A Recycle Rush Reflection

[Rangel]

Originally Posted by Rachel Lim

At some point, the container grabbers 2nd picks have aren't going to be fast enough to win. Period. Watching finals at SVR, where 1678 cheesecaked their grabber onto 5027 who then fought with 971, should be enough to confirm this if it wasn't already clear. And at least at SVR, the red alliance would get at least 2 containers (1678 wasn't competing with anyone) and it was fairly clear that 254+1678 could outscore the blue alliance (just by pure stacking speed), so the two containers 5027 was trying to get wouldn't have decided the match. By champs, this will no longer be true. Teams aiming for Einstein are going to have to be willing to cheesecake and be cheesecaked, and 1678 knows this. They're just been getting some practice.


After attending two regionals and watching countless webcasts, my opinion on this game hasn't changed. It's still amazing to watch at the highest levels (go watch qual 88 at SVR if you don't believe me), but the huge gap between the few top teams and the average team makes a typical match less than exciting. Recycle Rush is a great engineering challenge, but a terrible game.

I have a feeling canburglers will be a lot faster at champs to the point where cheesecake is not enough to match with dedicated can grabbers. Question is how many fast canburglers will there be per division. 4,8, 20? How many there are will affect how much canburglers cheesecake will be needed if at all.

[Mark Sheridan]

Originally Posted by MaGiC_PiKaChU

Our team was 1st seed at the Montreal regional, and we had a canburglar mechanism to cheesecake on our 3rd bot. We didn't. We've let them use their own design, and it made them feel proud to win an event with their original robot. The finalist alliance did not have a cheesecake either, and we can be proud of it.

The game sucks only if you make it do so.

A fun fact, we were the #1 pick at San Diego and we were cheese caked by 1538 when they attached their ramp to us. We were very happy about it too.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Sunshine

Couldn't agree more! Tired of hearing people complain that it's boring and then go on to say it's too hard. Some suggest on other threads of lowering the bar so everyone can compete. I agree with you, everyone should strive to raise the bar to achieve greatness. The great teams INSPIRE my team to do more using SCIENCE and TECHNOLOGY. I think the system works, and is not broken in my world.

It's not about raising the bar, it's about setting attainable options for teams. Last year, no matter how bad you were, you could contribute to an alliance. Heck, I watched Meredith Novak get assist points off a completely inoperable robot at OMB last year. That's an extreme case but even a mediocre robot could inbound and then play effective zone defense (ok, or contact defense but I don't want to claim that is a good thing) This year? They get to become anchors to ramps or liabilities. That's neither inspirational to the team ("here sit in a corner and don't screw up") nor is it fun to watch ("daddy, why is my brother's robot just sitting there not moving?"). Upside, a static billboard is a good billboard, so maybe some sponsors will like having their logo sit still in front of people for 2 minutes, but I doubt it.

Now, I'm not advocating lowering the bar so teams can compete. I'm saying it is a fact of life that, at any given event, there's about 10% of robots that play the game well, maybe 60% middle tier that can play the game sometimes, and a remaining 30% of teams that flat out can't drive reliably (this in itself is an improvement, prior to the 05 kitbot I'd flip the last two categories). Now, I've been pushing for years to help the last 30% group. But you know what? They are the hardest to reach. They have 0 CD presence, don't respond to emails, and probably only meet during build.[1] It's REALLY hard to bring these teams up. But during quals they still need a task to contribute in some meaningful way.[2] That is the big failing of this game. The bottom teams are always going to exist, no matter how much we raise the bar there'll be people who miss it. Games need to have some sort of THING for them to contribute. Otherwise these teams will be reduced to, at best, an anchor or will remain a liability. Or we could have game designs that don't penalize teams from taking risks in qualification matches and not have to have these awkward conversations about how of the 8 times team's have tried to score an auton ball they've spent the next 2 minutes chasing it down or how they have knocked over an average of 1.3 stacks every match.[3]





1. There's also the alternative of the team just being mismanaged contributing to their failure.


2. and to recognize they need to do this other task and not the main task that they are poor at doing.


3. As much as I hate to push for a never ending stream of '13 clone games ala Call of Duty 47: Jaffar Gets Glasses the big takeaways from those games (and why they are well received in my mind):
- Numerous and consistent game pieces
- Instant Scoring
- Sufficient protected zones to make contact defense risky
- Minimally invasive ref involvement
- No penalty for attempting to score (this applies at the low levels where the number of discs was effectively unlimited, at higher tiers of play missing a shot hurt, and that's good)

[MrForbes]

The contributions that some of the lower tier teams can make are quite small this year. Still, as drive coach I made the effort to help two teams score a tote or two each in matches with us. I hope they had fun. I did.

