Robot Diversity
 

In my opinion, the quality of the game created by the GDC is directly reflected by the diversity of the robots that tackle it. In 2007, diversity ran very high due to the un-forseen nature of the game. Overdrive had slightly less diversity. Then Lunacy came along and had a roughly 4-type system: dumpers, shooters, shumpers, collectors. This year's game, Breakaway, has about the same amount of diversity or even less with 4 types: kickers, shovers, loopers, and mainly-hangers. Loopers and mainly hangers are rare types, which makes this even less diverse.

My question: Do you think that first has done enough to force creativity, "thinking outside the box", and diversity among robots, or should they do more?

In an attempt to popularize has the GDC given up some of the awesome design differences that really can inspire kids and force progress.

What are your thoughts, comments, anything on the subject?

Re: Robot Diversity
 

I still see a lot of diversity in implementations. This is hidden by the bumpers. It makes every single robot look similar in my opinion.

Re: Robot Diversity
 

The GDC has quite a hard job. They have to create a game that is visually appealing, and has different levels of difficulty built within the game. This allows the rookies all the way up to the veterans from 1992 to have fun and enjoy the game.

Yes, this years game may seem boring in terms of diversity as many robots look like boxes, but have you had a chance to see all the robots up close? I think if you were to look at every single "box bot" you would be surprised at how diverse robots this year really are.

Some examples of this: kicker style (motor, pneumatic, spring, electromagnetic, etc), drive train choice, hanging method, etc.

This game also posed several design challenges that you might be overlooking as well. Want to go under the tunnel? You had better be shorter than 17" or it isn't happening. Want to traverse the bumps? Hope you shock mounted everything.

There are so many more things that are hidden within this years game that most people just overlooked. Strategy wise, yes, there are "few", but this all changes when you place in things like the ranking system for quals.

I applaud the GDC for this year's game. It made me personally think even harder this year about design trade offs, something that happens in the real engineering world.

Re: Robot Diversity
 

You make good points however those choices about drive train and power are made no matter what the game is. An example of diversity I would bring up would be team 148's nonagon in overdrive. That thing was outside the box. 469 was this year too, but most other teams are similar in that they have a way of possession and a way to kick and a tank drive. Thats the problem i think, that robots look and do the same things. Looping was a cool, unique idea, that managed to conquer the game.

Re: Robot Diversity
 

Yes, most of the robots are hidden by the bumpers this year. however, despite mechanical differences sucessful the robots for the most all kick the same, grab the ball basically the same (double roller pincher) and if they can hang the same way (vertical bar). Of course, their are a lot of exceptions to the second two, but its really hard to tell the difference between kickers.

I think that a lot of this is due to the vast amounts of rules limiting what you can and cannot do. For example how different do you think the designs would be if there was no three inch rule? Just changing that would increase the robot spectrum.

Perhaps, next year the GDC should simply make the game a lot harder (at least harder then pushing balls into a goal), but not limit teams in what they can build to compete (robot out of the box extention, touching or going to certian parts of the field at certian times, interaction with game objects, ect. I think everyone would be happy with this plus no lawyering of the rules. That way if you can dream it you can build it.:)

Re: Robot Diversity
 

Bjc I agree with what you're saying, almost everyone is either winch, cam, or pneumatically kicking and almost every successful team uses a pincher or roller. Most teams are switching to the grab and turn upward bar due to speed and drive trains are almost all tank. I am not trying to insult anyone's designing if they use these things, I mean my team does too, this year in my opinion is about how good your driver is and how smoothly you do the same things as everyone else (with the exception of loops). Simbotics, I think, does these things more smoothly than most and has a good driver, these are the reasons for their success.

Re: Robot Diversity
 

I think the way to encourage diversity in a game is to provide multiple, unrelated methods of scoring and allow teams to choose which method they wish to focus on.

In my opinion, the GDC has done a great job of this in past years. In 2006, you had high goals and low goals. In 2007, you had ringers and the elevation bonus. 2008 was excellent! You could hurdle, herd, cross lines, or place to get points in teleop, and autonomous had its own special scoring. 2009 was probably the worst year I've seen in this regard: shooting moonrocks into baskets was the only way to score, and the bonus scoring methods (e-cells and supercells) required pretty much the same engineering as the regular scoring method. Having said that, 2009 (my high school senior year) is the year I learned the most from FIRST, because the diversity was still there; it had just been largely moved into software (traction control).

