The Not So-Secret Secret End-Game

[aldaeron]

Based on this from 3.1.4

As competition at the FIRST Championship is typically different from that during the competition season, FIRST may alter each scoring value at the FIRST Championship by up to ten (10) points.

I believe that IF (and it is a big if) there was a change it would be between the regular season and championships. I agree with the many previous posts that disrupting the regular season is unlikely, but since the folks headed to championships should be "the best teams" they could handle changes to scoring mentioned in 3.1.4 and possibly an endgame. All they would need to do is amend R18 " At an Event, Teams may have access to a static set of FABRICATED ITEMS that shall not exceed 30 lbs to be used to repair and/or upgrade their ROBOT. ..." to add an additional 30 lbs for a <new cool endgame>


I also agree that there is a shift in the emphasis of this game which I like. Less experienced teams can contribute considerable points by assisting and super-duper-awesome teams can't score 100 points by themselves.

There is also a change in the balance between robot design and actually playing the game. Referencing 2013 - you can't make a full court shooter that can also climb to the 3rd level of the pyramid and just win by yourself. You have to drive well and interact with teams you don't know in advance (maybe they're great at passing, maybe not). I feel this more closely mirrors real engineering tasks - you know some things in advance and can design to accommodate them (i.e. making a high goal scorer) and some things you have to be flexible with (i.e. counting on scoring a 3 ASSIST CYCLE every time depends heavily on your randomly assigned alliance partners). As a real world example - say you are drilling a long tunnel - you can only scan or core a small percentage of the mountain you want to tunnel through (i bet its expensive). You design a path and feed/speed rates for what you can see, but monitor and adjust based on how the tunneler is running, what rocks actually are coming out, etc.

(Note: I am not a tunnel engineer and am making an educated guess here about how it works)

Cool thread - The conspiracy theorists of CD continue to make me chuckle.

-matto-

[Jacob Bendicksen]

Something I just found:

R7
ROBOTS must allow removal of BALLS from the ROBOT and the ROBOT from FIELD elements while DISABLED and powered off.

[blue box below that]

ROBOTS will not be re-enabled after the MATCH, so Teams must be sure that BALLS and ROBOTS can be quickly, simply, and safely removed.

It seems hard to accidentally entangle yourself in a field element, so they most likely wouldn't have included this if they weren't planning on some sort of endgame.

[runneals]

If it's worth anything, my mentor (who's on JVN) instilled in me the only year I was a member in FRC (last year) was to build in modules/subsystems. I find this truly valuable if teams think there will be a "secret end game". If you build the thrower as a module(s)/subsystem(s), you can easily build another module(s)/subsystem(s) to accommodate the end game.

Robot design shouldn't be 100% around each of the mechanisms you build, but instead as a complete system.

Just some thoughts,
D

[Kevin Sevcik]

I'm hearing lots of complaints that Ri3Ds reduced the "diversity" of robots last year, which I find unfathomable. At our regional we had the full gamut of tall shooters, small shooters, 10-30 point hangs, ground pickups, 30-point exclusive hangs, 30-pt hang and dumps, and defense only chassis bots. Only there were a lot less of the latter and more attempts at shooters that could probably work with a little more polish.

This is compared to 2012 where a rather lot our teams didn't even attempt shooters or ground pickups or anything. And many didn't even manage bridge flippers.

So if Ri3D means reducing "diversity" by reducing the number of teams that fail at everything but driving and increasing the number of teams that at least attempt an advanced subsystem like a shooter or manipulator... Well don't you think that might do a slightly better job of Inspiring students about Science and Technology? And you think the GDC is against this somehow?

[Racer26]

Originally Posted by aldaeron

I also agree that there is a shift in the emphasis of this game which I like. Less experienced teams can contribute considerable points by assisting and super-duper-awesome teams can't score 100 points by themselves.

Strongly disagree.

Top teams will easily be able to score 25 points in auto (roughly comparable to the 25-30 of 2013).

Then they can take the ball, truss toss it, reacquire it themselves, and top goal it for a 20 point cycle, (in 2013, a successful 4 DISC volley was worth just 12 points). Balls will be easier to acquire than going to a loader station or floor loading DISCs was, and the field is wide open, so travel should be comparatively less impeded. Top teams pushed 5-7 cycles + a 10 pt hang in 2013.

Top teams in 2013 had OPRs around about 100pts. 5x12pt cycle=60+10 hang+30 auto=100.

Top teams in 2014 will be capable of 25auto + 6ish cycles of 20 = 150ish pts by themselves, with their two alliance partners just playing defence for them.

