative and outside the box thinking teams could gain from it, and it is still not an easy ting to pull off.

Rob

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

I'll chime in as having though of this idea and prematurely discarded it as well. We figured it'd be too difficult to pull off consistently. Mostly because you're at the mercy of other teams sitting there looping balls. We figured hanging off the tower with a looping mechanism would leave us too exposed to being mangled by other teams. Clearly we didn't follow that thought through and examine how we could mitigate that problem. Very clearly 469 did; the wedge system and those vertical supports make this obvious.

At no point did we think to discard the idea simply because it was too good. Once the GDC allowed it in Update #2, we considered it fair game, but ultimately discarded it.

Fundamentally, trying to guess the GDC's intent/philosophy for the game and design to that is going to be pointless and frustrating to you on an annual basis. The GDC often isn't sure what their opinion is on certain matters. To co-opt Rob's argument above... Did anyone stop to consider that the GDC may not have originally considered this idea strategy and didn't know what they thought of it? And then the Q&A's on it came in very early in build and they had plenty of time to consider it, decide, and notify teams of their decision. And at a point when it wouldn't cripple a team that made that design choice.

So, it's much better to read the rules as written, find your strategies, and the ask a Q&A if any of them look too good to be true. As long as you ask an appropriately general question, the GDC is prompt about answering and others aren't going to leap to your exact design solution. There's really no risk in the whole process as long as you make sure your Q&A actually covers your design, but is couched in general terms so the GDC doesn't fire back with the standard "we can't comment on specific designs".

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

Gah, it was YOU! Assuming you are the team I'm thinking of (2004, NJ regional), we were hung from the bar in one of the qualification matches (one of our last i think) and a team that moved back and forth to defend the bar hit us seemingly trying to push us off the bar and bent a part of our lift mechanism by rolling through it.

We ended up doing some very temporary repairs (hose clamps and sheet metal!) and were able to keep it running long enough to make the elimination matches (we picked up 2nd seed!). Unfortunately our fix failed in the 3rd match of the 1/4 finals, causing our team to go home.

Faux anger aside, I was very impressed with the side to side bot, it was very great at defending.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

Yes, It was us. It was a great regional. We had one of those OMG moments when we developed the shimmy bot.

Sorry for busting up your bot.:o

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

Heh, no worries! We were restarting the team that year, so we only had 3 students and ~$700 budget and only our dads as mentors, so we were proud of ourselves getting as far as we did. It was all 3 of our 1st FIRST years as students, and our Senior years, so it was our one and only chance.

Interestingly (looking back) we had never blamed you guys or anyone else for us losing, we went home upset, but blaming ourselves for not preparing better. This is something I think I need to teach to some of my kids next season!

That Shimmy bot was nearly unbeatable, if i remember correctly, you guys won the regional, didn't you? At the time, we were just happy to be able to hang against you guys, we had to do some muscling in order to make it up that step against you and get our hanger on the pole.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

Almost unbeatable... except when up against 190. :yikes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5nnGGRi-94

Back from the days when defense on 'bots attempting to hang was still legal.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

Holy crap that was nuts! I'm glad someone beat them! (sorry 237 :) ). Ah the days before bumpers! I remember at the NJ regional that there were quite a few broken welds and busted bots!

(Story time, sit down youngsters...)
This was in the time before the regionals had a shop area with everything in them.

At one point (friday I think!?) we were charging batteries and trying to get things fixed/working, and one of the other teams came over to ask if they could borrow batteries/a charger for a bit. At the time we were only swapping batteries out ever 3-4 matches, so we took our freshest battery and tossed it in the bot, and lent out the rest.

They went to the group next to us, and did the same. Finding that strange, we followed them to their pit. When we got there, we saw them with a very bent up robot, attempting to weld their frame back together with the batteries! It was the craziest thing I'd ever seen, they were sitting there using a battery connector on each battery trying to resistance-weld their frame back together!