In 2010, you have goals, elevation, and suspension as scoring methods. The cost/benefit ratio for suspension is so low, I doubt we'll see it more than once, so that one doesn't really count. So I would say the diversity of this game, with two main scoring methods, is about average.

Re: Robot Diversity
 

I rate diversity as great bots (think 1114), good bots, ok bots, not so good bots, bad bots, should not have passed inspection bots (waaaaaay too many this year).
I'd rather rate games on the challenge (this game has vexed many good veteran teams) and how exciting the elims are (this year has all been pulse pounding. Lat year? It was like watching snails joust).

Re: Robot Diversity
 

I actually disagree with you, the veteran teams and previous year's winners are dominating this year, absolutely. 2007 saw less veteran and usual winners doing well which is why i loved it. Think 1114, 217, 67, 148 and so on.

Re: Robot Diversity
 

Even if robots have all the same abilities or most of the robots have similar tactics, there is also how that tactic is implemented during building and how effective it is. While the outside of robots can be very different, the inner workings makes every robot different, and slight differences that you can't see on the outside can change everything.

Also, I originally disliked games where robot diversity was at a low, but especially this year I don't seem to mind it at all. I think this year, having a bunch of robots that are very similar really focuses on how that team plays the game with the robot they have, which is a good thing...but I agree, sometimes you sometimes what to see a big shift in styles and play styles.

Re: Robot Diversity
 

You're going to have to broaden your perspective in order to see all the diversity. Going by your logic of assigning robot types simple labels, I'd say that 2007's game was even less diverse than this year's game. There were three main types of robots in '07: Ramp-bots, Ring-bots, and Ramp+Ring bots. But... if you wanted to look into those three categories, you'd see amazing feats of engineering and diversity. There were pneumatic ramps, two-jointed arms, four-bar linkages, etc.

Take a look at this year's robots. On the outside, they may all seem extremely similar, which I personally think is due to the bumpers this year (yet some teams like 1501prove me wrong :p). They all may look like red and blue squares and rectangles on the outside, but you have to look a little deeper. Most 'bots have a possessing mechanism of some kind, whether it be a pincher-roller set-up, a single roller, or a vacuum. (Hey, that's three types right there!)

Look at the hanging mechanisms this year... There are some teams that drive up the vertical bar, there are some that grip and flip themselves over the vertical bar, there are some that grab the top of the tower, etc. Not only that, but the means that these robots accomplish these feats: scissor lifts, winches, pneumatics, gas shocks...

Look at all the drive trains this year... There are, of course, your standard four wheel drive, six wheel drive, and swerve drive (dare I call a swerve drive "standard"? :ahh: It is becoming increasingly common, however.) But, have you ever seen so many Mecanum drives attempted by so many bots? How about eight wheel drives? What about articulating eight wheel drives? And then there's that non-a-drive. :p

Now... don't you even get me started on 469. Heh.

TL;DR: Are the robots similar this year (And most years, for that matter)? In a very broad sense... yes. But if you look a little closer... no.

Re: Robot Diversity
 

Yes, it is about how smoothly you do things. But every year always relies on driver skill. And you said Simbotics does things smoothly. I pray that you are talking about the design of it and not how smoothly their driver moves the robot.... Because no ones driver is worth crap if their chains act funky and the kicker jerks the whole robot when it kicks.

Just my $0.01

-Rion

Re: Robot Diversity
 

@formerly famous
I was definitely talking about the smoothness of their robot, not necessarily their driver.

Re: Robot Diversity
 

This was the game that broke Pink's streak and 111 didn't come away with a banner like they usually do.
This game is tough.

Re: Robot Diversity
 

Excellent point, some teams were beaten by it, but i think the general trend is leaning towards veterans, that could be just me.

Re: Robot Diversity
 

Alot of veterans took to this game like a duck to water.
But those teams that you mentioned do that year after year after year.

