Was Aerial Assist Better than Ultimate Ascent?

[thegnat05]

I personally believe that Ultimate Ascent was a better game and produced more variety in the types of robots made. This year most of the robots had a "wheely device" to pick up the ball and some sort of catapult to launch the ball. This years game featured a lot more teamwork but I think the different elements in Ultimate Ascent made it an all around better game. This years game was fun to watch and I think it was a good game just not the best.

I also think that having the pyramid to climb was an element that added a large challenge and it added a suspense element to the end of the game.

My overall opinion is that Ultimate Ascent was better because of the diversity and challenge.

[DManz]

Originally Posted by TheKeeg

Well the structure of the game forced independence (which is not necessarily a bad thing;I really liked UA). Of course there are cases where rookies scored points or played defense to win a match, but I think it was much more difficult to do. Rookies could and almost always can contribute to the game in some way. I just think AA allowed them to have a real place in a strategy rather than standing alone.

Considering that Aerial Assist was the game for my teams rookie year, i enjoyed it. I watched videos of last years game and can say that as a spectator it was hard to follow. My team made it to championships this year because we played great defense and could inbound well and it won us our first regional in our rookie year and from being able to go to championships and to be able to end the championship ranked 47 out of 100 in the winning division, i can personally say that this year inspired rookies like my own team to come out next year as strong as possible. I think the fact that this game relied so heavily on teamwork was a good thing because it gave teams that weren't accustomed to the feel of FRC yet a chance to really learn from the more experienced teams and truly get a feel for the competitiveness that FRC brings to the table.

[Aiyash]

This game reminds me of the Lunacy reactions. Lots of people thought it was a crazy idea to have this type of play, but it ended up working out a lot better than expected. Matches were very fun.

I will say this, it doesn't come close to topping Rebound Rumble or Triple Play, which are arguably the two best games of all time.

My least favorite game in the last five years? Logomotion. Had no dynamic element whatsoever.

[Kingland093]

The theory behind Aerial Assist is great, however in practice all of the issues previously mentioned sort of ruin it. In my mind, Ultimate Ascent was way better

[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.

[dellagd]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

All the dislike of the game aside I cannot wait to see this game on display at IRI. The qualification rounds won't suck there.

Yep. Team's could easily have their win-loss record more or less determined by the match schedule. Carrying an alliance, although very hard in any year, I feel is particularity impossible in this game.

This game I do feel is the most strategically interesting in a while however. There are so many cool and different ways an alliance can go about trying to win; it's not just "you score as much as you can while we all do the same" like 2013 mostly was. I still have a few strategies I'd still like to see played out in the off-season.

On the other hand, with the random match schedules, (and my team's horrible luck for them) I feel particularly irked with this game. To have your rank determined by your performance directly correlating to randomly selected teams is so frustrating. In previous years you could easily show your robots capabilities even if your partners were poor and you lost matched, but now, with partners who really struggle to assist with you, doing even that is hard. No matter what way you pitch it, some teams are better than others. Getting paired with the lesser half, despite all you can do to help them, takes a much bigger hit to your own performance/appearance in this game over previous years. I know this is a more negative view of the situation, but while some do, some teams simply don't want help even if you offer it.

While I don't think OPR represents this game that well, we ended up 16th in our division for it, but ranked 91st in the official rankings. I know of a few teams this happened to and it feels like the game just didn't really work with the old style of rankings. Good teams should at least do fairly well in the rankings.

[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?

[Anteprefix]

Originally Posted by 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. 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?

This is exactly what 1678, 254, and probably many other teams did to ensure that they would have competent alliance partners during quals. While this might not be a feasible option for every team, I do feel that forcing teams to help other teams improve their robot and code helps create strong partnerships. Many of our mentors now adore the rookie teams that they have "adopted" and are striving to keep in contact with them to help them in the future. I think that, intentionally or not, the assist point aspect of aerial assist helped transform the culture of our team, and possibly many others.

[SkittlesCharge]

Originally Posted by Josh Fox

Instead of complaining about how other teams bring yours down, you can always focus on bringing them up.

I've been meaning to say something like this but couldn't find a good way to phrase it. Since Aerial Assist was focused on the alliance as a whole rather than just "3 teams playing together", helping your partners improve was a great way to improve your own chances of success, even more so than in previous years. Our team has members that look for teams in need in the pits so we can help them out, and our scouters also inform them of any teams that have just had problems on the field so we can provide immediate assistance if it's necessary. While this program is designed to aid all teams at the event, in the course of doing so we eventually help our future partners as well, which ends up also helping us in the end. It's a win-win situation.

By the way, congrats on the CCA.

