Week 1 Observations

[D.Allred]

Originally Posted by Ty Tremblay

Smooth is faster than fast. Especially this year.

Absolutely. I used "slow is faster" with my drive team. You have to finish a task to score. Do it right the first time instead of trying to rush.

Here are my observations and suggestions.
- Co-op can be a huge factor in your rankings, but you have to work together to achieve it. No litter and no landfill work near the middle of the field until that task is complete.
- I saw too many teams driving with totes in the air in an unstable configuration. Leave them on the ground and push them on the platform.
- Don't turn fast. Angular momentum is your enemy unless you have tote stablizers.
- The field is crowded. Have an alliance plan on where you will work.
- There is a way to make totes land flat on the floor. It's a bit hard to describe, but essentially you use the chute door to drag the back 3 inches of the tote as it exits the chute. Takes practice, but I highly recommend it.

David

[highlander]

Originally Posted by rick.oliver

No, not a joke. I am quite serious. Look at the solutions we saw in Dallas this past weekend ... and without Alfred, too. Really looking forward to see how the season plays out. World Championships are going to be epic, I believe.

I have to disagree. The gameplay itself is quite poor. The same tasks are performed again and again. Excitement only comes when mistakes are made, unlike a truly well designed game where excitement is derived from excellent plays. Watching 148 (just an example) stack again and again is, to be sure, very impressive, but it lacks the truly dynamic and exciting action that other games have had in the past. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that there is no robot to robot interaction (offense-defense wise).

Viewing impressive solutions to this challenge, I think, isn't indicative of game design quality. Every game has interesting solutions and nuances, this one is no better. The game, as mentioned formerly, is boring. When explaining to others not involved in the program, it is difficult to describe and often lacks the interesting aspect that other games have had in the past.

In fact, it was a stretch to even make this a 'game', or manipulate it to fit the current competition format, which I guess FIRST had to do due to institutional difficulties.

[Squillo]

Originally Posted by DareDad

I can't agree with that. In past games, a rookie or not as skilled team had opportunities to contribute where in this game there isn't that opportunity.

Even something as simple as a "noodle plow" requires a good driver and some decent manipulation capability.

As for the totes and recycling containers, their weight and the height they must be lifted means that you need some serious engineering and manufacturing skill to build a machine that can put a full stack together.

I think this is mixing apples and oranges. You go from "nothing a rookie can contribute" to talking about the difficulty of making "full stacks" - implying that if a team can't make a full (I assume that by this you mean a 6-high) stack, they can't do anything. Consider our robot - we can make stacks up to 4 (though 3 is our sweet spot), cap a stack of up to 4, help with coopertition, move our bot, a tote and a can in auto (or do less if desired). We don't even have a MechE mentor, and we just started learning CAD this year. We have no sponsors who provide parts, machining, or shop space. Even if "putting together a full stack" were more than we could do (and I'm not conceding that, but it may very well have been true had we tried to do that), I do tjink we'll "contribute" to our alliances. We actually found it easier to build what we think will be a solid competitor (no, not a superstar), without having to worry AS MUCH about being beat to a pulp by the other robots, strict perimeter rules during competition, etc.

I like this game. I wouldn't say it's my favorite, or least favorite, but I just don't see why everyone hates it so much. Admittedly it would be more fun to watch if more robots actually did stuff, but I'm thinking that will improve over the next 6 weeks.

[Ben Wolsieffer]

Originally Posted by D.Allred

There is a way to make totes land flat on the floor. It's a bit hard to describe, but essentially you use the chute door to drag the back 3 inches of the tote as it exits the chute. Takes practice, but I highly recommend it.

At Granite State we were told by the refs that we were not allowed to do this and that the chute door can't be closed at all until the tote has exited.

[Drakxii]

I hate this game. Hopefully next year game will be better.

[mrnoble]

I've seen a lot of games since 2004. This one is a very interesting technical challenge for my team, and I like the solutions they came up with a lot, though they don't really approach 148, 624, et al. I look forward to our chance to be on the field in Utah week three. Still, I don't think this game is going to be as much fun to watch as 2013 or 2014, even as the weeks go by and teams dial in their strategies. I speculate that the nature of the game was driven by:

1. a reaction against last year's heavy defense
2. a reaction against the sense in the community that FRC meant "sport" only (which I know I've contributed to)
3. a desire to give the new RoboRio and peripherals a low speed test run

I'm still optimistic, but I also am one of those that liked Lunacy, so...

[Boltman]

Great game whats needed are better designed robots.... not easy to be effective and to be badly designed.... this game points out those flaws for all to see. Also driver abilities have a huge impact.

What works:

HP loaders up to 6 tall with RC
Versatile robots that can do it all
Wall stacker coop

What doesn't all else

[PVCpirate]

Some observations:

Auto stacks are massive, if a team can make one consistently they will be a game changer the entire competition. At both of this weekend's New England district events, the 1 seed and winning alliance captain had auto stacks.

Having one robot make tall stacks and another cap the stacks with RCs is a great strategy if neither robot can do both quickly. 1519 and 95 at Granite State employed this for a dominant win, with 1519 making stacks of 4 from the landfill and 95 capping them.