Re: Robot Diversity
 

I actually think this may be the best aspect of the game. Anyone that can build a driveable robot can score. When was the last time a rookie team with a kitbot basically do the same thing as *insert your favorite powerhouse* with their professionally machined robot? In 2006, a kit bot could only herd balls into the goal, which was 1/3 of the goals in the upper goal. In 2007, a kit bot was forced to play defense and climb ramps. In 2008, a kit bot could only do laps, which was 1/10th the points of a hurdle and lap. In 2009, a kit bot just had to prevent being scored on. But, this year a kit bot can do the main scoring objective.

But, better yet, well designed a built robots are still rewarded! A team with a good ball magnet and kicker can be super more effective in the close zone. Also, teams with kickers are necessary for an alliance to get balls to the close zone. To give a further advantage to the overachieving teams, they can hang for a 2 point bonus.

To sum it up, this year is good because anyone can score, but those teams that build great robots still can excell.

Re: Robot Diversity
 

Your point about everyone being able to score is interesting, I never thought of it that way, but this reason is why I think the diversity is not as high.

Re: Robot Diversity
 

Sometime veteran teams just have 'not quite as good' seasons. For example last year team 33 built a turreted shooter instead of the much more effective dumper and we just couldn't find our groove.

This year, however, I think we hit the nail on the head with our robot design:) .

Re: Robot Diversity
 

Coming up with a design for the competition and actually engineering that design are very different things, but both require creativity to accomplish. The GDC I think has given us plenty to consider, with the bump, the 3 inch rule, the tower, etc. Many teams have come up with designs that look similar, but a lot of them are really quite different. You may have a ball roller or a vacuum, and an arm that winches itself up the tower, lifts itself off the floor by making the robot expand downwards, grabs the tower and rotates the robot's frame so that it is above the underpass, etc.

FIRST has come up with a very exciting competition this year, and while many robots are more similar than they are different, the design challenges of this year have pushed a lot of teams to their very limits. Even if robots are not so original, there are many new things teams had to consider this year, like how to use the camera, and strategies centering around this year's scoring system. Deep down, I think as much, or even a lot more thought went into many robots this year than in the previous two.

Re: Robot Diversity
 

These categories describe types of robots, but if you look at the robots in any category the actual implementations are very different.

For example, look at robots which try to hang or otherwise score bonus points. I've seen many methods of this- at the Boston Regional, for example, team 1100 latched on to the platform of the tower and flipped themselves onto it, team 383 rolled themselves up the poles on the side, team 3280 used a tape measure hook, team 230 got on the bump, drove towards the tower, and then used a hook over the top bar to lift themselves, some teams used pneumatics and some just slowly climbed a steel rope, some teams latched on to a pole and flipped themselves up, etc. Then I've also heard of teams with ramps so an alliance partner can drive onto the platform, and other cool ideas beyond this. I've probably seen more than 10 distinct implementations of this "hanging" concept.

You can take this example with any other part of the robot- there are many distinct drive systems and ball scoring mechanisms on the robots. There are not many robots that are "the same", even though they may serve similar functions in the game (scoring game pieces, playing defense, hanging, etc.) If you'll be at the Championship this year, you should make some time to visit the pits and ask teams about everything hiding behind their bumpers. You'll be in for a pleasant surprise... plus you might make some new friends!

Re: Robot Diversity
 

I feel that if the GDC made hanging worth more points, say 4 or 5, there would have been much more diversity. Maybe I'm biased because my team's robot was a hanger(And quite "out of the box" as well), but I felt that even a mediocre robot could score more than 2 points a round.

Re: Robot Diversity
 

I agree with this completely. From 50 feet away, most "box" robots look the same, when they're not moving, of course.

Once the robots are moving, the diversity is obvious.

Re: Robot Diversity
 

Breakaway is one of the least diverse games in terms of functionality, but I enjoy watching it and strategizing for it more than I ever did for Lunacy. I mean, you don't only like sports that have a variety of different looking athletes, right?

Re: Robot Diversity
 

Unless it's Nintendo Hockey.:D

Re: Robot Diversity
 

This year, most teams which considered a looping-bot type of strategy decided not to pursue it becaue of a concern that the GDC would change the rules to make it illegal. The GDC in fact re-inforced the strategy with updates. Too late for most teams to change their design, but I would expect that next year many more teams will be looking for these outside the box solutions and more will be willing to go that way. This may help diversity of bot design in the future.

