Aerial Assist and Ill Will

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by Bill_B

He's got a lot on the ball and I think we can count on another notable robot from his team this year. However true this pseudo math homily may be, do you think it translates into other versions? Say maybe "better to be an 8 at one thing than a 4 at two things." Or "better to be an 9 at one thing than a 3 at 3 things." I mention this because there may be cases where a team cannot be a 10 at anything.

It does translate a little better with the context added of considering your resources when he uses that quote. Teams that have people, money, machining resources, and experience accrue "robot points" over time in a way, so when you come to the "robot store" you can cash them in for creating a number of core functionalities that meet higher and higher levels of quality as you have more points to spend. So yes, o na scale from 1-10, a team may only be able to do one thing at an 8/10 instead of a 10/10.

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

At regionals or championship, I'd agree with you. Strategy discussions happen much more frequently in the queue line at district competitions, thanks to the tighter match turnarounds. Often at least one of the members of your alliance won't have returned from their previous match until it's almost time to queue up again and/or will have to spend the little time they have between queues to repair their robot.

I've competed at a 36 team regional with 12 matches each (smaller than most district events), and we still managed to find the time. If your alliance partner is going to have a match close to your match with them, run through strategy before that match then, it's so important that you have everyone sit down and talk together. It avoids conversation dominance by one team since everyone is relaxed (reletive term ) with plenty (again, reletive) of time for everyone to contribute.

[bduddy]

2 things.

1) Do people not realize that a box on wheels can still score an assist? That's huge, and pretty hard to do while defending. I haven't tested it, but I would guess it could probably push a ball into a low goal, too.

2) For some teams, building a kitbot and then spending 4 weeks doing drive testing may very well be their best shot at building a competitive robot. Would that be the most inspirational build strategy for those teams? I highly doubt it! Are we really going to insist that those teams do it anyway, just so the "elite" here don't have to suffer the indignity of dealing with their less-than-perfect mechanisms?

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

Then you need a strategy person (we use our drive coach) to seek out other teams ahead of time to iron out who is doing what in the next match. If they have to talk during repairs, so be it.

As mentioned, often it's not even talking during repairs but they're still on the field for their previous match. 2 or 3 match turnarounds are not uncommon in districts.

Originally Posted by Gregor

I've competed at a 36 team regional with 12 matches each (smaller than most district events), and we still managed to find the time. If your alliance partner is going to have a match close to your match with them, run through strategy before that match then, it's so important that you have everyone sit down and talk together. It avoids conversation dominance by one team since everyone is relaxed (reletive term ) with plenty (again, reletive) of time for everyone to contribute.

Smaller in terms of team quantity, sure. But not in terms of schedule. Keep in mind that there's no true practice day at districts, and the first few hours of day 1 are spent on practice matches before qualifications even start. At smaller regionals, the event crew often runs longer cycle times between matches. The 2012 GTRE regional, which I'm assuming is the one you're referring to, ran a relatively leisurely 8:02 cycle time, the second longest cycle time among regionals that year (behind Waterloo). Because of the compressed schedule, that's a luxury that districts cannot afford. And those extra couple minutes between your matches is frequently the difference between discussing strategy in the pits and in the queue line.

[omalleyj]

This is an interesting thread, but 6 pages in, shouldn't there be more focus on solutions?

I see two core requirements:
1) the ability to adapt to alliances with widely varying capabilities
2) the ability to coordinate play with little or no time to strategize (and none at all to practice)

I think both of these point to doing a lot of up front planning, and then socializing those plans.
Sports analogy: every team has different plays, but most have common elements. If I am playing touch football I know what a square out is. Whether I have never met the other guy, whether I am playing qb or wr, a 10 yd square out is understood by both, and can be practiced separately.

It could be as simple as a published playbook for a variety of common situations, and an agreed terminology.

