Week 2 Live Discussion

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

Any game where you are better off not putting alliance partners on the field is a bad game.

What do you think are the contributing factors and to what degree of importance are each of these factors? In no particular order, this is where I see the issues:

-Disparity of ability: even with growing COTS market for effective robot design, some of the COTS parts fit design paradigms that do not exist in this game, or at least do not align with successful strategies of Recycle Rush. This leads to more manufactured parts by fewer experienced teams, more things that break or even worse, don't work, and budgets with little recourse to rectify either.

-Lack of fallback strategies: Recycle Rush is not a game where "fallback" strategies exist. Third partners with broken/inefficient/risky (I'll get to that later) robots do not have a role they can fill for the alliance except to not exist at all in some cases.

-Your Own Worst Enemy: Litter excluded, the game does not provide any real defense except for gravity and the incompetence/bad luck of yourself and your partners. By removing the lowest common denominator robot from play in some cases, their physical presence not being on the field eliminates variables and minimizes risk. For higher seeded alliances that are able to capitalize on the disparate play of "the field" they are up against, it makes more sense to minimize risk if the game looks in hand without them.

-Very limited field of play: this amplifies the other issues. Whereas the field of Aerial Assist was 95% open and flat, the Recycle Rush field loathes the concept of uninterrupted carpet. With two of the largest, heaviest, and most rigid game pieces in FRC history, half the field cordoned off, a good 1/4 of the field you can use covered in the bumps, plus the 2 feet+ of the landfill zone, there is barely any room for a third team to operate well if the other two alliance partners can run an efficient and successful enough operation by themselves.

There are other issues but I'm trying to get other work done and staring at CAD at 3:30 AM local time so I'll come back later

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

...

You're a smart guy Wil. Well put.

The disparity is huge. I am not a fan.

-Mike

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

You're a smart guy Wil. Well put.

The disparity is huge. I am not a fan.

-Mike

It's a combination of firsthand experience from across the spectrum. We usually try to design something that can take a kitbot to a contributor at our events (ramps in 2014, wedges in 2013 and 2012, an army of minibots in 2011) but a) we've been too busy trying to fix our own stuff because some things were just a little off and now we're up a creek without a paddle, and b) there is no real passive assembly to make an alliance partner a contributor unless I cut a tote in half, tie a string to their frame, and rip out their breakers so they don't knock anything over (not trying to tick anyone off here, just pointing out a very poignant example).

Inspiration-Catch It!

[Anupam Goli]

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

You're a smart guy Wil. Well put.

The disparity is huge. I am not a fan.

-Mike

The disparity is certainly huge. I'd like to say it's not as bad as 2011, but if you remove litter points, 2015 scores are looking similar to 2011 scores. I didn't think we'd see a game with such a huge disparity between teams like 2011 had in this era of Robot in 3 days and Build Blitz. I think the GDC's design of the chute door (making totes come in every possible configuration other than right side up) is a major contributor to this disparity. Robot in 3 days did a great job of coming up with nice, simple manipulator and lift ideas, but teams had to figure out how to use it with the chute that doesn't want to behave nicely. It is very difficult to build a working manipulator for this game without having the space and resources to replicate the landfill setup (expensive considering the cost of game pieces] and/or chute (it has to behave like the proper chute too).

In 2012, you were given foam basketballs, and they roll around while your robot picks them up and shoots them. In 2013, you load your frisbees into your robot and shoot them into a goal. In 2014, you just gather a large exercise ball and launch it. None of these games had game pieces lying in a specific orientation, and they were not immoveable without an active roller intake. 2013 has elements like the human player station, but the game pieces were small and simple enough to build your robot around the human player station. This year's game is a great engineering and design challenge....for veteran teams who can handle it.

[themccannman]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

-Disparity of ability: even with growing COTS market for effective robot design, some of the COTS parts fit design paradigms that do not exist in this game, or at least do not align with successful strategies of Recycle Rush. This leads to more manufactured parts by fewer experienced teams, more things that break or even worse, don't work, and budgets with little recourse to rectify either.