Re: Robot Diversity
 

469 didn't leave the outcome of their season up to chance, though. They have an amazing bot even when it's not parked in the underpass.

Re: Robot Diversity
 

Agreed - this also helps diversity of bot design in coming years as teams see this is possible to achieve. This may be the long term impact of 469s 2010 bot - maybe other teams will raise their own expectations. I certainly will spend more time considering the options next year.

Re: Robot Diversity
 

I disagree, the annual winners continue to dominate, and will continue to dominate in the near future. However, this year has been an off year for more teams than normal, and it has thrown traditional winners for a loop. This the the first time since 2002 that 175 and 111 haven't won a regional, (only the second time in both of their histories.) If anything, this game has seen the most amount of rookies and under the radar teams show the FIRST community what they're made of.

The GDC did a great job of making the design this year up to the teams imaginations, but at the same time they gave constraints that kept the competition realistic to the actual engineering process. And as always, once we got to competition there was the standard, "Why on earth were we not smart enough to think of that?"

IMHO, this year had a great diversity of bots built around multiple strategies and interpretations of the rules and the end result was one of the most memorable games and exciting games. I felt this year, more than ever, to win, strategy, scouting, and robot design were equally important in order to be successful (minus the extreme cases like 1114, 217, and 469.)

Re: Robot Diversity
 

Teams like 469 will certainly inspire teams, but I was pointing out that 469 didn't take a risk at all. They knew that their robot could function in two ways. If 469 didn't have the smarts/resources/people/whatever-you-want-to-call-it to build a robot that performed that many functions so well, I think they might not have risked building the type of bot they did. Perhaps not, 125built a robot that hangs and loops, but not much else. As far as I know, the Nutrons have the only pure loop bot in all of FRC. From what I've seen of the Nutrons, they've always managed to build a robot that does something that no other robot in their regional does. Most teams just can't build a solid robot that does what every other robot does, and more. That's why many teams might not have taken the risks the Nutrons did, and probably won't in the future.

Re: Robot Diversity
 

The under the radar teams might be taking some regionals, but i cant see many of them making einstein, einstein will be filled with perennial
champions as usual

Re: Robot Diversity
 

Personally, I feel that this year's game allowed for a lot of diversity, not in the type of robot and what it does, but in the specific design of the mechanism. However, I feel that the GDC didn't think long and hard enough about robots attempting to hang and how teams, especially newer teams, would respond to the challenge. Between SVR and Sacramento, I majority of robots were a chassis with a kicker. Even though teams that did hang made it seem easy, I think that the challenge (which I have to say was great to think about) was harder for teams than they thought it would be, thus the kicker only design. That's my $0.02.

Re: Robot Diversity
 

I think more diversity can be achieved by a open ended game, so more ways to score like football, can have a reciever, punter, kicker, running back, offensive linemen, quarter back, defensive backs, linebackers, defensive linemen... And waterboy...

but they can be condensed down to Linemen (O/D), Punter/Kicker/QB, Linebacker/Runningback, Reciever/DB... 4 possible types

Re: Robot Diversity
 

A nice theory, i like how you compared it to football thats interesting, perhaps it could be like baseball too, fielders, pitchers, batters, runners but there would be more subcategories of these things, curveball pitchers, fastbal pitchers, large catchers and small fast ones, fly ball hitters and ground ball hitters, runners would be all different drive trains but definitely the least diverse. and actually there could be a waterboy- a robot whose designated job is to reload the other ones with baseballs.

Re: Robot Diversity
 

:D My mind thinks like that, all analogies, I can even make a programming analogy: Inheritances...

Re: Robot Diversity
 

Anyone else have any ideas on how to diversify the game? I think rules definitely play a factor in it and so does popularizing said game.

Re: Robot Diversity
 

If they had taken out the 3" rule this year everyone could have probably used last years robot with some modifications.

Re: Robot Diversity
 

to me bumpers totally kill the game and design.

