A Recycle Rush Reflection

[Ginger Power]

I'm going to start this off by saying I don't want this to come across in a negative way, and I certainly don't want to offend anybody. My team just got done with the North Star Regional which my team has attended all 3 years of its existence. This year was just different. It was my first year as a robot inspector (last year I was a student) which I only did on Thursday (I was with my team the rest of the time).

There was no energy from the crowd. At least nothing compared to previous years. Teams left hours before pits closed which isn't uncommon. However this year a large majority of teams left very early. Pit scouting was much less meaningful and as a result I saw much less strategizing than previous years.

After speaking with Volunteers, Mentors, Parents, and Students I heard the same message over and over: "This game is boring". Now I'm going to beat what I consider to be a dead horse at this point. Sometimes you just need to make sure the horse is dead. I've been spoiled by joining FRC during 2013. I didn't realize how great the past games were until now as I've had no reference. You can look at a number of other threads for exact reasons as to why I don't like Recycle Rush. They've already been stated so I see no reason to state them again. I will however say that my least favorite part about the game is the predictability. When I saw the teams who were going to be at our regional it was unbelievably easy to tell who was going to do well. When I saw those top teams compete at their first event I knew exactly who was going to win North Star. 2826 is such a dominant team with an amazing robot. They did an incredible job at North Star and deserve every accolade that they earned. This has nothing to do with them or 3130 whom I hold in the same regard. It has to do with the fact that everybody in Mariucci Arena figured out (most fairly early) that 2826 was going to pick 3130 and the rest were going to play for their wildcard spots. At least in previous games there were things that could be done to upset the top alliance. Changing strategies, attempting suffocating defence etc. This year unless you have a noodle rocket launcher, you just have to hope for the elite team to fail (another aspect of this game I don't like).

Full Disclosure: My team stuggled mightily at the North Star Regional. We didn't get our robot fully connected to the FMS until our 7th match. In that match everything on our robot was working perfectly. Fifteen seconds into the match our alliance partner ran into our driver station wall and the communications for our robot instantly dropped. We later found out it was a field fault but it was too late to do anything about it. After the worst streak of luck we've ever had, our 9th match basically turned into our 1st match, and our 10th match into our 2nd. By this time we realized our efforts were likely for nothing because if it were me, I would have taken us off the scouting list. Anyways, this could easily have influenced my opinion of this game.

I will say I enjoyed the engineering challenge that Recycle Rush provided both during RI3D and the build season with 4607. However, when I think about the goals of FIRST to bring STEM into the mainstream, I think this game brings us in the wrong direction.

I expect Champs to be entertaining because they'll be able to avoid a lot of the major problems which occur at the regional level. I'm still a huge fan of FIRST (Working for FIRST would be my dream job) and I can't wait for offseason events and the game next year!

[audietron]

I would agree with you in some cases, this game is all about consistency, so there will be predictability. I will tell you that after seeing 3130 in a practice match at Northern Lights, I knew they were going to be hard to beat. After Wisconsin we focused on getting our system to work. We knew we could not be a good landfill robot without some major modifications. So we improved our feed station loading full well knowing that we could not work with wave with the modifications. This meant we had to focus on being the finalists which worked out nicely.
The pit scouting is useful for knowing about plans and what teams prefer to do for a match. We don't need a super extensive amount of strategy but I would still say it is just as important as ever. Teams need to know where they should be and go and not go. The complete flow of each match needs to be known to keep a consistant average if a team is not able to score more than 2 complete stacks. Coop is very important in this case to keep that average up.

We are happy with where we ended up and who we ended up with. I would definitely say that the average robot at North Star has increased in complexity and capabilities from previous years. We are incredibly excited that 5576 ended up our alliance captain and we can not wait to compete with an improved robot at worlds.

[Ginger Power]

Congratulations on qualifying for Worlds! Our team was going crazy for 967 throughout the playoffs and we wish you the best of luck going forward!

[EricAnderson191]

I agree that the game could have been a bit more interesting, but after watching matches at regionals across the country and participating in the Finger Lakes Regional, Recycle Rush is far from boring.

Watching a team move a six-stack with can and litter onto the scoring platform with the whole structure tottering back and forth generates a thrill. Knowing that dumping that stack puts an alliance in a deep hole adds to that thrill.

At Finger Lakes, the finals went to three matches with match three decided by 3 points. You should have heard the crowd!

While each year's game is all about decisions, Recycle Rush makes the implications of decisions made in January loom large in March and April. Teams that leaned too heavily on Ri3D videos probably missed chances to think outside the box. Teams that chose to build without fully understanding the game probably built competent robots that are too slow to compete well. Teams that did not bother with autonomous programming missed out on points. (That 3rd final did not have any auto points scored and it would have made a difference).