Throwing noodles CAN be a viable strategy if the human players can get them across consistently, especially in elims where you won't mess up coopertition. I saw and heard about advancement in elims being decided by noodles a few times.

[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by Squillo

I like this game. I wouldn't say it's my favorite, or least favorite, but I just don't see why everyone hates it so much.

I think it's personal preference. Everyone has a favorite sport, and it can be disappointing to be forced to design for a game that you don't particularly like.

For example, I can't watch golf or downhill skiing for more than 5 minutes without getting bored. This doesn't mean that these are poor competitions, just that I don't find them interesting. People like me will generally not get as much enjoyment out of games like Recycle Rush as we would AA or UA because there is not any head-to-head competition.

I also don't enjoy sports like bowling where there is a score ceiling. Watching sports like these makes viewers have less appreciation for success, since for example, strikes in bowling come to be commonplace. People then start watching for the mistakes. Again, this does not mean that bowling is a poor game, just that it doesn't suit my taste. Both Recycle Rush and Logomotion have had "soft" score ceilings. That is, there are hardly any matches that actually will hit the ceiling, but at high levels, more effort will be required to get the same score increase (top pegs full in 2011, RCs all used in 2015). I'm not particularly excited for championships when teams with amazing robots that don't play perfectly will lose to teams with poorer robots that had slightly better execution.

This game has those two strikes against it for me, which probably makes it my least favorite game I have participated in. However, my team still built a great robot, and I will still have fun at every competition I will attend. I wouldn't be in FRC if I wanted to play Rebound Rumble every year. We need to have random games like this for those who actually enjoy games like bowling or golf.

[Zach101]

Originally Posted by Drakxii

I hate this game. Hopefully next year game will be better.

I see the downsides of this game compared to years past but I am not disappointed and in ways I love the strategy this year when trying to pick robots for elimination rounds. I think people are disappointed the most about this game because they are so used to it being a shooting game and now that there isn't a shooting aspect people are like, 'What now?', because this game is so different. I know this isn't the only reason why they are disappointed(most people at least). This game is great. Of course I wish one rule was this way and things like that but no game is perfect and sometimes we need to adjust to these new rules/game.

[Sperkowsky]

I don't like this game because it's less exciting for spectators. Getting sponsors and parents to come is a lot easier when it's a fast paced shooting game

[Ichlieberoboter]

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

Curious, what penalties are being called?

Let me just give a general "thank you!" for sharing this insight with the community!

I saw quite a few penalties called when teams tried to do coopertition and accidentally knocked the yellow totes to the other side of the field while stacking them.

[jwhite]

Originally Posted by Johnbot

-Teams should really try helping out their future alliance partners more with getting an auton that can at least drive/push something working. I imagine/hope many teams are doing that, but I still am seeing a very sizable teams at HH not even try to move.

This is a lot harder than it looks, and the incentives all push against experimenting. We had a two tote auto that worked on the practice field, but nearly destroyed 2052 when a turn bound up. The field is tiny, and it's easy to disrupt a can or the ever-so-precious path to the coopertition step.

Unless all 3 teams are certain to do it, the risks strongly outweigh the rewards. (Risk losing 40 points for a long shot at 4 points?!!? No thanks). And so as a result, few teams try, and few teams can do it, and so on...

I really think they ought to give 1 or 2 points for single robots or totes, and then a bonus for sets. That would change the incentive structure, I think.

Cheers,

Jeremy

[Drakxii]

Originally Posted by Zach101

I see the downsides of this game compared to years past but I am not disappointed and in ways I love the strategy this year when trying to pick robots for elimination rounds. I think people are disappointed the most about this game because they are so used to it being a shooting game and now that there isn't a shooting aspect people are like, 'What now?', because this game is so different. I know this isn't the only reason why they are disappointed(most people at least). This game is great. Of course I wish one rule was this way and things like that but no game is perfect and sometimes we need to adjust to these new rules/game.

My problem with the game has nothing to do with it being a manipulation game. Logo Motion was a manipulation game and I mostly like that game.

I have a lot of problems with this game. I just can't find a good way to say them without rambling. But my main problems in line with rules that don't support weak teams and allow superstar teams to do everything on the field without any need for teamwork on the alliance. (Staying out of each other's way isn't very good "teamwork" imo)

[jajabinx124]

Originally Posted by jwhite

This is a lot harder than it looks, and the incentives all push against experimenting. We had a two tote auto that worked on the practice field, but nearly destroyed 2052 when a turn bound up. The field is tiny, and it's easy to disrupt a can or the ever-so-precious path to the coopertition step.

Unless all 3 teams are certain to do it, the risks strongly outweigh the rewards. (Risk losing 40 points for a long shot at 4 points?!!? No thanks). And so as a result, few teams try, and few teams can do it, and so on...

I really think they ought to give 1 or 2 points for single robots or totes, and then a bonus for sets. That would change the incentive structure, I think.

Cheers,

Jeremy

I agree.

Our elims alliance in Lake superior all moved forward in auto and didn't mess with totes or RC's in auto in fear of tipping a RC over. Those RC's are worth too much and we were limited to only be able to pick up the RC's when they are standing up vertically. We didn't take the risk we just stuck to driving forward in auto.