If I remember correctly, they managed to make just about all of their matches.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

You beat me to it. I was posting the same video. It was a wicked good game that year. The game sure has changed.
The video is a classic, lots of good memories.
I would hope that we get back to games like that.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

You misrepresent my "core opinion", and the title of the thread I why I posted it here.
It is an issue with the game rules that allow ONLY the offensive team to have PRIORITY ACCESS to the balls as they return to the playing field. I critique only the rules for allowing any team that pulls off a decent looper design (like 469's) to gain too much of an advantage over their opponents, often leading to very dominating blow outs. Any competitive game with rules that facilitate more frequent blowouts would be considered (at least by TV sponsors paying for the advertising during such games) a "ratings killer". This means people quickly lose interest in watching such blowout games, especially if there are very many in a relatively short time frame.
So, if you are suggesting that [Ulooper ]blowouts[/u] will stimulate the interest of more people in viewing the FIRST competition matches than close scoring matches will, then I assert MORE facts exist to back my opinion on this than yours. It's fine to have an opinion that looper blowouts are what the matches should become AS LONG AS THE RULES ALLOW IT, but I will never agree with your opinion, and until I see the appearance of an effective strategy that can neutralize decent loopers, I will keep thinking this rule exploit is bad for Breakaway 2010.
-Dick Ledford

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

I agree with everyone to say that the change wouldn't happen as it's midway though the season and adding that change would make more headaches then it would be helpful.

However, if you are going to any off-season events, I suggest you propose this idea to them.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

237's shimmybot '04 was epic. I have a video somewhere of a team from 2000 that did the same thing in NJ (I think it was 41?)

[tangent]Anyone have video from 04 at NJ actually? I know our alliance 173, 195, and 11 lost against 237.[/tangent]

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

Dick,

First and foremost, continuing to call this strategy a "rule exploit" probably won't win you any friends or help you persuade anyone to your side of the argument. This strategy isn't an exploit, it's completely valid and well within the rules and was thought up by a LOT of people. There was a whole thread about it a while ago. I fail to see how something that so many people thought of can be an "exploit" in the sense you mean.

Also, I'm confused by the implications of your last statement there. You seem to be saying that a dominant strategy is bad for the game. I've always operated under the assumption that the FRC design process was about discovering and implementing a robot that can win the game. The whole premise is that there are some strategies and designs that are better than others. If you're looking for a game where you're guaranteed a level playing and close matches because everyone's evenly matched, then lobby for FRC NASCAR. Otherwise, you're admitting that some strategies are going to be better than others and you're down to a matter of degree.

If you think that this particular strategy in this particular game is just too dominating, then consider this: A single team out of a field of thousands has managed to make this work this flawlessly. If one robot in a thousand dominating this game is too much for you to handle, then, again, I point you to FRC NASCAR. In the FRC of my experience, there's a dominate robot in the field every single year.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

My assessment is to call it an exploit because it takes advantage of what I consider a flaw or a weakness in the rules that restricts expansion at towers to => OFFENSE-ONLY. I have yet to see any post indicating why this rule is necessary. How does OFFENSE-ONLY expansion at towers help to make the game better? It could have been applied for only the last 20 seconds, if encouraging hanging was the goal. Instead, what this rule has done is to allow loopers to gain what I feel is unfair access to and unfair control of the most critical ball flow point in the game. Once a team deploys an effective looper scheme, there is NO LONGER ANY FAIRNESS regarding balls returning to the field from their ramp. The design of the game ramp seems to have been done from the perspective that scored balls should re-enter play AT MID-FIELD, and in direction OPPOSITE TO the goal at which it was scored, This would tend to help keep the match scoring more balanced, and the game outcome more uncertain, but this idea gets circumvented by the looper scheme. Teams deployed the looper scheme because they saw that rules ALLOWED for for them to gain a dramatic advantage at controlling the ball return flow. Sure, they still had to design and build well, in order to realize this advantage, but it is basically just the pursuit of the opportunity to gain an unfair, but still legal, advantage. I say most people would assess the advantage that deployed loopers achieve to be UNFAIR, and they would assess that the rules should not allow such an advantage to be available within the rules. Gaining an advantage within the rules is fine, but pursuing an unfair advantage within the rules => I call an this an EXPLOIT.