I have watched teams spend a match trying to drag totes from the landfill while the human station was ignored. You wanted some way to communicate with the team and get them to make a better choice.

All of this can be explained to spectators and team members and I think makes the game more compelling than one that looks more straightforward.

All of that said, a match with scores below 50 would send me home early.

Eric

[orangemoore]

Originally Posted by Ginger Power

There was no energy from the crowd. At least nothing compared to previous years. Teams left hours before pits closed which isn't uncommon. However this year a large majority of teams left very early. Pit scouting was much less meaningful and as a result I saw much less strategizing than previous years.

I think I completely disagree with this paragraph. But I think it might depend more on the event and your/my view/perception.

Most matches at the Midwest regional this year were exciting. The regional had a couple "flashy" teams but the majority of the field was trailing not far behind with my team's average of 98.2 instead of being 10th at all non-DC events except for 1 we would have been ranked high sometimes 1st. The deep field probably helped match play be exciting.

Back in the pits we could easily hear the crowd scream for either excitement or disappointment depending on what happened. It never felt like there was a really boring match but I could have missed those ones.

I'm not sure why you wouldn't strategize for every match to maximize your points. We talked every time with out alliance partners and opponents (for co-op) to get as many points as possible.

[AlexanderTheOK]

And yet I just came from San Diego, where the number one Alliance lost both finals matches to the number two Alliance,the first one handily due to mistakes on their end, and the second by a single point, with nearly perfect games played on both sides. It's not quite that predictable, notably BECAUSE of mistakes, or simply cohesion among Alliance partners.

Both the first seed and first pick were VERY good robots, as should require not much proof. The second seed and their first pick were also just really good too.

[Ginger Power]

Originally Posted by orangemoore

I think I completely disagree with this paragraph. But I think it might depend more on the event and your/my view/perception.

This is completely accurate. The field at North Star was weaker than usual IMO and I'm sure this is a large determining factor in my experience with Recycle Rush. At Midwest there were 9 teams with a QA over 100, 24 teams with QA over 70 and 45 teams with a QA over 50 in a field of 53 teams. North Star had 2 teams over 100 points, 5 teams over 70 points, and 25 teams over 50 points in a field of 63... that is why we experienced 2 different games... like with all games, the flaws become more evident at the lower levels.

[MikLast]

Originally Posted by Ginger Power

After speaking with Volunteers, Mentors, Parents, and Students I heard the same message over and over: "This game is boring".

I am guessing that your regional had a 1114 type robot (and reading though the post it sounds so) but Recycle Rush is not really boring, especially in the elims. The PNW championship eliminations (and matches) were some of the most thrilling matches i have seen (and played) and i cant wait to watch the other district events next week. Personally, it seems if you have one or two OP robots at a event, it wont be as fun for the rest of the teams. But if everyone is about equal, its going to be a fun time for everyone.

[Boltman]

Originally Posted by AlexanderTheOK

And yet I just came from San Diego, where the number one Alliance lost both finals matches to the number two Alliance,the first one handily due to mistakes on their end, and the second by a single point, with nearly perfect games played on both sides. It's not quite that predictable, notably BECAUSE of mistakes, or simply cohesion among Alliance partners.

Both the first seed and first pick were VERY good robots, as should require not much proof. The second seed and their first pick were also just really good too.

Ditto... San Diego was an exciting finish for the top 2 seeds... that last game was intense... one point!

Plus there were lots of tall stack spills ...it was at times exciting... other times not so much.

[Ginger Power]

Originally Posted by MikLast

Personally, it seems if you have one or two OP robots at a event, it wont be as fun for the rest of the teams. But if everyone is about equal, its going to be a fun time for everyone.

Agreed. However, I do hold the opinion that a great game is easy to watch at a low level, and amazing to watch at a high level. Recycle Rush is certainly not easy to watch at a low level as I can attest to. It very well could be amazing to watch at a high level which is one of the reasons I'm excited for the next 2 weeks. Ultimate Ascent was almost universally thought of as a great game. I would contest that it fits my definition of a great game to a T.

[Orthofort]

I think a big point of conflict is that this game appeals more to the actual people involved with the robot. Yeah, it's a huge thrill to watch a team carry three stacks of 6 to the platform in one match, these games can be very exciting, but more from a design perspective.

I've been as engaged as I have as previous years and as exciting during the games, but this year it seems like the excitement is coming from the feeling of amazement as the technical skill and strategy that went into it, since this year presented a wonderful design challenge, but in previous years I've gotten the feeling of thrill instead just from competition, the excitement of it being an active, fast-paced game.

