The cheesecake runaway

[Skyehawk]

I am starting this thread to discuss how cheesecaking can affect the success of an alliance to an extreme level.
Hopper Division Team 2512 (Duluth East Daredevils) had an OPR of 32.5. This is relatively low, and it showed, as 2512 finished with 52 ranking.
Then their luck turned around, picked by the number one alliance of 2826, 987, 4265 picked them. All of a sudden 2512 gets subbed in for 4265. And with cheesecaked can-burglers from 987. These grabbers are not the fastest at worlds, but they are capable of out grabbing 1114 and many others.
After all this 2512 had a VASTLY improved OPR not just due to the can-burglers, they found the sweetspot and everything clicked. So I'm starting the discussion: As far as cheesecaking is concerned, what other teams need that extra little push from other teams for their bots to reach max potential? And even more importantly, what can be deduced about the first community due to cheesecaking?

Congrats to 2512, 987, 2826, 4265 from your friends at 876!

[Josho499#4613]

Now that the championships are over, I definitely think that FIRST must implement rules about cheese-caking other robots. For example, The top seed alliance of the Curie Division (1114 Simbotics and 148 Robowranglers) picked two other teams (1923 and 900), and didn't even play with them in playoffs. They faced off with just the two robots while the mech team from 1114 and 148 worked on attaching ridiculously good burglars to 1923. By the time these modifications were finished, it was the finals of Curie Division and they brought out their third team to take the division finals. After this, they set about disassembling the entire drive-base and structure of team 900, to attach four of 1114's ridiculous harpoon guns so that they would be in the weight limit. Now while I have no problem with 1114 and 148 having great mech teams that can build this machinery, I think it is not in the spirit of FIRST to ask other teams to change their whole robot with something they prepared earlier to ensure their own victory. It does not embody gracious professionalism, does not enforce the idea that FIRST is "more than just robots", and does not encourage problem solving skills or strategy, its more like "We are a great team so lets just basicly build two robots that make the perfect alliance and win championships"

In short, I think that there should be some ruling that says, "The robot inspected on the first day must be the same robot as enters the field", with the job of deciding what the same robot is up to the judges. Obviously new parts and innovation must still be allowed, but not all of this crazy 4 harpoon gun tethers and stuff.

[BigJ]

Originally Posted by Josho499#4613

Now that the championships are over, I definitely think that FIRST must implement rules about cheese-caking other robots. For example, The top seed alliance of the Curie Division (1114 Simbotics and 148 Robowranglers) picked two other teams (1923 and 900), and didn't even play with them in playoffs.

-snip-

This is because of the game design of Recycle Rush, really

[Skyehawk]

Originally Posted by BigJ

This is because of the game design of Recycle Rush, really

I agree with this, most years aren't like this, they happen every 4 years or so; i.e. 2011 and minibots.

[Ichlieberoboter]

Originally Posted by BigJ

This is because of the game design of Recycle Rush, really

Yeah, this year's game has many more aspects to help with.

[dcarr]

Originally Posted by Josho499#4613

Now that the championships are over, I definitely think that FIRST must implement rules about cheese-caking other robots. For example, The top seed alliance of the Curie Division (1114 Simbotics and 148 Robowranglers) picked two other teams (1923 and 900), and didn't even play with them in playoffs. They faced off with just the two robots while the mech team from 1114 and 148 worked on attaching ridiculously good burglars to 1923. By the time these modifications were finished, it was the finals of Curie Division and they brought out their third team to take the division finals. After this, they set about disassembling the entire drive-base and structure of team 900, to attach four of 1114's ridiculous harpoon guns so that they would be in the weight limit. Now while I have no problem with 1114 and 148 having great mech teams that can build this machinery, I think it is not in the spirit of FIRST to ask other teams to change their whole robot with something they prepared earlier to ensure their own victory. It does not embody gracious professionalism, does not enforce the idea that FIRST is "more than just robots", and does not encourage problem solving skills or strategy, its more like "We are a great team so lets just basicly build two robots that make the perfect alliance and win championships"

In short, I think that there should be some ruling that says, "The robot inspected on the first day must be the same robot as enters the field", with the job of deciding what the same robot is up to the judges. Obviously new parts and innovation must still be allowed, but not all of this crazy 4 harpoon gun tethers and stuff.

