Was Aerial Assist Better than Ultimate Ascent?

[bigbeezy]

Personally I really enjoyed this game. Definitely one of my favorites, up there with '05 and '07. The strategy of the game was incredible. I like control-type games which typically refers to arm games but this year you really had to control the ball and get it from bot to bot/hp to goal. Yes with sub-par teams the game can look like little league soccer, but that's because passing the ball is hard. These games aren't supposed to be easy. Adding a safe zone or a 2nd ball would have just diluted the game and reverted back to the same old thing of the best teams just go do their own thing to win. Maybe this year taught more teams the value of working together.

Last year pre-match strategy consisted of "Where do you line up in auto?" and "What loading slot do you want?" Not the most exciting game in the world.

[themccannman]

No. Aside from how this game played on Einstein everything else about it was some of the worst in FRC history.

The fact that only the best teams in the world were able to play this game the way it was meant to be is telling of how poorly thought out it was. The dependency of this game on having all 6 robots on the field working is a huge downside. A single dead robot almost always meant the match was over, and how heavily scheduling affected seeding order was a little bit ridiculous. This game was very poorly thought out. The only reason it was exciting to watch is because there was a single game piece and a wide open field which together maximized defensive interaction between alliances.

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by themccannman

only the best teams in the world were able to play this game the way it was meant to be

This simply isn't true at all. The eliminations at both regionals 4464 attended were a blast to watch (and to participate in) and most of the teams there couldn't be called "the best teams in the world" by any stretch of the imagination.

We had a great time at championships, as well - the vast majority of our matches were close and exciting.

[Jared Russell]

This game was truly great when (a) there were 6 good robots on the field executing a coordinated game plan and (b) controversial penalties, non-calls, or field faults didn't happen.

Unfortunately, in my estimation, less than 5% of the more than 10,000 matches of Aerial Assist met both of these criteria simultaneously.

[Jarren Harkema]

Originally Posted by Edxu

As a member who does match strategy, I definitely enjoyed working with teams and finding out about each of their robot capabilities, and then working out a strategy together, but I think that the game eventually became stale, with the eventual strategy being Inbounder -> Outtake to Trusser -> Truss -> HP -> Score.

I experienced the exact opposite at the CMP this year. New strategies were created when working with alliances, some of the notable ones are below.

Inbound > truss to HP > new bot inbound > shoot to HP on other side > shoot
Inbound > truss to HP > spit back to HP > new bot inbound > shoot
Inbound > spit back to HP > new bot inbound > truss to HP > shoot

At that is simply the teleop period, I saw lots of unique autonomous strategies including starting in the goalie zones to begin cycles immediately. My favorite was the actual use of goalie blockers during autonomous.

Even though this is my first year participating in FRC, I have been around and observed matches since 2008. I believe that Aerial Assist is on top, due to the high levels of cooperation and strategy required. It is so much more satisfying knowing that your accomplishments were aided by others, rather than carrying your alliance all by yourself. Past years have felt like the goal was score yourself, and get out of your partner's way. AA forced you to work together, and I loved it.

[Wayne TenBrink]

Every game has its strengths and weaknesses. I think UA was much easier for a casual spectator to understand, but AA was more interesting for dedicated fans. (Aside: If you are going to show the game animation at a regional or district event, please do it in the afternoon right before elimination matches when all the casual spectators show up, not during opening ceremonies when only the dedicated fans are present).

I think the "assist" concept in AA worked best for teams in a district system. With all the value given to assists (both in scoring and seeding), your schedule had a disproportionate influence on your ranking compared to previous games. While nobody has a constitutional right to seed in proportion to their skill level, it is good when that happens, and an unfavorable schedule made that happen a bit less this year. If you only went to a single regional with a few matches and a then got a difficult schedule, you may have had a short and frustrating season. With districts, the better teams have more opportunities to prove their worth over time and move on. This allows (makes it fairer for) the GDC to come up with games where the "whole" of the alliance is greater (or less) than the "sum of the parts" in ways they haven't before. There will always be a wide diversity of skills between teams, and limiting the GDC to games that can be played well "solo" is an unfortunate constraint. As a team in a district system, I am happy to trade some "seeding inefficiency" for an exiting new dimension to the game.

[Mr B]

Although the game this year had some good points, overall it is one of the weaker games in my opinion.

A big plus for this year's game is that the smart alliances with a good strategy were rewarded. You really had to evaluate both your allies and opponents before a match. In Ultimate Ascent, a good scoring alliance could pretty much just ignore their opponents and still win, but this year a good defensive strategy could change everything. It's too bad that they nerfed the rough nature of the game though, as teams were so worried about incurring penalties that it made the game less exciting to watch. Which brings me to the real downside of this year's game...

Overloaded refs were asked to call (sometimes subjective) penalties that had a huge effect on the outcome of many matches. How hard is too hard to bump an opponent? What really defines herding or possession? It seemed to be different from event to event. How long is five seconds for pinning? Some of the amped up ref's arms flailed about like they were slinging six-shooters, much faster than five seconds and for a 50 point penalty. And how do they really know if a violation is intentional or not? To me, the hallmark of a poorly designed game is one riddled with penalties. If the GDC finds themselves throwing penalties on as band-aids, they should go back and rethink.