[ghostmachine360]

Here's my answer in chronological order of the season in a collection of gifs:

-When Aerial Assist was first announced, this was my face.
-When I had the thought that a game dependent pretty much on teamwork could be the best game ever, my follow-up to "This could be the best game ever!"
-When I realized as a referee or emcee, I would have to be courtside to possibly getting hit in the face, this was my reaction.
-When we got the wrong end of the deal after some bad officiating, this was my reaction, & this was my reaction after Palmetto.
- Right as a Aerial Assist ball was heading towards my face, the moment before it hit my face and broke my glasses.
-When I finally got hit and knocked out by an Aerial Assist ball at Peachtree, this was my reaction afterwards.

Final answers, in no particular order: 1, 2, 3, & 4.

Other than my misadventures this season, AA had potential; but it only came to fruition with the really competitive matchups. Nowhere as good as Ultimate Ascent. I loved that game; and I got hit twice in that game.

[DampRobot]

Originally Posted by Anteprefix

This is exactly what 1678, 254, and probably many other teams did to ensure that they would have competent alliance partners during quals. While this might not be a feasible option for every team, I do feel that forcing teams to help other teams improve their robot and code helps create strong partnerships. Many of our mentors now adore the rookie teams that they have "adopted" and are striving to keep in contact with them to help them in the future. I think that, intentionally or not, the assist point aspect of aerial assist helped transform the culture of our team, and possibly many others.

The irony with this game is that for a game intended to help out the less fortunate teams, all it really did was screw over the middle of the pack.

The powerhouses will always find a way to win. If you're talking about teams as excellent and dedicated as 254, 1678, 971, 33, 2337, etc, they'll find a way to win even if the game requires them to bake a cake in the middle of a match. Because they have so many resources and so much experience, they'll be able to come out on top almost no matter what the game is. And I think that is a good thing. Better teams should be able to win more matches.

What was bad, though, is the fact that this game screwed over a lot of upper-middle of the pack robots. A team as OP as 254 can score their way to victory even paired with two kitbots, especially if they have the resources to get these teams running well before a match. A more middle of the pack team (yes, like 100) can't mentor seven or eight rookie teams over the course of the weekend until they work well. We love to help out, but we barely have enough students to fix our own bot. As such, were stuck in matches where were held back by an inbounding robot that takes 30 seconds to spit the ball out, or by two "partners" who can't drive to save their lives. For teams like 100, how many qual matches you won was basically a function of how bad your worst partner was. We simply can't help everyone we play a match with, even though we'd love to.

Helping the rookies succeed is great, and it's something that a lot of teams prioritize regardless of the game. I remember helping the rookie team next to us get their frame legal and fix their bumpers at Davis in 2013, giving a rookie team our kit bot for CalGames 2013, and getting our rookie partner at 2013 CalGames working well enough that we made the finals. Why did we bother to do these things when we might have been able to win "independently" of the rookies? Because making these teams more competitive can help you in any game. And, at a more basic level, helping out the new kids on the block is part of what makes FIRST FIRST.

What isn't good is the whole "bringing the bottom up" thing that FIRST tries to push on us through the game from time to time. Remember the new driving surface in 2009 that was supposed to level the playing field, or the Coopertition points in 2010 and 2011, or the Coopertition bridge in 2012? Those were all attempts to bring the bottom up, and really did nothing of the sort. All they seemed to do was bring the middle down, though muddling strategies, obscuring the true quality of robots in the rankings, and generally making competitions a pain.

I love helping rookies. But I don't like it when games try to push helping rookies on us. It just makes the games lower quality, which inspires everyone less.

[Kimmeh]

Originally Posted by Josh Fox

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 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?

Originally Posted by DampRobot

We love to help out, but we barely have enough students to fix our own bot. [...] We simply can't help everyone we play a match with, even though we'd love to.

Why did we bother to do these things when we might have been able to win "independently" of the rookies? Because making these teams more competitive can help you in any game. And, at a more basic level, helping out the new kids on the block is part of what makes FIRST FIRST.

What if instead of you directly helping your parners, you ask another team?
"Hey Awesome Team! I see that Struggling Team is having some problems with their random component. We play with them soon, and then you play with them later. Unfortunately, we're busy fixing our robot/another robot and don't have the manpower to fully help them. Do you have a few people who can join our person/people in helping them get going?

No one is necessarily asking you to do it all. However, by definition, veteran teams have more experience and connections than a rookie team. Not to mention it can be intimidating for a rookie to go up to a powerhouse team to ask for help. Or maybe they don't realize that there are other teams willing to help them. Serve as a middle-man and help them get help.