(Maybe I'll do some football style diagrams later, when I have something better than MS Paint)
play 001, Rolling Wedge:
3 herder robots against heavy defense
Form a right triangle against the inbounding zone wall
Inbound to robot at 90
Robots move as a group to center
Robot at 90 switches off with robot on its flank
Robots move as a group to scoring zone
Robot on point opens up a lane, robot with ball pushes it down the lane
Robot on point slides in behind the ball and pushes it into the goal

...
play 093, Pick and Go
2 Shooters, 1 Blocker, against moderate defense
Shooter1 and Blocker in inbounding zone, Shooter2 other side of truss
Blocker holds off defender from Shooter1 until in passing range
Shooter1 passes to Shooter2
Blocker moves scoring zone
Shooter1 moves to middle zone and stops setting a Pick
Shooter2 uses pick to shield a move and pass to the Blocker
Shooters both move to scoring zone
Blocker passes to whichever shooter is open
Shooterx shoots
...

Look at the alliance and opposition and downselect to the 'plays' that are appropriate, so that every match isn't reinventing the wheel.

I tried to focus on examples that used all 3 robots on offense, rather than sending someone away to defend, which seems to be a bone of contention. A decent blocking robot can neutralize a better defender just by being in between them and the action. That would be more desireable against opponents with long cycle times or inaccurate shooters, than defending.

Each team could focus on and develop schemes that play to their strengths. Everyone should practice close passes, long passes, human passes, etc., not just shooting. And be prepared to play any position they are capable of.

My, rather wordy, two cents.

[Richard Wallace]

^^
Great post.

Congratulations on recognizing the game -- we've been asking the GDC to let us play football for several years now. And this is the year.

Aerial Assist is football.

[Blackphantom91]

This thread is rather interesting! I feel that although plays would be very interesting to develop and plan. There is very little time for teams and drivers to have them fully memorized.

For example, even if you get the teams at the tournament as soon as you show up to the regional or district event the information it is still not enough time with out practice unfortunately. Anyone remember orchestrating a triple at championships at 2012? Teams would have a hard time doing it without practicing with each other and getting the flow of working together.

The football analogy is really good comparison. The amount of coordination before hand in my opinion is going to be way crazier than other years past because you are no longer working by ones self. although at least you can talk to your teammate in match unlike sometimes in 2012. (qualification white bridge balancing)

I ultimately think drivers will incoherently develop a sort of flow of offense and defense just as they always have due to certain game elements. I do think that the robots that are in the second tier of a regional will want to show off their capabilities. For example, climbing in 2013 even if it will take them longer than per say epic scorer would. This is all apart of the game by design in my opinion. It is going to take gracious professionalism to win and to lose due to partners. The Robot in 30th place may just want to show off what they want which is ok. This is the reality of what powerhouses will have to deal with.

Long story short TLDR The game is from what I can tell intended to be this way. Its unfortunate for powerhouses because they may come off as the bad team, but its the way the game is meant to be worked though. Teams that minimize this will have great success in my opinion

[omalleyj]

Originally Posted by Blackphantom91

This thread is rather interesting! I feel that although plays would be very interesting to develop and plan. There is very little time for teams and drivers to have them fully memorized.

I agree, I am thinking more a 3 ring binder with laminated copies of useful plays. Before a match the alliance can get together and agree on a primary approach and maybe an option or two. So you are starting from a pre-thought-out place, not inventing on the fly. Each team has a laminated copy for at the drivers station for reference, if needed. But even as a discussion starter it could be useful.

For example, even if you get the teams at the tournament as soon as you show up to the regional or district event the information it is still not enough time with out practice unfortunately. Anyone remember orchestrating a triple at championships at 2012? Teams would have a hard time doing it without practicing with each other and getting the flow of working together.

The football analogy is really good comparison. The amount of coordination before hand in my opinion is going to be way crazier than other years past because you are no longer working by ones self. although at least you can talk to your teammate in match unlike sometimes in 2012. (qualification white bridge balancing)

I understand, but we are talking pick-up touch, not Bill Belichek film study. For instance the triple balances had to be specifically planned for the exact robots involved. This is much more open ended. Under what combinations of alliance partners and opponents will a long passing game be better? Which call for close passing? When is it best to skip that last assist and shoot from the center zone?