No, I'm saying that when this dominance is gained from pursuing a legal, but unfair, advantage, available with a well executed looper scheme, then, merely because the rules have created this this unequal access to balls situation, does not mean that exploiting it for blowout level dominance is going to increase the fan interest in the FIRST program.

It is not about NASCAR, it is about fairness for ball access.

-Dick Ledford

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

What is the difference between an advantage and an unfair advantage?

I know from personal experience, the first thing that 469 does after kickoff, is to split off into smaller teams and read the rules (see there is an advantage to reading the rules line by line :P ) and brainstorm anything and everything a team can do. There's nothing wrong with reading the rules and finding a creative way to play the game.

Now if they purposely bent the rules or tried to tried to make a design legal by by using vague descriptions or trivialities, then this design would be considered an exploit. But all they did was look at the rules and figure out a way that fits in both the letter and the spirit of the rules.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

Dick,

What reason is there to restrict the number of defensive robots in an alliances home zone? This unfairly restricts the defensive robots' access to the single most important point scoring locale on the field, giving the alliance an unfair access to their own goals. Offensive double teaming in the this zone gives alliances an unfair advantage and unfair control of these goals. Defensive alliances should have unlimited access to an opponent's home zone so that they can adequately defend against this rule exploit.

The above argument holds just about as much water as yours, near as I can tell. Changing that rule would fundamentally change the game in numerous ways predictable and not, similar to your suggested change to the rules. Have you bothered to consider what other exploits and unfairness your rule change would unleash on the game? I've thought of a couple. The rules are the rules because they're the rules. We got a game we've all agreed to play and it's working out fairly well with, perhaps, one annoyance. I, personally, don't want to unleash such a large change as you're contemplating IN THE MIDDLE OF COMPETITION. If you really want to play a different game than the rest of us, wait till the offseason and make your pitch to the offseason committees.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

I think it's like the pass interference penalties in football--they give a huge unfair advantage to the offense if they can induce the defense to do something illegal.

All you have to do, in football, is to induce the defender to contact you/interfere with the play while the ball is in the air and you're way down the field, such that the ball is catchable and isn't caught, and you're that much farther towards your offensive destination. It's a legal strategy to do that, AFAIK, but it's very difficult to implement effectively and repeatedly.

The difference here is that some teams figured out a way to do it every time they "call a pass play", and use that as a primary strategy.

As soon as some NFL team figures out how to use it as a primary strategy, I bet that somebody will be complaining using the exact same argument used here--and that it'll be changed for the next NFL season.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

We are given design specifications (rule book) at the beginning of the season to build a robot. We built the robot that we thought would best meet those specifications. 469 built one that used very little effort to play the game.

Look back to 2002 with Team Hammond, they built a dominate robot, cruised through championships but even then, there were teams that figured them out.

Instead of spending so much time on Chief trying to convincing a bunch of people that can't be convinced that they're wrong. Spend it toward something positive, such as developing your robot further or coming up with strategies to defeat theirs.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

Dick,
The bottom line is that the game does not matter. FRC is about the 6 weeks and what happens to the students during those 6 weeks. They are given an impossible challenge and an impossible time frame. What they do with those two items is what counts. The only reason for regionals and champs is to showcase what the students did with the 6 weeks.

Examine what happened during the 6 weeks. Build on it for next year.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

I can and am doing both things at once.
Was the 2002 Team Hammond robot strategy to do something within "the letter of the rules" that produced an unfair advantage over the competition?

