What if...

[magnets]

If Aerial Assist was replayed, I would quit.

Frank talked about GDC "improvements". Aerial Assist was a mediocre game that was preceded by two awesome games, and one very good one. If the GDC decides to draw inspiration from a previous game, why not use a more popular game?

[asid61]

Originally Posted by magnets

If Aerial Assist was replayed, I would quit.

Frank talked about GDC "improvements". Aerial Assist was a mediocre game that was preceded by two awesome games, and one very good one. If the GDC decides to draw inspiration from a previous game, why not use a more popular game?

Why do you dislike it? It was something totally new and awesome in terms of coopertition.

[mastachyra]

What about levels? I never see anyone on hear mention different levels in the playing field.

i envision a three level field with balls entering the field on the top tier. One alliance member needs to push the game piece to a hole where it falls to the second tier. Another alliance member pushes the game piece to a hole where it falls to the bottom level. The third team member scores the ball.

Obviously, this is just a crazy idea that I haven't spent much time thinking about. But while we're throwing crazy ideas out there, does anyone think different levels could be in our future any time soon?

[GeeTwo]

Aerial Assist

Originally Posted by asid61

It was something totally new and awesome in terms of coopertition.

Coopertition is when teams on opposing alliances cooperate to score. As played in the kickoff video and at the championships, perhaps there were new levels of cooperation in AA. However, at our regional, and the others I saw on video, most alliances wound up consisting of one robot playing offense and two on defense. Alliances with two good offensive robots would put two on offense and one on defense to get the truss and assist points. I don't recall anyone at our regional successfully using a 3-assist strategy.

As long as a working drive system can mount a defense, defense and playing against defense will be a major factors in the game, at least at the regionals. This is why Rebound Rumble was the most recent game in which offenses were largely unbothered by defense.

[brandon.cottrell]

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

However, at our regional, and the others I saw on video, most alliances wound up consisting of one robot playing offense and two on defense. Alliances with two good offensive robots would put two on offense and one on defense to get the truss and assist points. I don't recall anyone at our regional successfully using a 3-assist strategy.

Really? Where'd you guys go?

At San Diego (which then was a Week 2 regional) the minimum was more like 2 robots assisting, and 1 playing defense. I will note however in matches like this one, sometimes, but for the most part it was generally 2 assists, even if it was a slow match with only a couple cycles on either side. However, this may have just been because we were matched with/against some pretty good teams who could assist in some way or another.

But in AA you were usually supposed to play defense if you didn't have to currently do anything related to the ball.

In the Elims, it was always 3. 1 inbounds into another, that one trusses, one after that scores usually, which was why robots like 3250, 4574, 4583 and 4486 were such good strategic picks.


All in all, I think we can all agree that the simplicity of Aerial Assist was its strong point and it's downfall. On one hand, the game was fairly easy to follow, and even if you didn't understand what assisting was you could still get a basic grasp of which side was winning based on general activity, like in Ultimate Ascent, or Rebound Rumble. On the other hand, to engineers it wasn't very challenging, and there were only so many designs that could be innovated. Plus not to mention the sometimes speculation-based rules, and the lack of a 2nd objective (which lead to a heavy focus on a single game piece).

[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by brandon.cottrell

to engineers it wasn't very challenging

Can you expand on why you think this please?

[brandon.cottrell]

Originally Posted by Caleb Sykes

Can you expand on why you think this please?

Well think about games like Ultimate Ascent, the whole "pyramid climbing" goal.

Sure, it wasn't worth very many points, but to have a robot that actually did that was eye candy for spectators. Everyone I talk to about Ultimate Ascent outside of FIRST cites the Pyramid as the most amazing thing about the game, because of the complex mechanisms robots had to do them. Like, this and this.

In terms of shooting frisbees it was just a spinning wheel with a piston to push the frisbees in, with varying input methods like floor pickup or human player feeding. Though the latter was easily a larger source of points, it was still easier to engineer, whereas the former was a harder, but more visually appealing task.

With this game, all the robots really had to be successful was have a consistent way to hold and release the ball. You didn't even really need to launch it, and there were a lot of cases where launching it would've just created more problems than simply holding the ball and then letting goal of it.

What this lead to is many "cookie-cutter" robots and strategies, which is the main reason people don't like games like Lunacy. Even though nobody is really "copying" anyone, it's hard to bring a new innovating idea that will actually work and be consistent.