Teams really don't have to focus on building a strong frame because the bumpers dampen the majority of the force. My first year with FIRST was '05 when there were no bumpers, and subsequent years '06 and '07 they were optional. I thought it was really cool coming back from atlanta seeing all the scars, dents, etc. on the 'bot. Plus when new kids came to look at it they's say "Oh wow that rod is really bent" and I could then reply "Yeah, we got that when...." New students could see that these things actually compete (gives a little battlebots feel) and take damage. Bumpers may have made sense in '08 when teams were flying around at super high speeds, and maybe '09 before they realized teams wouldn't be moving very fast, but what part of this years game makes bumpers needed?

Now I see a purpose of bumpers as a design requirement that you must design around, just like real life. I just think they make everyone look the same, especially this year when everyone is either red or blue bumpers.

Now I guess back to robot diversity, this years game really couldn't be more diverse. Its soccer, you either kick or push or hang. Because the goals are low, anyone can play defense. Sure there are different ways to kick a ball but in the end you're still kicking a ball. Hanging is probably the most unique because everyone has a different way of doing it and that can be seen from the stands.

Looking back at other years in terms of diversity,
'04- probalily the most since there were so many different things a team could do
'05- very little overall, just different ways of lifting a tetra
'06- high shooters or low shooters or defense
'07- quite a bit since teams were working with an odd game piece
'08- good amount either lift over, shoot, or drive really fast
'09- the use of fans made this a diverse year
'10- imo the least diverse, and from an onlookers standpoint it makes teams difficult to pick out (unless they hang that is) when they have the same bumpers and change between red/blue.

i no this is again off subject but i would like to see a game where there are a lot of things an alliance can do to score, but they must assess the strengths of their alliance to determine which tasks they should tackle. This would make it nearly impossible for one team to do everything great (shoot well and hang for example) they would actually have to rely on alliance partners to handle the other tasks. just my $0.02

Re: Robot Diversity
 

I love that idea, it goes back to my baseball one, would you want someone who can hit fly balls or grounders, would you want a pitcher that throws curveballs or fastballs. this kind of assessment diversity would be very necessary and would see the sky rocketing of newer teams in the rankings due to just ingenuity. I am very excited to see how each game is made though.

Re: Robot Diversity
 

On the other hand, lack of bumpers can totally kill a robot, which makes for uninspiring game play.

The relevant part of the game is the one where robots are encouraged to do more than just prevent other robots from doing what they were designed and built to do. Bumpers help keep overzealous defenders from destroying in seconds what a team spent weeks creating.

Re: Robot Diversity
 

I personally can see the different viewpoints on how the diversity this year appears to be smaller compared to previous years. Most of the kicker bots are tiny little shoeboxes running around, but I believe that is because the game this year is fairly straightforward on what is the important scoring mechanism. Now there are always statistical outliers like 469, or even our looper which hasn't gotten a chance to shine yet, but for the most part the best way to score real points was to go possessor and kicker. Add in the obstacles which I LOVE, but add the cheat of a tunnel and you can see why there are so many shorties.

I personally have fond memories of Rack and Roll because it offered two distinct ways to score. Both scoring mechanisms were mostly good for the same amount of points, and it was very hard to do both scoring mechanisms well. I like a game where you have two separate but equal goals as this really allows teams to build to their own strengths and still be viable scoring robots. I would like to see separate but equal goals come back into play.

This year was creeping back towards separate but equal scoring mechanisms in that it had the hanging requirement at the end, but overall the hanging wasn't worth as many points as a really good scorer. That is why I don't think you see many people that attempted it.

Re: Robot Diversity
 

As far as I know, there are no perennial champions: only one team has won Einstein more than once (they did it twice). Can anyone confirm this?

EDIT - Others have shown this to be incorrect; sorry.

I agree with this. The more ways to score, the more diverse the game. 2008 was the most diverse year I've seen because there were so many things you could do - herd balls, hurdle balls, place balls, cross lines, knock balls off the rack in autonomous - that each scored a different number of points. 2009 was the least diverse, IMO, because the only way to score was to put moonrocks (or e-cells or supercells) into baskets or deliver them to the refueling stations, which were effectively just more baskets.

Re: Robot Diversity
 

Thunderchickens has won twice. And i was not saying the would win Einstein, just fill it up.

Re: Robot Diversity
 

67, 111, pink, and 71 have all won twice or more

Re: Robot Diversity
 

Incorrect.