I am not trying to convince poeple they are wrong. I am trying to point out the biggest weakness in the 2010 rules that is allowing for effectively build and operated loopers to gain the unfair control of the flow of balls back onto the field. I do not care whether or not the GDC deliberately intended for this rule exploit to be available and to allow the looper scheme to use it for gaining unfair control of the flow of balls back onto the field. My purpose is to draw attention to how this weakness in the rules allows for deployment of a game strategy that is inherently unfair. To me, this is the exact type of situation that warrants a change in the rules. Obviously, at this late stage, the GDC is unlikely to make any such changes, but that does not mean I should stop pointing out the unfair aspect of this game strategy rule exploit. Perhaps it will help improve the integrity of GDC rules for future years. Perhaps it will affect how other teams decide whether to pursue unfair game rule exploits in future years.

-Dick Ledford

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

I (and several others) just can't fathom how a strategy can be "unfair", ever.

I apologize in advance for this analogy. In competitive Pokemon battling, there are some MUCH better than others. They quickly get discovered, as the best players use them. Then more and more people adapt their teams to handle them, or even add them to their teams. There are always people going "Overused Pokemon X is unfair!" and get offended when they battle against it, but that's really a combination of their own stubbornness and inability or unwillingness to adapt, since they are 100% free to use it or adapt their teams to it at any time.

Now, if there was a rule saying "<R99>: The only team allowed to use a ball return cycler is team 469, Las Guerillas, from Michigan. 217 is required to be on all of their elimination alliances to make them as good as possible.", I would very quickly object. But the simple truth is, as balanced or as unbalanced as the rules may be, they allowed you to build this robot, and they allow you to plan against it. They have from Day 1. The fact that you didn't build the robot is your own fault, so if you think it's overpowered, the only person who "screwed up" isn't the GDC.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

Dick,

I have tried really hard to grasp your logic that results in the usage of the word "unfair" to describe the looper strategy, but I just can't quite wrap my head around it. From what I understand you believe that their access to the ball return is unfair because you do not have equal access to the same space. By this logic an alliances access to the right side of the field in autonomous is unfair as your alliance does not have access to this area. By a similar token access to the far zone by two opposing robots is unfair as you can only have one, hanging is unfair as you can't have access to their tower, lifting in 2007 was illegal because you didn't have access to that zone, etc. etc. etc.

Basically what I'm saying is that there are often GDC imposed restrictions on how defense can be played. Lack of access to the opponent's ball return is just one of these restrictions. To defend the looper strategy you will need to find a way to do it within the defensive restrictions that currently exist.

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

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.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

I realize there is zero chance for a rule change at this stage.
My view of team 469 is the same as yours and others, they are great!
My ONLY issue is with the rule that affords loopers an unfair advantage in access to returning balls. At this stage, I only want to focus attention on what I consider the clear unfairness of this rule, so that any future game rules will hopefully NOT have this degree of potential unfairness available for exploit. I am NOT focused on how I "can more easily beat them". I want BOTH their victories and my losses to take place within a context of clearcut fairness within the rules, and this rule, I feel, is detrimental to game fairness. I don't see my pointing out a potential rule unfairness issue as being "ungracious on my part", and I reject your accusation to that effect.

We are eagerly looking forward to encountering a looper or two at the upcoming Northstar Regional, and will continue to prepare as best we can for dealing with them there.

-Dick Ledford

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

I agree, we have all made our points clearly enough at this point, and we can agree to disagree.
All the Best! - especially to the loopers!

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

Yeah, kind of like that unfair rule in football that allowed the Saints to kick an onside kick in the Superbowl so the poor Colts didn't get "access" to return the ball at the beginning of the second half? Playing a game by the rules and being smart enough and gutsy enough to exploit them to your advantage is not being "unfair".

Do you have any idea what "fair" means?? It means that the rules are the same for both teams. Saying that loopers have an "unfair" advantage is like saying soccor goalies have an "unfair" advantage because they can use their hands and the poor strikers can't. Live with it, it's the way the game works. Whining that it's "unfair" when it's the same for both teams makes little sense and gets kind of old. If it's within the rules and the same for both teams, by definition it is fair.

There's nothing to stop you from doing a better job on your tower than the opposing looper does on theirs.