You raise some interesting points. I think it would be informative to hear about the "cheesecaking experience" from the point of view of one of the receiving teams.

My bet would be that the experience that teams like these received was more inspirational than the experience they would have had either 1) making minimal contributions and/or sitting out entirely during eliminations or 2) not getting picked at all due to limited capabilities.

I think it's also useful to frame this within the context of the teams "serving" the cheesecake - several of them are hall of fame teams who have been recognized for their outstanding programs and serve as role models in FIRST by embodying the "more than just robots" philosophy.

[Jared Russell]

I can only applaud teams for their ability to work within the rules and come up with both effective and creative cheesecake recipes for Recycle Rush. 1114 and 148 had two of the best, and I wish we had been able to see the harpoon guns on the field.

That being said, I think and hope that in future seasons cheesecake will not be allowed to this extent. Teams should be chosen based on their ability and fit within an alliance...not literally the fit of a premade mechanism within their chassis. Seeing less capable teams chosen over more capable teams solely to operate a foreign subsystem disincentivizes striving for excellence for a large part of the FRC population, and instead encourages things like making flyers advertising how easy it is to commandeer their robot.

Again, I do not mean to slight any cheesecake givers or receivers, as they have acted within the rules the same way I would have (and did). But there needs to be some sort of limit. Having a game that didn't depend so much on a single sub-1 second function would certainly help.

[Skyehawk]

Originally Posted by Jared Russell

... Having a game that didn't depend so much on a single sub-1 second function would certainly help.

I have a feeling that we will never see a game that matches are decided within the first second ever again.

Everyone loves cheesecake, but when you can no longer love your bot because of cheesecaking, that's where I draw the line.

We all know it is a competitive atmosphere out there, even if it is "more than just robots". I want to win, you want to win, we all want to win, and some teams will go further then others. I am sure that if I found myself in the position, I would cheesecake the heck out of another bot (or my bot for that matter) if it meant a trip to Einstein.

[steelerborn]

Well I feel like in the long run this hurt 1114 and 148. You couldn't win recycle rush with just having two bots do everything on the alliance. It is about the alliance flow. 118, 1678, 1671, and 5012 won because they had three bots contribute a relatively "even" point distribution. When each bot only has to worry about getting two capped stacks of 6 or 5 it allows them to focus on the task, not feel rushed, and focus on being consistent.

While the level of cheesecake may or may not have been too much, in the end it was about building an alliance that had the best flow without cheesecake.

[Irwin772]

To clarify what 1114 did with 900, 900 built a kitbot chassis on Friday in order to have a light enough robot to be cheescaked, this obviously made them a viable pick despite their low ranking in the subdivision. This had more to do with 900 making a decision that paid off for them than 1114 and 148 asking them to do something they may not have planned on.

Also, the majority of the cheescaking that I saw happening this year was not very elaborate, most of them being ramp bots or adding a simple mechanism for canburgling. It was not until champs where I saw more elaborate cheesecake recipes, such as 1114's harpoons.

[Kpchem]

Originally Posted by Irwin772

To clarify what 1114 did with 900, 900 built a kitbot chassis on Friday in order to have a light enough robot to be cheescaked, this obviously made them a viable pick despite their low ranking in the subdivision. This had more to do with 900 making a decision that paid off for them than 1114 and 148 asking them to do something they may not have planned on.

Which further emphasizes the point made by grstex regarding teams looking at their ranking and "cutting bait" as he puts it.

But as others have pointed out, a lot of the problems here stem from the nature of Recycle Rush. It's a game where 2 top-tier robots can score almost all of the totes by themselves and don't need a third robot, and where it is incredibly easy to bolt on incredibly important and impressive add ons to an otherwise average robot and take that robot from average to "the best" at something (either a canburglar or ramps for the feeder station, your choice).