71: 4 times (1997, 2001, 2002, 2004, lost to 190, 177, 987 in finals in 2007) Note: the first time, there was a totally different system in place.
111: 2 times (2003, 2009)
67: 2 times (2005, 2009)
217: 2 times (2006, 2008, lost to 67, 330, 503 in SFs in 2005)

177 has been on 4 times in a row, but only won once.
233 has yet to win the whole thing.

Fill Einstein up? I doubt it. There are 12 slots open. Typically, at least one team on the champion alliance is one that nobody expected going into the event. Let alone the other 9 teams and the backups who may be expected or not.

Re: Robot Diversity
 

Pink(233) has been there many times but has never won on Einstein

Re: Robot Diversity
 

I did not mean fill up as in take all 12 spots, simply to take the majority.

Re: Robot Diversity
 

If you heard a couple members of my team from the Boston Regional, you might not say bumpers aren't needed. For the better part of the competition, I was one of the drivers. In one match, our robot was blocked as we were trying to go through the underpass. I couldn't get through, and at one point, someone started suggesting, "Kick them!", or something like that. I ignored that suggestion, both because I didn't like the idea for many reasons, and because it would have been a completely useless thing to do. However, if we did not have bumpers, and someone else was in control of our robot, our kicker could have dished out some serious damage to the other robot.

Re: Robot Diversity
 

Ocassionally this is a matter of perception. I remember walking into FRC in 2006 and seeing massive diversity, as my understanding was limited and my horizons defined by what I saw at competition. When you have never seen a roller claw or swerve drive before, the competition can easily look incredibly diverse, even from a distance.

I personally don't remember a major amount of robot diversity after 2007, but I think it was more that I became used to the FRC norm.

Re: Robot Diversity
 

Not necessarily. Last year, 67, 111, 177, and 217 were very familiar with Einstein, but 68, 121, 222, 247, 971, 1218, 1507, and 2753 were not.

Re: Robot Diversity
 

This is a little off topic, but personally I really liked the bumper requirements for this year. They did make the game a little less entertaining (no tie-dye bumpers or bumpers with little monkeys on them) but from an onlooker's perspective I think it made it easier to see the scope of the game. The little flags are really hard to pick out when you're trying to scout an alliance, and the bumpers make my job a lot easier. Especially if teams follow the recommendation of at least 2" tall team numbers on every side.

Re: Robot Diversity
 

The GDC has a lot of tough jobs, and deciding how to value the different means of scoring is one of them. If teams decide that the points earned aren't worth the cost (time, weight, risk, opportunity, etc.) then they won't do it and design diversity will suffer.

I don't know if the GDC has a goal in mind, but the end game usually seems to be worth 20% to 30% of the match total. With Breakaway, it seems that they anticipated low scoring matches when they assigned only two points for hanging. We built a hanger, but it really stunk. We determined that we were better off trying to kick goals in the last 20 seconds and we took it off. Had it been worth more points, we would have tried to make it work.

The diversity of the designs is affected by the risk/reward equation.

Re: Robot Diversity
 

Well your focus on scoring goals helped you guys win at Traverse City and State Competition :D Hanging points determined a number of matches for the alliances that could not outscore their opponents. For instance in State Competition because Team 67 (HOT) hanged it caused them to manage a tie the first round of the finals. In the 3rd round of the finals if they had a more reliable hanging mechanism they could have tied again to extend the game even further. If the team can't dominate the other alliance with scores for whatever reason then the extra hanging points helps.

Just my 2 cents on the value of arm as a robot design.

Re: Robot Diversity
 

In my opinion, this game allows for rookie teams, less experienced teams, and less endowed teams to excel easily. This game levels the playing field a bit allowing all to play. However, I do agree that parts of it limit the amount of creativity that can go into the game.
This is why I will always love the 2003 game Raising the bar.
It allowed for these aforementioned teams to do simple things such as play defense and herd balls while at the same time presenting the 2 other very complex issues (handling a ginormous ball/ climbing steps and hanging from a 10 foot tall bar) that allowed for very creative designs.