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by brandon.cottrell

What this lead to is many "cookie-cutter" robots and strategies, which is the main reason people don't like games like Lunacy. Even though nobody is really "copying" anyone, it's hard to bring a new innovating idea that will actually work and be consistent.

Of all the reasons I despise Lunacy, cookie cutter robots is not really one of them. In fact, this is the first time I've heard that particular criticism levied at that game.

[asid61]

Originally Posted by Oblarg

Of all the reasons I despise Lunacy, cookie cutter robots is not really one of them. In fact, this is the first time I've heard that particular criticism levied at that game.

lol that's an interesting way of loooking at that.

On the topic of creativity in AA, adding a good endgame would have been enough to make it more creative. 2013 was just shooting frisbees with wheels, either with a linear shooter or a single-wheel shooter. However, it would have been very hard to top 148's pyramid climb in terms of creativity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxGa8Z8LUYE

[Ben Wolsieffer]

Originally Posted by asid61

However, it would have been very hard to top 148's pyramid climb in terms of creativity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxGa8Z8LUYE

Sorry this is off topic but... http://youtu.be/MsRTBzIZonc?t=1m
Looks awesome, but its probably the worst possibly way to climb - especially if you're the driver.

[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by brandon.cottrell

Well think about games like Ultimate Ascent, the whole "pyramid climbing" goal.

Sure, it wasn't worth very many points, but to have a robot that actually did that was eye candy for spectators. Everyone I talk to about Ultimate Ascent outside of FIRST cites the Pyramid as the most amazing thing about the game, because of the complex mechanisms robots had to do them. Like, this and this.

I don't understand how those examples are that much more amazing than this and this.

With this game, all the robots really had to be successful was have a consistent way to hold and release the ball. You didn't even really need to launch it, and there were a lot of cases where launching it would've just created more problems than simply holding the ball and then letting goal of it.

This statement (with small variations) could probably be said for any game. For example: "[With Ultimate Ascent], all the robots really needed to be successful was to have a consistent way to hold and release [discs into the low goal]. You don't even really need to launch it, and there were a lot of cases where launching it would've just created more problems than simply holding the [discs] and then letting go of [them]."

What this lead to is many "cookie-cutter" robots and strategies, which is the main reason people don't like games like Lunacy. Even though nobody is really "copying" anyone, it's hard to bring a new innovating idea that will actually work and be consistent.

It seems that you are more commenting on unique designs here, which is a very different issue than a game that did not provide a difficult engineering challenge.

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by Caleb Sykes

This statement (with small variations) could probably be said for any game. For example: "[With Ultimate Ascent], all the robots really needed to be successful was to have a consistent way to hold and release [discs into the low goal]. You don't even really need to launch it, and there were a lot of cases where launching it would've just created more problems than simply holding the [discs] and then letting go of [them]."

I did not see one successful alliance in Ultimate Ascent whose strategy was entirely focused around the low goal. The same cannot be said for AA, where quite often it was the better option.

[Abhishek R]

Originally Posted by Gregor

I did not see one successful alliance in Ultimate Ascent whose strategy was entirely focused around the low goal. The same cannot be said for AA, where quite often it was the better option.

Agreed. Mathematically, it just makes sense. A robot scoring 4 discs in the high goal scores 200% more points than a robot scoring 4 discs in the low goal. In AA however, a robot scoring a 3 assist ball in the high goal scored only 29% more points. There is a clear advantage to the robot that can score in the high goal.

[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by Gregor

I did not see one successful alliance in Ultimate Ascent whose strategy was entirely focused around the low goal. The same cannot be said for AA, where quite often it was the better option.

In 2013, a robot that scored 2 low goal auto discs and 4 4-disc low goal cycles would have been an above average robot. In 2014, a robot that could successfully pick up and score the ball in the low goal, doing both of these tasks consistently and quickly was probably above average (although I don't have solid data on this). These tasks seem to be of comparable difficulty to me.

The reason entire strategies in UA did not revolve around the low goal was that there were almost no robots that were designed to score there. In contrast, almost all robots in AA were designed to have the capability to gain possession of the ball and release it. The lack of low-goal strategies in UA does nothing to discredit their potential in my opinion. An alliance of 3 successful low goal scoring robots (especially if they could 10 point climb) in UA could easily have been a force to be reckoned with come elims.

[connor.worley]

Originally Posted by Caleb Sykes

The reason entire strategies in UA did not revolve around the low goal was that there were almost no robots that were designed to score there.

If you consider why nobody designed for the low goal, you'll find why nobody used low goal strategies.