Nerf Co-op and Litter

[Doug Frisk]

Originally Posted by JeffersonMartin

I don't see this as whining at all. He is pointing out his observations of the game, and how it could be improved. I agree with him, there was a team at our event that could really only coop and had a very good human player. It is very dissapointing to see a robot that is better seed worse just because they couldn't throw noodles as wel . Human players having too much effect was a legitimate complaint in 2009, and I think it is just as legitimate here.

I'm going to say no, there wasn't a team that could only do coop. Any team that can coop can place a bin or two at a time on the scoring platform.

The litter throwing is also a good thing because you could design a robot to deal with litter if you wanted, people didn't so they want the litter removed.

What's unbalanced in this game is probably the recycling containers. They are worth too much because they are the item that is the most difficult to place. They should be worth more points than the totes because they are harder to manipulate, but their value of 2 times the stack height is out of line.

The game would be better if the scoring were 2 points per bin and 4 points per recycling container with a bonus of 1 point per level.

With that, a capped stack would be 12 points plus 10 for the container instead of 36. That would give high stacking/capping teams a competitive advantage without being the overwhelming advantage it currently is.

[SoMe_DuDe904]

Originally Posted by DareDad

What's unbalanced in this game is probably the recycling containers. They are worth too much because they are the item that is the most difficult to place. They should be worth more points than the totes because they are harder to manipulate, but their value of 2 times the stack height is out of line.

The game would be better if the scoring were 2 points per bin and 4 points per recycling container with a bonus of 1 point per level.

With that, a capped stack would be 12 points plus 10 for the container instead of 36. That would give high stacking/capping teams a competitive advantage without being the overwhelming advantage it currently is.

Although I agree with you that the containers boost the score too much I think the multiplication values need to be easy. Something like 2 points per level versus 4. You have to keep the scoring simple because the audience already has a hard time following this complex scoring system.

[118418]

Does anyone see it that allowing points for thrown litters is disadvantaging girl players? Same with Frisbies in 2013.

[Kevin Leonard]

Originally Posted by 118418

Does anyone see it that allowing points for thrown litters is disadvantaging girl players? Same with Frisbies in 2013.

Both litter and frisbees require significantly more finesse than physical ability to throw effectively.
I see no difference between male or female human players at either task.

[118418]

Originally Posted by Kevin Leonard

Both litter and frisbees require significantly more finesse than physical ability to throw effectively.
I see no difference between male or female human players at either task.

That maybe true. But from the matches I've watched, I haven't seen a girl player in that role. I wonder if what you said is also FIRST's rationale.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by Kevin Leonard

Both litter and frisbees require significantly more finesse than physical ability to throw effectively.
I see no difference between male or female human players at either task.

I suspect the point is less "girls can't throw" and more "girls tend to be shorter". There is a common argument for taller being better when throwing over the alliance wall. Anecdotally this past weekend (at Horsham), this observation appeared to have some merit for noodles. That said, I'm not arguing to change the practice(s) at all. Heck, my Einstein HP in 2013 was like 5'4"? (I don't know how tall he is, but he's not tall.) Granted, 2015 is a lot closer to 2009 than 2013 in this regard. As for not seeing girls as HPs; given our ratio on most Drive Teams and teams in general, it's not so surprising regardless of the HP task.

[Caleb Sykes]

525's human player was so short that he had to jump to make 6-tote stacks behind the wall, but he was one of the best throwers I have seen. I don't think hardly any HPs in FRC are at the point where physical limitations are the reason why they can't throw well, I think insufficient practice is almost exclusively the limiting factor.

[asid61]

As long as all teams can score both noodle and co-op points, the field stays leveled, especially with the average-score system this year. I agree co-op is worth too much, but it just makes the little guys closer to the top teams this year. Scouts are going to need to be good.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Siri

I suspect the point is less "girls can't throw" and more "girls tend to be shorter". There is a common argument for taller being better when throwing over the alliance wall. Anecdotally this past weekend (at Horsham), this observation appeared to have some merit for noodles.

Except that at Inland Empire, one of the best HPs in the game for throwing was also one of the shortest. I strongly suspect (opinion, nothing to back it up) that one of the reasons his team was picked was his ability to rack up the 4s, match after match after match.

[Mark Sheridan]

Originally Posted by EricH

Except that at Inland Empire, one of the best HPs in the game for throwing was also one of the shortest. I strongly suspect (opinion, nothing to back it up) that one of the reasons his team was picked was his ability to rack up the 4s, match after match after match.

Indeed, the funny thing 3476's human player trained a fair number of the best human players at IE, even though he never has time to throw litter himself because of all the tote loading he has to do. 3250's human player was nervous cause she never thrown litter in competition but we never doubted her. she practiced with our human player in the hallways between the matches, and she is really good at it.

No one on our alliance at IE liked the litter throwing, but once the throws started going, we felt compelled to throw too to keep up with the pace of scores. I think canning litter was much harder (3250 was good at that too). I kinda wish the game got stopped throwing until the last 20 seconds. You don't need more than 20 seconds to empty the litter bin.

[Jared Russell]

Originally Posted by Mark Sheridan

I kinda wish the game got stopped throwing until the last 20 seconds. You don't need more than 20 seconds to empty the litter bin.

Yeah, I think this would be the least disruptive and least controversial way to address the "noodle minefield" situation.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by Jared Russell

Yeah, I think this would be the least disruptive and least controversial way to address the "noodle minefield" situation.

Totally agree. Changing it from "up to 20 seconds" to "only till 20 seconds" would immensely improve gameplay.

[Jared Russell]

Originally Posted by dodar

Totally agree. Changing it from "up to 20 seconds" to "only till 20 seconds" would immensely improve gameplay.

I think you mean "after" instead of "till".

This would also add some much needed drama to the endgame.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by Jared Russell

I think you mean "after" instead of "till".

This would also add some much needed drama to the endgame.

Till sounds right to me; but so does after. Either way, we are saying/wanting the same thing.

FIRST said Recycle Rush would be a game without defense. What they meant to say, was no robot-robot defense. HP are the most powerful part of every alliance. They have the ability to both score points and play defense.

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by Jared Russell

Yeah, I think this would be the least disruptive and least controversial way to address the "noodle minefield" situation.

So you're taking any noodle manipulators that exist and making them essentially useless, how is that "non-disruptive"?