Was Aerial Assist Better than Ultimate Ascent?

[Tyler2517]

It was the most strategic game and was a blast to watch at high levels. Once the bugs were fixed it was going pretty well.

[connor.worley]

Originally Posted by Tyler2517

It was the most strategic game and was a blast to watch at high levels. Once the bugs were fixed it was going pretty well.

What strategic play did you see, besides defense/evasion? I'm curious. I'd really like to see two balls in play for each alliance at IRI, since that'd actually open up strategic tradeoffs like parallel scoring vs assisting, defense vs inbounding a second ball, etc.

[StAxis]

Originally Posted by connor.worley

What strategic play did you see, besides defense/evasion? I'm curious. I'd really like to see two balls in play for each alliance at IRI, since that'd actually open up strategic tradeoffs like parallel scoring vs assisting, defense vs inbounding a second ball, etc.

On Curie the Fighting Pi/PWNAGE alliance had some amazing passes across the field to the human player to get around defense and get three assists. Also there was a lot involved in finals on Einstein because of the auto modes. 254 pulls a fast one on 1114 and goes left all the way, 1114 gets in their way and makes them miss next match, then they have 2848 ram them to slow them down and prevent them from messing up the poof's auto.

In general there was a lot of strategy involved in deciding what robot did what, whether to prioritize assists or the truss, one point vs ten point goals, and trading off for zone defense. From a strategic perspective it was an incredibly complex game to watch compared to the last few years.

[Racer26]

I like Aerial Assist at a high-level. With 6 strong robots, solid strategy, and the improved penalty calling by CMP, Aerial Assist is a fun game to watch.

At a low level with teams that struggle to corral the ball, much less pick it up and actually score it? Its really painful to watch.

I think that both Ultimate Ascent, and Rebound Rumble were more engaging at a low level, but Aerial Assist is my favourite to watch for high-level awesome strategies.

I saw 51's alliance at champs making a nearly indefensible setup, truss-to-HP, then HP throws into a catcher-bot glued to the front face of the low goal to score it high. Not moving from that position unless necessary helped to keep defenders from getting between them and the goal. Its a significant part of how they toppled the #1 alliance in Archimedes.

[Justin Lawrence]

I don't think it was the worst game, but I don't think it's the best either. Autonomous seemed to have created the outcome of most matches, not giving the other alliance a chance to win. But it was fun to watch the finals matches on Einstein.

[Charles Boehm]

Originally Posted by Racer26

I saw 51's alliance at champs making a nearly indefensible setup, truss-to-HP, then HP throws into a catcher-bot glued to the front face of the low goal to score it high. Not moving from that position unless necessary helped to keep defenders from getting between them and the goal. Its a significant part of how they toppled the #1 alliance in Archimedes.

That could not be more true. This game was great because it made it so the top teams weren't invincible during elims, any alliance with the right strategy can win.

[TheKeeg]

I think this game is better than Ultimate Ascent. It was designed to be played on Einstein and those final matches were awesome. One of the things that made the game great was the evolution of strategies as the competition got better. We saw brand new strategies show up AT WORLDS! Every alliance had their opportunity to win through excellent strategy and teamwork, making upsets more common and exciting. This is unlike Ultimate Ascent, which could be won by 3 similar robots that never interacted with each other because the game forced independence.

This year, it was extremely important that robots were consistent and drive teams worked together behind the glass. My team suffered at both MSC and Curie from not working well with other teams. We had a hard time getting picked or seeding high because of this, and while it was a little upsetting, we learned a lot about how to present ourselves. This game was an excellent opportunity for teams to learn how to be gracious professionals and better embody the ideals of FIRST, so in that respect this game was better than most. If you went into this year hoping to win alone, then it was probably a disappointing year.

[April_robo]

Coming from the perspective of a driver for this year and last year, AA was much better by far. I loved having to come up with a strategy with your alliance partners and trying to find a way to use even the simplest robot. The strategy involved really got the crowd involved and each ball had so much potential to affect the game. Overall I liked AA much better than UA. I think it was a great idea on FIRST's part.

[pandamonium]

[quote=Tyler2517;1379327]It was the most strategic game and was a blast to wasimilarhigh levels. Once the bugs were fixed it was going pretty well.[/QUOTE

So everyone has there own opinions but I think if you isolate each game to just its strategic components you can rank them pretty easily. If you were not around for 05 or 07 you really should check them out.

Looking only at each game from a strategic level.
1. 2007 - deciding where to score and cool end game. Cool Robot types
2. 2005 - deciding where to score and when.
3. 2013 - cycling climbing fcs
4. 2014 - pre match decided games. DEFENSE. Where to score. ASSISTS. 2 balls would have made game better...
5. 2012 - bridge points.
6. 2010 - how soon people forget how bad week 1 was but it got fixed too.
7. 2008 - different concept but hard to understand score. all matches seemed similar.
8. 2006 - shooting was cool at the time but has been better since. Periods was cool.
9. 2011 - every game played exactly the same. OP end game.
10. 2009 - try to drive. Pin near human player...

[Monochron]

This thread is like a Bizarro World of Chief Delphi for the last 2 months. Everybody has been berating the game and how it was poorly designed, and now people are singing it's praises.

As for what I think, this was a much better Spectator sport than in past years. And I think that was exactly what FIRST was going for in expanding their reach.