I guess my real departure from the way things are is philosophical; it's ok if FRC is a competition. Exhibitions with random outcomes are boring - true competition is exciting. We don't have to force cooperation or gracious professionalism. Look in any pit area and you will see a wonderful model for the world to follow. Just make a game that is simple and fun to watch (flying objects really help), and make sure that a box robot that plays good defense can affect the game. Oh, and if they really want to spice things up - add some bling. Flashing lights and cool sound effects that happen when something significant happens on the field will add depth to the experience.

[MechEng83]

No.

All you posters speaking platitudes about "depth of strategy" must not have had a schedule with half your matches filled with teams who couldn't drive forward in auto, couldn't collect the ball, couldn't adhere to a plan, couldn't NOT foul, and couldn't stay connected to the field. How do you raise the floor of competition when you have alliance partners who don't even bother showing up for matches?

I completely agree that when 6 capable TEAMS are playing the game, such as champs elimination matches, it is a decent game. Champs always has better levels of game play. Unfortunately, there are too many incapable robots for this to happen in most regional competitions. When a robot can't perform (for whatever reason) it's a death knell for their alliance.

Yes, this makes it more of a "team sport" but it's not a team sport because you can't replace your alliance partners in quals. You don't have an opportunity to practice with your alliance partners in quals.

As far as other issues not related to teams: officiating was a nightmare -- there was too much to keep track of and the refs were overworked as a result; the field had dozens of unacceptable bugs that would manifest during competition. The scoring was quite confusing for anyone who wasn't deeply involved in FRC.

tl;dr - UA >> AA

[rkbot]

I didn't like this game at all, the most fun i had in the drivers station was on the practice field at world with 8 balls on the field. Just because there was more possibility to make a strategy doesn't mean it was a better game.

[TheKeeg]

Originally Posted by MechEng83

No.

All you posters speaking platitudes about "depth of strategy" must not have had a schedule with half your matches filled with teams who couldn't drive forward in auto, couldn't collect the ball, couldn't adhere to a plan, couldn't NOT foul, and couldn't stay connected to the field. How do you raise the floor of competition when you have alliance partners who don't even bother showing up for matches?

tl;dr - UA >> AA

So having a different game would change this? There will always be robots that are not exactly capable, but that does not mean it is a bad game. Ultimate Ascent could be won by 1 dominant robot which makes the powerhouse teams happy but it is no fun for the rookies and less experienced teams. How would having a different game change the fact that some teams cannot program an auto?

Originally Posted by rkbot

I didn't like this game at all, the most fun i had in the drivers station was on the practice field at world with 8 balls on the field. Just because there was more possibility to make a strategy doesn't mean it was a better game.

So what do you define as a good game?

[MechEng83]

Originally Posted by TheKeeg

So having a different game would change this?

A different game will not affect how poorly teams perform. It will, however, affect how much their poor performance hinders a more capable team.

[JohnSchneider]

Originally Posted by TheKeeg

So having a different game would change this? There will always be robots that are not exactly capable, but that does not mean it is a bad game. Ultimate Ascent could be won by 1 dominant robot which makes the powerhouse teams happy but it is no fun for the rookies and less experienced teams. How would having a different game change the fact that some teams cannot program an auto?

Because UA and AA are so vastly different in the way that seeding affects outcome.

Many rookie and inexperienced teams still contributed nothing to the alliance in AA, and brought down their partners instead. At least in UA, they weren't holding back partners.

In UA the better robots usually won because there was little to no interaction amongst teammates. A powerhouse could overcome having two inexperienced partners and the better team won.

In AA, better robots could lose because they had two boxes on wheels with them due to random seeding.

You're implying AA is better because powerhouse teams got punished for no reason, and I just can't understand how anyone could support that.

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by JohnSchneider

In UA the better robots usually won because there was little to no interaction amongst teammates. A powerhouse could overcome having two inexperienced partners and the better team won.

This varies crucially with your definition of "better team."

Mean and maximum are both metrics. There's no fundamental reason for the latter to be the be-all, end-all determiner of "which team should win."

[JohnSchneider]

Originally Posted by Oblarg

This varies crucially with your definition of "better team."

Mean and maximum are both metrics. There's no fundamental reason for the latter to be the be-all, end-all determiner of "which team should win."

Better meaning that in UA, a team whose robot could consistently score higher than all 3 opponent robots combined could win regardless of partners. There were WAY too many cases in AA where a consistently accurate and high scoring robot would lose a match because neither partner was able to possess the ball.

[TheKeeg]

Originally Posted by JohnSchneider

You're implying AA is better because powerhouse teams got punished for no reason, and I just can't understand how anyone could support that.

I wasn't saying that it is a good game because powerhouse teams were punished unreasonably, but rather that less experienced teams were able to have an impact on the results of a match. Often times it was a negative impact, but there was a lot of new teams that could win with their robot...not lack thereof.