From the Online Dictionary:

fair1   /fɛər/ Show Spelled [fair] Show IPA adjective,-er, -est, adverb,-er, -est, noun, verb
–adjective
1.free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice: a fair decision; a fair judge.
2.legitimately sought, pursued, done, given, etc.; proper under the rules: a fair fight.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

Still EQUAL ACCESS TO THE BALL though after 10 yds!

Just because it's the SAME BAD RULE for BOTH TEAMS, doesn't mean it is no longer a BAD RULE! We would never change any bad rules if we just argued that "when it's the same for both teams" then it is still fair & should not be changed. No one here at CD has yet given a very good justification for having this rule in the FIRST place..

So that was the real intent of the GDC - to turn the game into a battle of the loopers, and may the fastest & most accurate ball recirculators go on to ultimate victory! OK, now I see the big picture.

From McMillan Dictionary:
an unfair situation is one in which the people involved are not all treated equally or do not all have the same opportunities and advantages...

It does not matter which tower you are at, the defense is ALWAYS at a severe disadvantage when the looper exploit is allowed and deployed effectively. The status of ramp balls now changes from EQUAL ACCESS to EXCLUSIVE ACCESS FOR OFFENSE ONLY. This matches the above definition perfectly. It is ONLY from the bad rule that this unfair situation arises.

-Dick Ledford

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

One of the (minor) reasons my team abandoned this looping strategy (our primary strategy) a week and a half into build is that we didn't want to deal with the "cheating/unfair backlash" if successful. Despite TU 2 assuring that this strategy is 100% legal, to the average viewer (not well versed in the rules, a frequent CD reader or strategist that considered this idea) the initial reaction is to consider this strategy cheating. Note: this doesnt apply to Dick who is extremely well versed on the rules at this point He just has very strong minority opinion about balance in this game.

The major reasons were to avoid: 1)risk of design working as well as intended, 2)targeted counter-strategies (from the collective minds of all FIRST teams) and 3)boring our drivers (who would only have to switch left and right directions after deploy). Although, we had working ramp prototypes that bounced balls off the bump and into the goal, the deployment method was risky but potentially harder to stop than 469's method. So we voted for the conventional high-floor, low-ceiling, exciting kicker bot (a reasonable decision that turned out well). Props to 469, 51 and all the other looper bots for taking the risk and showing us what is possible.

I agree that this thread should be closed temporarily. Let's give 469 a break from the controversy as they prepare for the Troy District event. By Friday night, they probably will give us something new worth discussing. The discussion is a civil debate, but it is just the same differing opinions about a strategy that allowed an elite alliance to dominate one event in record fashion. Reading some of these posts cannot possibly be a pleasant experience for members of 469. I congratulate them for resisting the natural urge to fire back when someone suggests that your accomplishments were earned by exploiting an unfair set of rules and those rules should be changed to make their design and strategy illegal. Most of the time, I would expect a thread like this to spiral into a flame war with tons of deleted posts. Restraint on their part is a major reason for this.

I'm not saying stop discussing this all together, just take some time to observe the competition this weekend without all the rhetoric. Perhaps then the discussion should continue in a new thread since OP here was focused on the reducing the penalties for violating the finale tower protection rules.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

Nothing in the rules to stop a defensive robot with a 60" tall ramp angled in the opposite direction from wedging itself under 469's tower. Any balls coming down the return ramp would then be accelerated towards the opposite goal. The defensive robot has the advantage because it gets to start right next to 469's tower and could easily be in place on autonomous before 469 could cross the field. Would you say that in this case that the DEFENSE now has EXCLUSIVE ACCESS to the balls that were just scored by the opposing alliance??