In 2014 you couldn't bolt on a manipulator to handle the ball. In 2013 you couldn't bolt on a shooter. You could bolt on a 10-point hang device, but that wasn't as important as the canburglars this year. And the same can be said for 2012 with regards to shooters (not possible) vs. a "stinger" (possible, but not critical). The last time we've had something where it was relatively easy to bolt on an extra device was 2011 with minibots, another year that had diminishing returns in scoring and the top-tier teams could do all of the "worthwhile" scoring. And that was/is one of the biggest complaints for that year. Matches were decided before they started based on the minibots.

I am hoping that FIRST realizes this when designing games in the future and stays away from these problems.

[Irwin772]

It did also allow teams to add things they did not have weight, which is pretty much what happened with all the ramps.

[Ubiquity]

I love CheeseCake - I think I like the citrus flavor best.

Cheesecaking has been part of FIRST for at least 12 years, but In every FRC competition I have been involved in it always seems that offense is what counts in the qualifiers, and defense is what ultimately decides eliminations. Now while in general a good offense is the best defense, this isn't always the case. This year was unusual, in that the only viable defense was grabbing the cans in auto. (Despite the catchy video, it wasn't "It's all about the totes.." and there was defense.) There was a secondary defense that almost never worked, and that was throwing pool noodles. In the case of the Poofs, that was the ultimate reason they didn't make to Einstein. The most sophisticated teams realized that in eliminations burgling was the key to success, and were prepared to make a super defense robot if they couldn't find one.

Our team only made it to Champs, because the Poofs and Circuits cheesecaked us at SVR. We came to champs as a pure can burglar and nothing else. We ultimately made to the Newton quarter finals as the fourth pick of the 6 seed, and were delighted to have got that far. The Robonauts and Citrus Circuits(the Circuits even brought us a spare set of arms) and both coached and helped tune our can grabbers during qualifiers. They wisely picked the BirdBrains (one of the best human side stackers) and Griffengears (because 118 could modify them as a pure pneumatic 4 can tethered grabber) I don't know if they ever got it working, but I would have loved to see it in action.

I don't think cheesecaking should be banned. I think a game design where defense and offense are more balanced would be better, but you have to have the bar set high enough to challenge the experienced teams, but low enough so the rookies with a KOP base can do something to aid their alliance. The game design committee has a darn hard job, and I think they get it right 99% of the time.

In the old days, I know of at least two occasions where a rookie team showed up at an event with an unassembled KOP and had a working robot by the end of qualifiers. Even at Davis this year one team showed up 40 lbs overweight, and I am proud to say the Apes of Wrath won the GP award for helping them to pass inspection. Instead of banning cheesecaking, we should encourage it.

[Conor Ryan]

I work in an industry where people will literally do anything to get ahead, when it goes too far rules get put into place (IE - Wolf of Wall Street when they are selling Pump and Dump Schemes, perfectly in the grey area of the law). Lets embrace STEM education the right way and push the right values through better rule guidance.

I didn't like the type of cheesecake at Worlds this year. 2011 style cheesecake, where robots shared Minibots? Awesome. I can't get enough of that. It didn't reconfigure the robot in the eyes of the community, it was just a neighbor helping a neighbor.

Throwing the robot that students built with mentors and teachers in their community and proudly showed off to sponsors and schools in the name of a last ditch effort to get picked? This is questionable ethics. Would I do it if I was in the situation? Sure, its a survival tactic, and as a mentor my students would be down in the dumps and it would be terrible to say no, that is just not in the spirit of mentoring. Should it be against the rules? Yes. Keep the Build Season Sacred.


Now this is starting to sound like the Financial World and Regulation. Do financial institutions like making lots of money? Yes. Should we be allowed to do it certain ways? No.

[Joe Johnson]

Perhaps I should have read this thread first, but I didn't. I read 900's Championship Cheesecaking Chronicles before this one.

I am full square against Cheesecaking. Read my arguments in that other thread here.


Dr. Joe J.