By thinking though the combinations that can work, and having noted them in advance, you can come up with a practical strategy more quickly. By having them diagrammed its easier to explain to partners. "OK we are 3 tall shooters on mecanums facing 3 short herders with 5' nets for defense. Lets play two up and one inbounding. The inbounder passes to whichever is more free the other backs it up for missed balls, and defends on caught balls. Shoot as quickly as you can before the defense can get to you."

You won't have every answer to every situation. But the excercise of systematically thinking about the problem, and recording and testing hypothetical answers can't hurt.

I ultimately think drivers will incoherently develop a sort of flow of offense and defense just as they always have due to certain game elements. I do think that the robots that are in the second tier of a regional will want to show off their capabilities. For example, climbing in 2013 even if it will take them longer than per say epic scorer would. This is all apart of the game by design in my opinion. It is going to take gracious professionalism to win and to lose due to partners. The Robot in 30th place may just want to show off what they want which is ok. This is the reality of what powerhouses will have to deal with.

Long story short TLDR The game is from what I can tell intended to be this way. Its unfortunate for powerhouses because they may come off as the bad team, but its the way the game is meant to be worked though. Teams that minimize this will have great success in my opinion

Agreed, and the ultimate arbiter is always what actually worked, in a real contest. But I like the DDE quote "Plans are nothing, planning is everything"

[indubitably]

This thread seems to be less about ill intent and more about how this year's game may create dissatisfaction with some teams. There seems to be some worry that all non-elite bots will be cast aside if they are on an alliance with an elite bot since there is only one game piece per alliance.

While I understand how this concern exists, I would be shocked if this became a common occurrence. Assist points are the first tiebreaker, so elite teams are going to, at very least, attempt to implement strategies that heavily favor assist scoring, especially if they feel the opposing alliance has a lower scoring capability.

Also, I have considered a great amount of robot combinations for this game and have yet to come up with one where even one bot would not have significant strategic impact. Even if a bot is playing defense, the zones they stay in, the bots they choose to defend, and the situations in which they may need to interact with the ball all affect what each alliance member needs to do to efficiently contribute.

I think the format of the game this year will allow for more teams to take the spotlight as people will be following the game pieces as opposed to particularly impressive bots. A strong defensive play will be more visible and a smooth assist will be highly regarded.

[Mastonevich]

Elite teams will not have as much control of their own destiny based on robot/driver ability alone. Given the point structure they may have to work with, not around, non elite alliance partners.

I expect to hear stories about teams working together DURING build this year.

[Blackphantom91]

Originally Posted by Mastonevich

Elite teams will not have as much control of their own destiny based on robot/driver ability alone. Given the point structure they may have to work with, not around, non elite alliance partners.

I expect to hear stories about teams working together DURING build this year.

I would be agree. but if you have two robots that "think they can" It's not the team that can place to tell them they can't. I would hope teams work together.

I guess the question is how does a team minimize this and everyone goes home happy!

[The_ShamWOW88]

Originally Posted by JimBowey

This is an opportunity to direct greater focus on gracious professionalism. And for goodness sakes, no coaches or mentors on the drive teams, please.

Don't start that again....teams will work out the best strategies for their alliance and those that can't without being ungracious or unprofessional will find themselves in the stands during eliminations

[rsegrest]

Originally Posted by The_ShamWOW88

....teams will work out the best strategies for their alliance and those that can't without being ungracious or unprofessional will find themselves in the stands during eliminations

Agreed and have seen this happen on more than one occasion.

[Blackphantom91]

Originally Posted by indubitably

While I understand how this concern exists, I would be shocked if this became a common occurrence. Assist points are the first tiebreaker, so elite teams are going to, at very least, attempt to implement strategies that heavily favor assist scoring, especially if they feel the opposing alliance has a lower scoring capability.

Also, I have considered a great amount of robot combinations for this game and have yet to come up with one where even one bot would not have significant strategic impact. Even if a bot is playing defense, the zones they stay in, the bots they choose to defend, and the situations in which they may need to interact with the ball all affect what each alliance member needs to do to efficiently contribute.