The way the rules are written the only advantage an offensive robot has is in it's ability to expand in contact with the goal. Trying to say that the rules are "unfair" if they're not the same for offense and defense defies all logic. Should all soccor players be able to use their hands like the goalies? Should football offensive linemen be able to use their hands like the defense? In baseball, ties go to the runner. I guess you think they should be split 50-50? Who gets the first one? Obviously you've never played a game of basketball using "make it - take it" rules, where the team that scores also gets to bring the ball back in. The rules are an inherent part of defining the game and are not "unfair" to anyone.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

I believe that this rule is perfectly fine as worded. Good strategy such as 469's requires good counter strategy not an adjustment in the game. This rule leads to different robot strategies like 469's, different in game strategies, and simply calls for an adjustment in alliance selection strategy to combat it. Good rules call for alteration of strategy and for risk/reward. This rule as written has accomplished that. If a team has created a robot that is currently making their strategy a reward then come up with an in game strategy that makes it a risk.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

Dick,

As I understand it, your primary problem here is that allowing robots to expand when touching their own towers gives an unfair advantage to loopers, allowing them to create designs that are too dominating. Your proposed solution was to allow all teams to expand when touching any tower. There's been a couple of posts suggesting this would be a bad solution just as prone to exploits. Vision blocking defensive wall bots are just one of the shudder inducing designs that come to mind. So I'd like to take a different tack here. If you believe the issue is with only allowing teams to expand while touching the their tower, then consider this solution:

No teams are allowed to expand before the finale. This "solves" your claimed imbalance in the rules. But does it really prevent a powerful looper in the style of 469? True, they gain certain advantages from expanding upwards and outwards. But would a normal configuration robot designed along the same lines be that less powerful? It would still be able to wedge under the tower, if slightly less so. The catch mechanism would be slightly less reliable. The funnels would be a bit more complicated and possibly a bit less accurate. But you could still implement nearly the same robot without ever bothering to leave the 60x38x28. The only differences would be slightly less accuracy (which isn't perfect or necessary anyways) and increased temptation\ability for other teams to clobber and mangle their robot. The difference is just a matter of degree of perfection.

So, what else could you come up with to stop this strategy? Rules against directing balls with structures above the bumper zone? That's hard to enforce and eliminates innocent ramp and wall bots. Rules against sitting in one place? There's just no way to change the rules to eliminate or seriously weaken looper bots that won't create a myriad of other problems.

So, in answer to your request for a defense of these rules:

These rules create less problems and truly unfair designs than any other similar set of rules the GDC could think up. Any other rules would create the potential for far too many other problem robots or would be too restricting to other game aspects. The potential for a truly extremely dominant looper was likely judged extremely small and not particularly harmful.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

My idea with both teams being allowed to expand at either tower was that it still allowed the 469 & 51 teams to work as designed, but it gave the defenders a chance to contest for the balls at the same elevation. Thus the loopers would have to do some ball control battling up high if they wanted their balls to recirculate as planned. With the current rules, it is like having an NBA jump ball where the defense can't leave the floor --- so who do you think gets possession every time? Of course, the offense does. I feel that ball ramp returning balls have the same status as jump balls in the NBA, and both the offense and defense should have EQUAL ACCESS to these ramp return balls. Is this so hard a concept to comprehend. I don't see where these absurd comparisons with soccer goalies using their hands are coming from. Ramp returning balls are a TOTALLY DIFFERENT scenario. The NBA jump ball analogy is a fair and realistic comparison. Am I making up absurd analogies to back up my position? I think not. Any neutral people out there?

-Dick Ledford

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

Last time I checked, the NBA players were allowed to grab said jump ball. In Breakaway, players are not allowed to grab it, except with their "feet".

It's a jump ball where the defense can't leave the ground, but the offense can't grab the ball before it hits the ground. They can sure swat it in the direction of their team, though.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

I think so. I think a closer analogy to the Breakaway scoring system can be found in tennis or volleyball. In both those cases the defensive team gets NO chance at the ball once it's scored. The offensive team gets the ball back and gets a chance to score again without the defense being able to touch it, just like "Breakaway" using a looper. The only way the defense can get the ball is to get between the ball and the goal once the offensive team tries to score again, then take the ball away. In tennis or volleyball, even then they can't score it, they just win the opportunity to go on the offensive.

I would say that the defense in tennis and volleyball having to "BREAK the serve" is analogous to the defense in Breakaway taking the ball away in the opponents home zone and moving it down the field and scoring it. Since the defense can't touch the ball immiediatly upon it's return to the field after a score (just like tennis and volleyball), they must disrupt it before it reaches the goal to stop a score and gain the opportunity for themselves to score.