[MaGiC_PiKaChU]

Originally Posted by Mark Sheridan

A fun fact, we were the #1 pick at San Diego and we were cheese caked by 1538 when they attached their ramp to us. We were very happy about it too.

attaching a ramp and still play with your robot and standing on a platform with 2 ramps are 2 different stories

[nuclearnerd]

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

Buckle up everyone, you have 2 more weeks to make the fastest can grabber in the world. Because at CMP, that is the only thing that matters.

To be fair, there are going to be hundreds of teams at CMP that have no can-burgler at all, so if even if you have a slow one, you'll be valuable at the division finals.

Your point stands though for getting to Einstein. But that bar is set so high, I don't think most teams can realistically worry about it. The uber teams that make the most stacks will *also* be the ones with the fastest can-burglers, because they're the ones that will sink the most energy into it. At the level where Can Burgling is the "only thing that matters", the top ~2 teams per division will already have it locked up. The rest of us can be happy with a respectable playoff showing.

I'm not trying to sound defeatist. I'm super happy with my team's performance so far. But this game gives us few avenues to change the order that's been set early in build season.

Originally Posted by Orthofort

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.

I do get the sense that there is a dichotomy amongst FIRST aficionados. I call it (somewhat derisively, sorry) the "Sports"/"Science Fairs" split:

• The "Science Fairs" type want to show off their ingenuity, and be rewarded commensurately (without all that undignified defence interfering).
• The "Sports" type want a game that has unpredictability, where driver training and bad breaks can completely upset a competition outcome.

In 2014 was a "Sports" game. 2015 is a "Science Fair" game. As a designer, who really gets into the technical aspects of the challenge, I should be a "Science Fair" type, but I'm "Sports" all the way. That unpredictability is the heart of the excitement that makes FRC different then anything else out there!

[KevinG]

Originally Posted by nuclearnerd

I do get the sense that there is a dichotomy amongst FIRST aficionados. I call it (somewhat derisively, sorry) the "Sports"/"Science Fairs" split:

• The "Science Fairs" type want to show off their ingenuity, and be rewarded commensurately (without all that undignified defence interfering).
• The "Sports" type want a game that has unpredictability, where driver training and bad breaks can completely upset a competition outcome.

In 2014 was a "Sports" game. 2015 is a "Science Fair" game. As a designer, who really gets into the technical aspects of the challenge, I should be a "Science Fair" type, but I'm "Sports" all the way. That unpredictability is the heart of the excitement that makes FRC different then anything else out there!

I completely agree with this and those who call RR an engineering challenge as opposed to a game. The lack of competition and interaction between teams on the field of play is a real detriment to the overall experience and enjoyment of spectators.

[nuclearnerd]

Originally Posted by nuclearnerd

[*]The "Science Fairs" type want to show off their ingenuity, and be rewarded commensurately (without all that undignified defence interfering).

OK, that's a little dismissive. I think the broader subject is not about defense per se, but about meaningful team interaction. I get the sense that the auto-set rules, and the three types of game pieces were an attempt to get teams to interact in Recycle Rush. There are some can specialists for sure, and they're super useful at a certain level, but on average they don't seed well, hurting their chances of making the playoffs. Meanwhile, teams that wanted to guarantee a playoff spot ensured their robot did everything - a much harder design challenge then previous years! Future games need to find a way to force the best teams to *need* the other teams on their alliance. Assists were a great way to do it. Three types of game pieces were not. What other ways are there?

[Rangel]

Originally Posted by nuclearnerd

To be fair, there are going to be hundreds of teams at CMP that have no can-burgler at all, so if even if you have a slow one, you'll be valuable at the division finals.

Your point stands though for getting to Einstein. But that bar is set so high, I don't think most teams can realistically worry about it. The uber teams that make the most stacks will *also* be the ones with the fastest can-burglers, because they're the ones that will sink the most energy into it. At the level where Can Burgling is the "only thing that matters", the top ~2 teams per division will already have it locked up. The rest of us can be happy with a respectable playoff showing.

I'm not trying to sound defeatist. I'm super happy with my team's performance so far. But this game gives us few avenues to change the order that's been set early in build season.

I disagree. I don't believe the top 2 robots in a division will already have can grabbers locked down. Especially since many human player specialist robots are likely to rank the highest such as 148, 2122, 1538 ect... I think its fully reasonable for a team to focus only on being the fastest can grabber and being the critical third pick for a 148/1678 ish alliance. If your alliance can lock down the cans every match, your top 2 robots only have to make 6-7 stacks a match so if all your team does is grab the cans super fast, you are a very valuable robot.

[Boltman]

What I want to see in Champs... is a Can-Burgal defensive bot that deploys some sort of shield/net similar to how 2485 three tennis ball "bolo-net" was used in SD to grab a can , there should be some material to stop the typical can burgals...and do one on each side to cover two RCs...those three tennis balls-bolo deploys were very fast.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by Rangel(kf7fdb)

I disagree. I don't believe the top 2 robots in a division will already have can grabbers locked down. Especially since many human player specialist robots are likely to rank the highest such as 148, 2122, 1538 ect... I think its fully reasonable for a team to focus only on being the fastest can grabber and being the critical third pick for a 148/1678 ish alliance. If your alliance can lock down the cans every match, your top 2 robots only have to make 6-7 stacks a match so if all your team does is grab the cans super fast, you are a very valuable robot.