-Lack of fallback strategies: Recycle Rush is not a game where "fallback" strategies exist. Third partners with broken/inefficient/risky (I'll get to that later) robots do not have a role they can fill for the alliance except to not exist at all in some cases.

-Your Own Worst Enemy: Litter excluded, the game does not provide any real defense except for gravity and the incompetence/bad luck of yourself and your partners. By removing the lowest common denominator robot from play in some cases, their physical presence not being on the field eliminates variables and minimizes risk. For higher seeded alliances that are able to capitalize on the disparate play of "the field" they are up against, it makes more sense to minimize risk if the game looks in hand without them.

I think these two are what contribute the most. The only objective in this game is one that is very technically challenging and difficult to execute for new teams. Every other game has had a role for teams to play if they aren't the best at the main challenge, defense being the most common over the years. This game has none of that, you either build a stack of 6 and cap it, or you don't and you're just wasted space/resources for your teammates, that's horrible game design IMO. 2007 had the option of building a platform robot, 2008 allowed you to just drive laps, 2010 had goalkeeping, 2011 had defense and minibots, 2012 had defense, balancing, and stealing game pieces from opponents (see 16), 2013 had lots of defense, counter defense, and shooting a frisbee isn't nearly has technically challenging, 2014 had possessions, all teams had to do was hold the ball and they suddenly became invaluable to their alliance. This year... has nothing, capping stacks is not easy, building stacks (without knocking them over) is not easy, grabbing RCs off the step is not easy, autonomous is not easy. There's really nothing for teams to do if they're not at the peak of their game, and even most of the "powerhouse" teams are struggling just with stacking efficiently.

Games need a low entry barrier (a low skill floor), but they need a high skill ceiling so that newer teams can be involved and useful while still providing a challenge for veteran teams. This game has a very high skill floor, and a relatively low skill ceiling, by week two we're getting alliances that are only 2 stacks away from the effective score cap, once you run out of RCs it's almost a waste of your time to build uncapped stacks.

[roystur44]

Originally Posted by themccannman

Games need a low entry barrier (a low skill floor), but they need a high skill ceiling so that newer teams can be involved and useful while still providing a challenge for veteran teams. This game has a very high skill floor, and a relatively low skill ceiling, by week two we're getting alliances that are only 2 stacks away from the effective score cap, once you run out of RCs it's almost a waste of your time to build uncapped stacks.

I also think the Power House teams that can score big points skew the rankings. We were not so lucky to be on a alliance with any of the big power house teams but a couple of lucky teams by luck of the draw received major boosts in rankings.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by themccannman

This game has a very high skill floor, and a relatively low skill ceiling, by week two we're getting alliances that are only 2 stacks away from the effective score cap, once you run out of RCs it's almost a waste of your time to build uncapped stacks.

We've discussed how Einstein teams might even pursue lower risk strategies that actually limit their scoring.

[GeeTwo]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

We've discussed how Einstein teams might even pursue lower risk strategies that actually limit their scoring.

I presume here that you mean Einstein-bound teams? By the time you get to Einstein, I expect that the remaining alliances will be consistent enough that they'll be going for max points (again) to win two out of three.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

I presume here that you mean Einstein-bound teams? By the time you get to Einstein, I expect that the remaining alliances will be consistent enough that they'll be going for max points (again) to win two out of three.

Given what happens in the first second of each match, teams may not be going for max points.

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

I presume here that you mean Einstein-bound teams? By the time you get to Einstein, I expect that the remaining alliances will be consistent enough that they'll be going for max points (again) to win two out of three.

Suppose this scenario: your alliance requires all 4 cans off the step in Einstein finals. It is now nearly impossible for them to beat you because not only is their scoring cap lower, you can play a much lower risk match than them to get the same number of points.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

What do you think are the contributing factors and to what degree of importance are each of these factors? In no particular order, this is where I see the issues:

Excellent analysis. As you might be able to tell from who's posted here, this is a big concern on our team this year.