If a tennis or volleyball team feels that the rule that gives them the ball back after scoring is "unfair", there's nothing to stop them from serving an easy blooper to their opponents. Likewise, if you feel that the rule that lets "Breakaway" offensive robots expand on their tower is unfair, feel free to not take advantage of it when you are on offense. But don't cry that it's "unfair" for a team to play by the rules that apply equally to everyone.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

You are missing the entire point of my NBA jump ball analogy. It has NOTHING to do with hands or feet , and nothing to do with grabbing or swatting the ball.
The point relates to fairness in the method of how balls are reintroduced into game play. An NBA jump ball is tossed airborne by the ref and both players have totally equal access to it at that moment. A Breakaway returning ball is launched airborne, and the offense has exclusive access to it until it drops to the 60" max. height level limit of the defensive bots. The loopers take advantage of this EXCLUSIVE ACCESS TO THE BALL to accomplish this strategy. This 24" looper advantage is the point of contention.

-Dick Ledford

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

A jump ball (more commonly known as a tipoff) is the start of the half. It is never done right after a score. At that time, there is no offense or defense. Your analogy doesn't hold.

Now, for a rebound, it would hold better, as that's a missed shot going to who-knows-where and up for grabs. Having the defense stay flat on the floor then would create havoc.

I think you'd have made your point better with an NHL faceoff, where both sides have equal access to get the puck back to their players once the puck drops. Those happen after every goal, or after a penalty puts the puck in one of the circles. Imagine doing one of those with the scored-on team starting with their stick outside the circle...

You're not making up absurd analogies, but using analogies that have little to no relation is just as bad, or worse.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

Bad analogies - these sports make no pretense of having balls come back into play in any type of an "equal opportunity" way. Breakaway is modeled on soccer. The soccer throw-in does not give any positioning advantages to the players on the field for either team. Hockey is similar to soccer - face offs have equal access to the puck. Are ya getting the picture yet?

-Dick Ledford

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

Well, if you want to strictly narrow the focus on the post-scoring aspect of how balls are re-introduded to a game , then soccer rules actually GIVE possession (for the mid-field kickoff) to the team that was defending the score, and on top of that, they even provide a 10-yard buffer to assist them in getting their attack organized.
In fact, the Breakaway ramp scheme seems to have been intended to do mainly this same thing - get ball back into play at midfield, and have a direction of ball travel favoring team that was defending the score. There are philosophical considerations in designing game rules, and both soccer and Breakaway had a lot of similarity, at least until the GDC interpreted them such that the looper exploit was approved.
In my view this caused a philosophical shift in a wrong direction.
BTW, Eric, originally basketball DID do a jump ball after every score, but that changed at some point.
-Dick Ledford

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

You have some secret insight into the GDC that says they had intentions of trying to get the balls in Breakaway back into play with "equal opportunity"? I'd be interested in seeing the link if you do.

If that was the intention there are literally millions of ways to accomplish it where no team would have any advantage.

It's modeled on soccer about as much as "Overdrive" was modeled on NASCAR racing. Breakaway has some aspects of soccer. It also has aspects of basketball, hockey, off-road racing, and volleyball as well as it's own unique characteristics.

I've had the picture since the game was announced. :) Breakaway is it's own unique game as defined by a unique set of rules. I guess I just can't comprehend the lack of logic behind saying it's "unfair" when the same rules apply to both teams, even though it's a unique game that differs from any other game you're familiar with.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

This thread has gotten rather long and repetitive. I've been following it for a while and am not even sure what the argument is anymore. Everyone has different opinions about what set of rules the optimal game would have. Just look at Team Update 16.

Is it possible that including the tower extension rule may not have been the best decision by the GDC? Yes.

Do we fault 469 and other for developing a successful strategy within the rules given to everyone? No.

Certainly we can agree on these points?