I think the format of the game this year will allow for more teams to take the spotlight as people will be following the game pieces as opposed to particularly impressive bots. A strong defensive play will be more visible and a smooth assist will be highly regarded.

Well the question isn't really about giving teams the "spotlight" I think every year has ways for teams to individually shine. People will from the get go know an impressive bot when they see one. The question is will a robot take an loss due to the fact of trying to give others the "spotlight"? Because there is only one game piece this year. I think it just enhances the chances of teams who build fantastic machines year in year out who may already have a not so great reputation to become the bad guy.

I would love for every robot to contribute to a match but after 6 seasons I know that there will be some that struggle. It would be different if there were more game pieces but there is not. This game even though others have said everyone can play this game may have people playing "Roles" more like in 2008. I think even Alliances with roles can be formidable this year more so than any other year (kinda like 2012 robot feeding triple auto.) (don't remember if MAR or somewhere else)

So my question is does the team who is in the running for a ranking cooperate or do they go rouge like Sarah Palin ? I think we will see both. I do not personally want this to happen but I feel its unavoidable. Gracious Professionalism is going to be pretty interesting to see this year because it comes into play more than other years due to the one game piece per alliance.

[WaterClaw]

Originally Posted by Ian Curtis

At the same time, I am worried that only 1 ball per alliance has the real potential to breed ill will. FRC teams for the most part do not build robots that are good at scoring points. (2011 OPR distribution) Having watched many FRC matches, if I had a penny for every second I've seen a robot try to acquire a game piece and come up empty, I would be a rich man. Let's say you're on an alliance with two BLTs and one perennial powerhouse. If the BLTs can't POSSESS the ball well, chances are giving your powerhouse exclusive access to the ball will score the most points. But if the BLTs have mechanisms they want to try/show off, this game plan is obviously not going to fly with them. An additional factor is the damage done if a ball gets stuck in a faulty mechanism.

I would argue other wise considering 2008 (Overdrive) provides us with a lot of methods for piece acquisition this year. Though the ball sizes are not really the same, they're close enough to use the same methods.

Originally Posted by Ian Curtis

There are always some threads every year where people complain about coaching. Given that there is only one ball per alliance in teleop and scoring points actually requires coordination, the personalities and persuasive skills of the drive team will be critical. I can only imagine that these threads will be more frequent and more heated.

I know. However another mentality that can be taken is that the other alliance robots are goals. If you don't think of the target as an indefinite and unpredictable, but a definite target, then passing becomes much less of communication and more instinctual. Instincts and patterns are reliable, communication that can be garbled by the tension of the moment is not.

Originally Posted by Ian Curtis

On top of this, there is a non-negligible portion of people involved with FRC that already hold ill will against high performing robots and their for a variety of reasons. This opinion is not held by many people active on CD, but you don't have to look far at an event to find people that feel this way. Might this get worse if they perceive a team as being ballhogs?

Teams will always have personalities. Some are more aggressive while others are more submissive. You'll always encounter this problem but especially in this game, I agree. In order for teams to succeed in this heavily alliance based game, it will require teams to be willing to follow as a pose to lead. Every team will think they know best, and each is right. Any good strategy can be made to work so long as the alliance members will cooperate and play their position to the letter. If there is objection, resentment, or timidity as to success, you're hosed ESPECIALLY in this kind of game.

Originally Posted by Ian Curtis

The GDC's solution was to make ASSISTS the secondary sort, which alleviates some of this problem. Is it enough? Am I worried about nothing?

Nope. Unfortunately, your worries are well founded. With FIRST Competitions, deciding factors are sometimes the only things that matter to teams in dire situations of ranking when adrenaline is running high. Ultimately, the one thing teams can do is tolerate the situations as they come, regardless of how unfair or blatantly incorrect the verdicts may be. This as well is applicable to every year, however especially this year when teams are so much more dependent on one another's performance.