This is what I think is causing the disputes over this game, because a lot of the people who frequent these forums and discuss the game are heavily involved in the robot aspect of the competition, but a lot of people like spectators, parents, prospective students who may not be as dedicated to following the game or perhaps fully appreciate all that went into these fantastic robots don't get the innate thrill from this game that comes from natural competition.

Feel free to disagree with me, this is just my late-night opinion, but I think we have a biased view of whether this is a "good" game for the purposes of FIRST.

[iRobot_]

I agree this game is exciting to watch in eliminations, but I think the worst aspect of this game is this whole tether nonsense. Teams who struggled in their first event were able to add a ramp with some string, and all the sudden the robot can now put up stacks consistently. While I am happy the robot can now succeed at what it was meant to do, I think it moves away from one of the core aspects on FIRST, ingenuity. Teams can spend about 4 minutes designing a ramp instead of trying to fix the robot they originally built. FIRST should have mandated at least a motorized component on any part of a robot attached by a tether to help combat the abuse of the rule.

[asid61]

Originally Posted by iRobot_

I agree this game is exciting to watch in eliminations, but I think the worst aspect of this game is this whole tether nonsense. Teams who struggled in their first event were able to add a ramp with some string, and all the sudden the robot can now put up stacks consistently. While I am happy the robot can now succeed at what it was meant to do, I think it moves away from one of the core aspects on FIRST, ingenuity. Teams can spend about 4 minutes designing a ramp instead of trying to fix the robot they originally built. FIRST should have mandated at least a motorized component on any part of a robot attached by a tether to help combat the abuse of the rule.

I like that rule though. Adding a ramp is such a nice change; it's better for all the robots to be a bit better by deciding a ramp was a good idea and sticking it on. As long as they made it, it's all pretty well defined.
Giving those ramps to other teams though I don't really like so much. Picking robots for the sole purpose of sticking 30lbs of withholding allowance on them seems to defeat the purpose of putting a lot of effort into a robot at all. It will likely have less of an impact at championships due to higher caliber robots, but it was pretty prevalent in earlier weeks, and even now.

EDIT: SVR was really obvious after Thursday. 254 would win, and whomever they picked would win as well. It's usually somewhat obvious, but this year was especially bad.

[Ginger Power]

Originally Posted by iRobot_

I agree this game is exciting to watch in eliminations, but I think the worst aspect of this game is this whole tether nonsense. Teams who struggled in their first event were able to add a ramp with some string, and all the sudden the robot can now put up stacks consistently. While I am happy the robot can now succeed at what it was meant to do, I think it moves away from one of the core aspects on FIRST, ingenuity. Teams can spend about 4 minutes designing a ramp instead of trying to fix the robot they originally built. FIRST should have mandated at least a motorized component on any part of a robot attached by a tether to help combat the abuse of the rule.

I would say adapting to a rule that allows for your team to go from ineffective to highly effective requires a high amount of ingenuity. Plenty of teams have attempted ramps and failed with them. Others have succeeded and I commend them for it. I know exactly where you are coming from though. If I'm an audience member who is viewing a FIRST match for the first time, and I'm watching a robot with a string tied to it I'm asking myself how that is considered 1 robot? It won't make sense to me. This confusing element makes it more difficult to explain the game to people outside of FIRST. It isn't an issue where you point fingers at the teams. It's an issue where you question the rule which makes it an allowable practice. This rule is obviously the lack of frame perimeter restrictions. Besides confusing ramps, this rule has also generated some of the most innovative and inspiring robots I've seen in FIRST. Just rewatch Batman and Robin, or check out 1987's amazing robot. It's a rule that has obvious benifits and pitfalls. To repeat though, a team doesn't have any less ingenuity just because they build a tethered ramp.

[artK]

Originally Posted by iRobot_

FIRST should have mandated at least a motorized component on any part of a robot attached by a tether to help combat the abuse of the rule.

Even if FIRST made a rule like this, what constitutes a "Motorized Component"? I could see a number of teams ziptying the lightest possible motor onto the ramp completely out of the way, connecting it legally to the robot, and having it be legal based on this rule. And adjusting the rule so that the motorized component has make contact would also be really easy to get around by attaching a ziptie to the motor shaft, and having it slap the totes as they come out would also be legal.

And if FIRST did make a rule that required that the tethered components be an active mechanism, there would be an outcry. Why require teams to develop and use an active mechanism when a passive one can be just as effective, without allocating extra electrical/pneumatic resources? 1114's RC holder is passive (to the best of my knowledge), and it works better than a lot of the active mechanisms.