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

I don't agree with the first point, actually. I like the rule the way it is, with only the tower's respective alliance aloud to expand on it. It prevents a lot of hairy areas in other aspects of gameplay (namely hanging, finale period restraints, and a lot of judgement calls for "forced penalties"), and overall definitely helps the game.
I also still fail to see how expansion at the tower would really help with ball blocking mechanisms to prevent a "looper." Other than perhaps a giant wall (which could still be circumvented by a looper design you'll see tomorrow), and I definitely feel gigantic wall bots are worse for the game than loopers.

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

How would defense be helped in defending loopers by having expansion at opponent's tower? Well they could now reach the height to knock the balls away before they ever properly engaged the looper's ramp, that's how. They could also poke into the looper's ball chute flow path to deflect them off the chute. Many more options than just ramming endlessly.

-Dick Ledford

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

Dick, I suggest you re-read some of the rules.

Good luck poking the ball chute flow path or reaching above their robot without contacting them outside the bumper zone. :rolleyes:

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

Err... what? Normally you seem to be pretty "on top" of these things, but I'm not sure how any of these things could ever be considered "aggressive or intentional" contact. And from what I saw, COTBZ (it's been around for so long, it has to be an abbreviation!) has not been called very much this year anyway. Whether or not that's actually a good idea or not, I don't know, but I don't think you can go against it on this point...

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

I never said it would be simple or easy, but certainly a lot more possible to overlap your hardware with theirs in the 60"-84" zone within the flow path of the balls. I was not suggesting impacts with their chutes, only interference with ball flow WITHOUT CONTACT. At least with expansion both horizontal and vertical possible, there are a lot more creative options open for interference with the looping balls' flow paths.
-Dick Ledford

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

Trying to knock a ball off of a robot. How is that anything BUT "intentional"?

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

I'm trying to decide if you're really serious or if this is a joke. You're actually proposing that you could build something that will overlap the mechanism of another robot that you've never even seen before (or have any clue of how it's designed) WITHOUT TOUCHING IT and take the ball away if they would just let you expand on the other team's tower?

If anybody in FIRST had that kind of design, programming, sensing and construction capability, it would be demonstrated on their current robot and they would be scoring 100 points per game. They would then be immediately hired by NASA to design the next generation heavy lift launch vehicle ......

Re: FIRST Rule Changes
 

I personally think its funny that you would want to design your robot to interfere with such an infestimally small subset of the robots this year at all. There have been maybe 10 looper bots out of how many teams this year (1100+)? Why would you want to design your robot to interact with 1/10 of a percent of the possible robots you are going to deal with at a competition?

I don't even want to address how you would be doing this, as what you are describing is something that would have almost had to be designed right from the beginning of the kick off in order to have enough time and more importantly access to your robot in order to build your mechanism. How would you have been pre-cognizant enough to build this robot from the beginning. I thought building a looper was a gamble, and we are one of the few teams that took that gamble. I can't even imagine how much a gamble it would be to build an anti-looper bot.

I was in a first week regional and here in the south we don't get the incredibly unfair advantage of bag and tag, so whatever we are adding at Atlanta we have to bring in completely self-contained and ready to bolt on. Are you a bag and tag team which can basically rebuild your robot every weekend? With qualifiers starting on Thursday lowering the time I can get a robot addition added to nearly nothing, I don't see how you would even have the time to build your looper blocker otherwise.

On the other hand, if you had concentrated on a good kicking, maneuvarable robot like the other 75% of the robot teams, you can shut down the looper bots by just playing the game. Put your best kicker in the defender zone and kick the balls out of their endless loop. Sure they may get some balls scored while you're emptying their que, but with a good team you should be scoring just as much on the other side.

I don't see the need to change a rule for the very small chance that someone would have built a competent enough robot to take advantage of it. There is never a "fair" game, especially in FIRST. Someone is always got more resources, or more time(bag and tag), or a different idea. Do your best, and remember that FIRST is about inspiring high schoolers to want to be engineers and technically oriented. Those looper bots that are really effective sure have inspired our group.