[nuclearnerd]

This game was amazing. Take a look at the scores in the St. Louis eliminations - almost all matches were won with a spread less than 30 points, and more than half of them went to the rubber match. That tells me that almost all 32 of the elimination alliances could have had a run at Einstein if the winds of fortune shifted. I know that some people would rather have a game that crowns one team champion-except-for-the-playing on bag day. Instead, Aerial Assist rewarded those teams that innovated new strategies, worked hard on their scouting, and helped their alliances in the pits. Upset victories were common, and even rookie teams could feel like they had a shot!

I really hope next year's game is as strategic, exciting and rewarding as this year's. That is, as long as they can work out a clear, predictable and fair set of foul rules (a *really* hard problem).

[SkittlesCharge]

To expand on what I said previously, one thing I really liked about Aerial Assist is that it was designed to be pretty friendly to teams that had trouble building their robots. Compared to previous years, it's great to see what a simple robot could do in Aerial Assist.

In 2013, a box on wheels could:
- Play defense (in a game that was only somewhat defense-friendly)

In 2014, a box on wheels could:
- Herd or trap the ball for assists
- Score in the low goal
- Play defense (in a game that was quite defense-friendly)
- Score in autonomous (drive forward, get mobility points, and push a ball into the low goal for either 11 or 16 points)

[Vupa]

Originally Posted by SkittlesCharge

To expand on what I said previously, one thing I really liked about Aerial Assist is that it was designed to be pretty friendly to teams that had trouble building their robots. Compared to previous years, it's great to see what a simple robot could do in Aerial Assist.

In 2013, a box on wheels could:
- Play defense (in a game that was only somewhat defense-friendly)

In 2014, a box on wheels could:
- Herd or trap the ball for assists
- Score in the low goal
- Play defense (in a game that was quite defense-friendly)
- Score in autonomous (drive forward, get mobility points, and push a ball into the low goal for either 11 or 16 points)

I personally believe it was quite the opposite this year. The game was actually very unfriendly towards box robots because of several different reasons. The reality being that teams that had difficulty with building a robot also had difficulty maintaining said robot. Unfortunately these teams are often rookie teams or newer teams, meaning that they are also not used to the rules of the games and the nuances of competition. Multiple times in competition you would have to tell a team to not do anything or to not use their shooter or intake because they would "get in the way" or "cause a dead ball" perhaps even net some unfortunate fouls. And although this seems like a poor showing of Gracious Professionalism, it is the sad truth because as a team, you don't want rookies to lose you a match due to fouls. Thus actually putting the restrictions on the simpler robots and their ability to participate in the match.

This is why this game is worse for simpler bots. In Ultimate Ascent there is no such thing as telling your rookie teammate to stop playing in fear of fouls. You let them play defense and if they could score you would tell them to do their best. In Aerial Assist there is just one ball per alliance and thus it is key on who has possession, if your alliance member is unable to actually do anything with the ball, then you want to minimize your risk of them getting the ball. Thus reducing their role to perhaps even less then mediocre defense.

[SkittlesCharge]

Originally Posted by Vupa

Multiple times in competition you would have to tell a team to not do anything or to not use their shooter or intake because they would "get in the way" or "cause a dead ball" perhaps even net some unfortunate fouls.

Perhaps it was just the regionals we attended, but our team did not see very much of this at all, at least on our end. We adapted the approach of being quite lenient with regards to "saying no", in fact barely "saying no" at all. If a team wasn't sure they would make their autonomous shot, we told them to go for it and that we would score it if they missed. We tried to make sure teams that had previously gotten fouls not get them by reminding of what not to do. We only had a few circumstances I can recall where we suggested that a team herd the ball instead of using their collector, but that was more for speeding up the cycle than dead balls or fouls. We encouraged all of our alliance partners to play in a meaningful way, both offensively and defensively.

EDIT: Again, the situation may have been different at events you attended. This is just our team's experience.

[Josh Fox]

As my first year back in FIRST after graduating high school in 2010, I grew to love this game. Obviously I'm somewhat biased because of my team's great amount of success, but I absolutely loved the strategy options this game presented. You had your inbounders, trussers, and finishers you could assemble in a variety of formations/zones. The fact that there was only one game piece meant that something like 2/3 of a given match you were playing without a ball. What do you do with that time? Defend? Get into position to start the next cycle? Run a pick for your partner? All great options that often had to be decided on the fly.

And as far as the "incapable partners dragging down good teams" thing, you can either complain about it or do something about it. Instead of complaining that you're "stuck with" fridgebot 9000 for a match, go offer some help. Maybe one of their mechanisms isn't working how they intended because something is misaligned and you can figure out a way to fix how their motors mount or improve gears meshing that might help. I know we and several other teams even developed simple inbounding mechanisms that could be modified and attached to almost any robot. Now your rookie who struggled to make a drivetrain move can assist with the best of them.

Maybe their programmer is inexperienced or made a simple mistake so their auton doesn't work or controls aren't responding properly. Spend 5 minutes to go talk to a team and say "Hey, it looked like your auton didn't run how you wanted it to last match, is there anything we can do to help you review your code?" Now they've got code that gives your team an additional 5 points to start the match.

Instead of complaining about how other teams bring yours down, you can always focus on bringing them up. Sure, you're helping yourself to have a better chance to win a match, but you're also doing the same for them. Isn't that the whole point of this "coopertition" thing I keep hearing so much is about?