Since the game with the tetrahedrals, there has only been 1 game piece to deal with. (Tetrahedral, ball, tube, ball, ball, ball). There have been multiple ways to use these items and various other driving challenges but none really that drove people to think like they did in Raising the Bar.
That is just my opinion. And well... I like robots

Re: Robot Diversity
 

it seems to me that people who are wanting more "diversity" want less teamwork... they say that previous years there was more to do so yay more diversity, but from my admittedly limited experience with FIRST this year's game does the most to make the word Alliance mean something... you can't just go off on your own and yknow do 100000 laps in autonomous and win if your your alliance no matter what, just kinda doin your own thing... last year, same deal, each bot basically had no reason to interact with their alliance mates etc... this year you HAVE to work together and alliance selections span the entirety of the rankings as bots specialize into offense, midfield, and defense... basically yes there might be less "diversity" but I think it's better this way because even a "god bot" like 469 is useless without good teammates to help them, whereas in past years out of the box designs could easily win entire years by themselves.

Summary: Mayhaps less diversity, but definitely more teamwork among alliance mates, I think this is a good direction to go with the games by the GDC.

Re: Robot Diversity
 

Totally agree with the above poster. Even though this is my rookie year, from offseason competitions I can definitely say the amount of teamwork in Lunacy is nothing compared to Breakaway. From my time on the field in Lunacy, the only level of teamwork I remember is "pin that guy while we dump balls in his trailer". I absolutely love how this year it takes all 3 robots working together to win a match.

Re: Robot Diversity
 

I think that one of the major problems with this years game is the fact that the robots are encouraged to go under the tunnel. This has caused almost all teams to build a short, box type robot. It made the game very uninteresting, and there were no radical designs that I saw :(.

Re: Robot Diversity
 

I have to agree with Nigel... the fact that there are a few different types of robots (not a lot) that mesh together to encourage teamwork. For example, a great teammate for our team to co-ordinate with (with our focus on middle-zone play and ball deflector) would be an excellent far zone scorer like 2771 or 910 at MSC.

In alliance selection, you have to go out to find who compliments your team the best, rather than who is the best at the game, period. It allows for in-depth strategy and teamwork, which I think is FTW.

Re: Robot Diversity
 

I agree. I love how easy the bumpers make it to differentiate the alliance. I've watch some of the videos of Overdrive on The Blue Alliance and it basically impossible to tell who is on who's team unless they're controlling one of the balls.

I agree with Nigel. Breakaway seems to be a much more team oriented game then in years past. In some ways, Breakaway does encourage robots to be less diverse, to do one thing well and then choice teammates who can do things you can't.

Also what does diversity even mean?(In this scenario, I know what it means normally) I mean your taking a whole bunch of people from all across the world, giving them a challenge, and saying "go." Every team is going to approach the challenge a different way and unless the teams are working together (and even then it's iffy) there is never going to be two identical robots. How is that not diverse? More or less diverse, that's just nitpicking. Robots are robots and robots are cool, no matter how many bells and whistles, or kickers and climbers it has.

Re: Robot Diversity
 

04 is still my favorite game...

the diversity of the robots was phenomenal in this game

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...8922126654120#

2v2 also created a "do everything" dynamic so you saw very interesting robots.

Re: Robot Diversity
 

I have to ask, is diversity a good thing? I have some crazy ideas for drive trains but why should I use them when a standard tank drive robot is an effective solution? Saying that all robots should be different is like saying all teams should have to custom build their transmissions. Why should I build a custom 2 speed transmission when the Super Shifters work? Too often we are encouraged to "Think outside the box" WHY? Why should we think outside the box if the box is a valid solution? Early this year 397 scraped the idea of building a custom chassis because the KOP chassis is an effective solution. We decided not to build custom transmissions because the KOP ones solve our problems. You know what two systems had 0 problems all year?

Engineering is not about coming up with the coolest way of doing something. It isn't about the flashy solutions. It is about effectively solving a problem. Take 1114 in 2008 as an example (my favorite example); They were a simple robot, simple 6wd, simple COTS 2 speed shifter, simple roller claw. It allowed them to focus on execution rather than implementation.

Yeah, I like creative solutions to problems, I think they are cool. But for most problems the effective solution is to do the simplest thing possible but do them well.

Just some food for thought, perhaps the GDC is trying to make us see something by "discouraging diversity".

Re: Robot Diversity
 

FIRST Frenzy: Raising the Bar was 2004's game.

Stack Attack was 2003's game.