[Racer26]

Originally Posted by 2014 FRC Game Manual

<R7> ROBOTS must allow removal of BALLS from the ROBOT and the ROBOT from FIELD elements while DISABLED and powered off.

Emphasis mine. Agree this seems odd, since we're expressly forbidden from:

Originally Posted by 2014 FRC Game Manual

<G10> The following actions are prohibited with regards to interaction with FIELD elements (excluding BALLS):

grabbing,
grasping
grappling
attaching to,
damaging,
becoming entangled

Violation: FOUL. If the Head Referee determines that further damage is likely to occur, DISABLED. Corrective action (such as eliminating sharp edges, removing the damaging mechanism, and/or re-Inspection) may be required before the ROBOT will be allowed to compete in subsequent MATCHES.

[Oblarg]

Another climbing endgame would be rather lame, though...

[AndrewPospeshil]

Judging by the broadcast this year, I can say with some certainty that there will be an added endgame this year. When will it be introduced? That remains to be seen. But the truth of the matter is that this is one of the "worst games" FIRST has come up with in years. Many people keep comparing it to Overdrive, and rightfully so. They're both devoid of endgame (OD only had a bonus at the end for leaving the ball on top), although OD's robots were at least fast and exciting, mimicking a race track. What does AA have... oh yeah, passing some balls with little to no action outside of the obvious bashing-and-crashing. Plus AA uses recycled game elements from '08 and goals from '13. I might believe there's no secret endgame were there a reason for there not to be. But let's face it. Every year FIRST gets better at what it does, and there's no reason for them to produce something this shallow. Sure it's a fun and interesting game but it really pales in comparison to Ultimate Ascent.

There were some balance issues mentioned relating to Ri3D and pro teams far outscoring rookie teams, which explains the heavy focus on alliance cooperation this year. But there's nothing new. Nothing to make you say "wow, I sure remembered that year!" unless you're talking about how disappointing it was.

We all saw the broadcast. So many hints. "He thought.... He GOT..." and Woodie's comments about

• how they're always making things new and exciting
• how they're trying to make things like the real world (engineers always have shortened deadlines, wrenches thrown into their plans, etc etc)
• how they would literally be changing things between competitions

There's a chance they could add some other element to the game, but at this point it's just not up to the high standards FIRST has set (and met) for itself. More things to consider:

• Trusses are way more expensive than necessary; a simple flat barrier would do the job just fine
• What do the human players do again? Pick balls off the podium, pop 'em back into the field?
• Speaking of pedestals, why are they so unnecessarily fancy? A simple yes/no doesn't need lights, just waiting for the ball to hit the floor behind the drivers would also suffice

I understand if and why you believe there's "more depth to this game than you care to fathom" or some educated-sounding stuff like that, but the evidence is right there. This game is missing something, and has a lot of extra fluff. Something's coming.

(pardon me if I sound incredibly rude, it's 1:30 and I'm exhausted lol. good luck to all of the teams out there, we're gonna need it!)

[aldaeron]

Originally Posted by Racer26

Top teams in 2014 will be capable of 25auto + 6ish cycles of 20 = 150ish pts by themselves, with their two alliance partners just playing defence for them.

With three robots playing zone defense and passing when the ball is in another zone - do you really think six 20 points cycles is reasonable? I foresee a lot of pinning to prevent that (what else are the other bots doing?). Or at least interfering with the super bot when it tosses over the truss. Keep in mind that three passes and a high score is 40 points per cycle so you would only need 3 to outscore the scenario you described. Now the 2 defenders may have to help the 20 point cycling super bot allowing more 40 point passing based cycles.

I do think that the super bots will be able to score quite a bit and probably still win matches by themselves - I just think it will be less of a runaway.

[M.O'Reilly]

To fuel the fire,

I'd be more interested in a placement challenge for the end game, using the pedestals (which light up green like towers in 2011 and bridges in 2012 and are short enough that a sub 5' bot can reach them). The pedestals can be placed in each alliances scoring zone and double as a "safe spot" to shoot the ball from during the match (like the key or pyramid in years past).

I can also see no changes being made at all.

But I think there's a difference between changing existing challenges and adding new ones. Additions are fair, so long as a ball launcher still works for the game.

[Racer26]

Originally Posted by aldaeron

With three robots playing zone defense and passing when the ball is in another zone - do you really think six 20 points cycles is reasonable? I foresee a lot of pinning to prevent that (what else are the other bots doing?). Or at least interfering with the super bot when it tosses over the truss. Keep in mind that three passes and a high score is 40 points per cycle so you would only need 3 to outscore the scenario you described. Now the 2 defenders may have to help the 20 point cycling super bot allowing more 40 point passing based cycles.