The problem is that if you're actually the fastest canburglar in your subdivision, the rest the ACs would be foolish to let you fall all the way to bring the second (much less third) pick of 1678. Guys like the Circuits know this, which is why powerhouses are putting so much effort towards their own grabbers.

This is not something an AC/1Pick wants left to chance, draft order, or anyone else. Per exactly the math you explain, it's just too important. HP or landfill, unless they're running a tether from the feeder that can't move or cheesecake, they're probably in the cold canburglar war. (Per your example, here's hoping 148 could take the auto stack and can set while 1678 burglars.)

That's not to say that pick can't happen: I still remember 1114 somehow managing to pick the fastest minibot in their division on the back of the draft. But minibots aren't canburglars (strategically I mean; otherwise they basically are). And even if they were, you can bet neither 1114 nor 294 went into Worlds counting on everyone missing them. It's a heck of a gamble, but you know what they say about big risks and their rewards. I struggle with the characterization of "fully reasonable" though, if that's the alliance number a team is gunning for second/third pick of.

[Rangel]

Originally Posted by Siri

The problem is that if you're actually the fastest canburglar in your subdivision, the rest the ACs would be foolish to let you fall all the way to bring the second (much less third) pick of 1678. Guys like the Circuits know this, which is why powerhouses are putting so much effort towards their own grabbers.

This is not something an AC/1Pick wants left to chance, draft order, or anyone else. Per exactly the math you explain, it's just too important. HP or landfill, unless they're running a tether from the feeder that can't move or cheesecake, they're probably in the cold canburglar war. (Per your example, here's hoping 148 could take the auto stack and can set while 1678 burglars.)

That's not to say that pick can't happen: I still remember 1114 somehow managing to pick the fastest minibot in their division on the back of the draft. But minibots aren't canburglars (strategically I mean; otherwise they basically are). And even if they were, you can bet neither 1114 nor 294 went into Worlds counting on everyone missing them. It's a heck of a gamble, but you know what they say about big risks and their rewards. I struggle with the characterization of "fully reasonable" though, if that's the alliance number a team is gunning for second/third pick of.

That's a pretty solid argument. Food for thought, if lets say 1114 was second fastest can grabber and they had the option to pick 148 or the fastest can grabber but that robot can't do anything else but handle cans. Do they go with 148 and hope for a decently fast grabber as third pick or pick the fastest can grabber and pick the best stacker remaining as their third pick. Of course their are countless other factors to consider and the robots in question might be variations of this example but its situations that I could see happening given there are 8 divisions for crazy stuff like this to happen.

[evanperryg]

There are a few main reasons there is such a huge gap this year:
-Qualifier average: although it definitely makes sense in the context of this game, it doesn't allow those gray-area teams to get good records that will put them in a position for success. A team that can put up 2 capped 6-stacks is certainly better than most teams, and would be "winning" matches. However, their scores will never compare to a team who puts up 3. I like the QA system overall, but I think it emphasizes the divide between top-tier and good-tier.

-no defense: With very few exceptions (among them, 2062 and 4143 at midwest) there is no real strategy in this game. There is also absolutely no effective defense in this game, unless you have 2 extremely fast can pullers. As a result, lower-power teams have no means of stopping top-tier teams without taking themselves down in the process.

-scoring: in previous years, the actual action of scoring big points wasn't a slow process. This year, producing those valuable 5 and 6 stacks can take a lot of time and precision. As a result, there are teams who spend the entire match scoring 2 points, and teams who put up 200+ alone. Funnily enough, the most precision-oriented game in years rewards speed much more highly than precision, and if you are a high-stacking team who takes even a couple seconds longer than the rest to put up a capped 6-stack, it means you're doomed for the second tier.

[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by evanperryg

Funnily enough, the most precision-oriented game in years rewards speed much more highly than precision, and if you are a high-stacking team who takes even a couple seconds longer than the rest to put up a capped 6-stack, it means you're doomed for the second tier.

This sentence really confuses me, particularly the first part. Can you describe in more detail what you mean by this?

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by Orthofort

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.

I agree. I've posted elsewhere on this--the point of FIRST is SOCIAL engineering. It is to change the cultural attitude about the attractiveness of STEM education and careers. That means appealing to the folks who are NOT deeply invested in building robots. It means that the game must be appealing to someone who has an interest in sports or social activities and is on the fence about STEM activities. Only by stepping outside of the usual comfort zone for most of us focused on STEM and appealing to a broader audience can FIRST truly change the culture.