I do think that the super bots will be able to score quite a bit and probably still win matches by themselves - I just think it will be less of a runaway.

I believe the logistical complexity of passing the ball between three robots and three zones (which means it will take considerably longer to do than a team 'going solo' as I described earlier), with the relatively weak position of MOST teams at the regional level means that it will be Championship Elimination rounds (or MSC) before we see some really stellar 3 assist runs from both alliances in a match.

I'm not saying it won't happen. Certainly, you'll see teams (especially those that share a practice facility) that are well practiced at assist manoevres in regional eliminations. 1114 + 2056 come quickly to mind as a pair that will likely be very good at it. But in qualifications, when they'll be paired up with comparatively weaker and slower partners? I'm betting you'll see more solo scorer 2 defender alliances than not.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Racer26

I don't know. It was pretty important in:

(I don't remember 2005's endgame, as I didn't compete)

2005 was to get the entire alliance back to the home zone. Only problem was that it was the ENTIRE alliance for 10 points... which could be gotten more easily by making a row somewhere else on the field for 13 points. I don't remember a single case where the end game was awarded.

Originally Posted by TheCascadeKid

Something I just found:

[blue box below that]


It seems hard to accidentally entangle yourself in a field element, so they most likely wouldn't have included this if they weren't planning on some sort of endgame.

Easier than you might think. Maybe a goalie gets excited under the truss while on a harassment run to the other side, extends their pole and... Or runs into the small goal... Or... You get the picture. I've seen a lot of these games, and in most of them it's not hard to get snarled.

[zacube]

My regional actually had mostly shooters, with a total of about 4 or 5 full climbers. Of the rest (which were mostly shooters with one or two defense bots) the majority used the same sort of shooter as Ri3D, leading to a large number of very similar robots. We still had a few of the tall shooters, and shooters with other designs, but they were few and far between. While I do not think that Ri3D is entirely a bad thing, as it can be useful for inspiration and some ideas, I do think that a few teams relied on Ri3D for ideas too much. Because of that, I can see FIRST deciding to retaliate with a random major change to the game after Ri3D finished. That said, I am still not completely sold on the idea that they will have some sort of trick up their sleeve to counteract Ri3D.

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

I'm hearing lots of complaints that Ri3Ds reduced the "diversity" of robots last year, which I find unfathomable. At our regional we had the full gamut of tall shooters, small shooters, 10-30 point hangs, ground pickups, 30-point exclusive hangs, 30-pt hang and dumps, and defense only chassis bots. Only there were a lot less of the latter and more attempts at shooters that could probably work with a little more polish.

This is compared to 2012 where a rather lot our teams didn't even attempt shooters or ground pickups or anything. And many didn't even manage bridge flippers.

So if Ri3D means reducing "diversity" by reducing the number of teams that fail at everything but driving and increasing the number of teams that at least attempt an advanced subsystem like a shooter or manipulator... Well don't you think that might do a slightly better job of Inspiring students about Science and Technology? And you think the GDC is against this somehow?

[AndrewPospeshil]

Originally Posted by zacube

My regional actually had mostly shooters, with a total of about 4 or 5 full climbers. Of the rest (which were mostly shooters with one or two defense bots) the majority used the same sort of shooter as Ri3D, leading to a large number of very similar robots. We still had a few of the tall shooters, and shooters with other designs, but they were few and far between. While I do not think that Ri3D is entirely a bad thing, as it can be useful for inspiration and some ideas, I do think that a few teams relied on Ri3D for ideas too much. Because of that, I can see FIRST deciding to retaliate with a random major change to the game after Ri3D finished. That said, I am still not completely sold on the idea that they will have some sort of trick up their sleeve to counteract Ri3D.

Truth be told, I don't know if there is a true and sure counter to Ri3D. People are going to use that regardless, ranging from using it as a blueprint to inspiration. I think this is unavoidable. However, I do think switching it up could prevent teams from all looking the same. Assuming they add an endgame, and assuming it requires only additions as opposed to changes, then we can see some more variety. But I definitely believe there will be repeats, clones, etc, and that's pretty much unavoidable.

[runneals]

I was just looking at the field diagrams (yes, at 12:45 am) to see if they had any thing that stood out in it's design and I found something that made NO SENSE whatsoever at all...

In doing the math, for a human player to retrieve a ball and put it in play, they would need to walk 50 feet to the 'trash can', then another 50 feet back to the field. I can't imagine this being done in a safe manner (watch out for those refs, photographers/media, cables, etc.)...

Likewise, this means that the field reset crew has to have several balls, as the distance between the goals and the balls is all across the field (I couldn't imagine them running back & forth in front of the crowd to deliver the balls to the other side.

Thoughts?