A Recycle Rush Reflection

[EricAnderson191]

I have been reading the responses with great interest and wanted to add a new question connected to the discussion about alliance choice:

What do you think the expansion to 8 divisions does to the alliance choosing process.

Also, if I was in charge of division placement I would work hard to keep the powerhouse teams spread out to avoid say 254 and 1114 having a chance to work together.

Are division placements random?

Eric

[Ginger Power]

Originally Posted by Siri

And does a mod want to kick us all out, because I think we broke this thread topic.

I was thinking the same thing haha. It should be moved to a thread called: "2015 Champs Discussion" or something along those lines. I've really enjoyed the conversation if that means anything.

[artK]

Originally Posted by AGPapa

I wasn't around on CD back then, so can somebody inform me of how often on CD was the overwhelming importance of minibots discussed in 2011? I tried doing some searches and couldn't find much discussion until after champs.

Similarly, how often was the importance of lap bots in 2008 or ball-stealers in 2012 talked about?

Can people point me to threads that talk about these issues before champs in each of those years?

This canburglar stuff has been beaten to death on CD, I seriously doubt that any division will leave a good canburglar to the end of the draft. And even looking at the teams that you mentioned, the more recent ones (610 and 16) were not the last picks of the draft, instead they were selected by the lower seeded alliances. I expect something similar to happen this year, with a lower seeded alliance of alright robots and great canburglars winning a few of the divisions.

I think people on Chief Delphi (at least sometimes) forget there are people in robotics who don't read Chief Delphi, Looking Forward, GameSense, Top 25, etc. I remember their being a large amount of discussion on CD last year about people doing mobility autos, yet at the earlier events, some teams didn't even plan on moving during auto. Just because the people who write on the above media have determined that the optimal strategy involves can-burglars, doesn't mean that every alliance captain at champs will know this. Some teams make suboptimal to really bad picks during alliance selections (the only time I ever was field rep, I made a bad pick*).

And if a really good canburglar does fall to the last pick of the draft, I think stranger stuff has happened at champs.

*Mistakes are made

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by AGPapa

I know how important minibots were on Einstein, what I want to know is Did the alliance captains drafting in 2011 know how important minibots were?
This year we have very active CD threads always discussing the importance of canburglars. GameSense talks about it, Looking Forward talks about it; did people in 2011 talk about minibots like we're talking about canburglars now?



This is an interesting point. I can understand how something like this may happen, but I wonder if there are enough canburglars in each division that it will happen.

There was discussion of it on chief. I distinctly remember posting that they'd be the only thing that mattered once a relatively low point threshold was achieved.

Just like this year, many people who didn't understand competition argued they weren't that important.

[AGPapa]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

There was discussion of it on chief. I distinctly remember posting that they'd be the only thing that mattered once a relatively low point threshold was achieved.

Just like this year, many people who didn't understand competition argued they weren't that important.

Thanks Adam. For reference, this thread has some pretty good discussion about the importance on minibots.

Here are some selected quotes:

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

The minibot score can't be offset at the high level of play, every competent alliance come champs will fill the top and middle rows along with some ubertubes. The sole decider in the win will be the minibots.

Originally Posted by Matt Krass

Seriously though, I think Adam is right, regardless of how well the minibot sensors work, or not, they're a little overweighted in the competition. I've seen a single minibot beat an entire other alliance scoring for the whole game. Just the minibot score. It's kind of frustrating, but it's probably also a topic for another thread.

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

You're missing his point. BOTH alliances will have robots like 148 and 1114. While the points scored by 1114 could offset a minibot if the opponent isn't scoring tubes, it's not going to offset the scoring from 148 AND 148's minibot.

There's a definite potential for the tube scores for both alliances to be both incredibly high, and incredibly close. That's where minibots are going to decide matches. It's not going to be a case where those 50 points alone are going to overcome the opponents scoring, but those 25 extra points from getting 1st and 2nd in the minibot race would easily offset the 2 extra tubes the opponent scored more than your alliance did.

Perhaps I'm overestimating the knowledge possessed by average alliance captain at champs. Especially since it'll be twice as easy to captain this year.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by Jared Russell

I think there are plenty of 2.5 stack teams. The ".X" in 1.X, 2.X, 3.X buys you margin against screwups, dropped cans, cans ending up in the corners, noodles, "defense" from alliance partners, etc.

What seems to happen is that a lot of teams are left stuck at the HP station or caught on their way to the platform because they tried to get one more tote. That's where the step function becomes most readily apparent.

[Kevin Leonard]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

What seems to happen is that a lot of teams are left stuck at the HP station or caught on their way to the platform because they tried to get one more tote. That's where the step function becomes most readily apparent.

In scouting and strategy, I defined the extra half stack as either the ability to make another uncapped stack or cap another stack after they've made their primary stacks.

So a team that is capable of 2.5 stacks can make 2 fully capped stacks, then either cap a partner's stack or build an uncapped one before the match end.

[Necroterra]

I'd like to share my thoughts on this game. This is my first and probably last (unless I mentor) year doing FRC, as I am a senior. Because of this, my perspective is different than many of the other posters here on CD - I didn't experience the 2013 and 2014 games, I've never strategized around defense, etc.

Recycle Rush undoubtedly has flaws - high skill floor, strange skill ceiling, autonomous probably deciding Einstein matches, potential liabilities of 3rd teams, boring and complicated for spectators.

I think, however, that this thread has focused mainly on defending or attacking the flaws of RR, and there are definitely some cool things about it that I didn't see in my cursory look at earlier games.

First of all is the simply insane robots some teams have built. I realized more teams had realized the potential for adventurous designs so we would have more of these at Champs, but teams like 1987 and the other ConveyorBots, 1726, with their more-or-less pure stacker, 1212 with their double robot, Batman and Robin, Zenith and Zipline, 2840's robot, 1671's under-ramp... maybe this has always happened, but seeing 1212's robot at Arizona West was amazing to me, even though it was having trouble.

Second is it seems to me like the human players, at least through the weeks of regionals, are more interesting this year. 2014 has them catching and re-introducing balls, and 2013 has them inserting and throwing (for a few seconds) the frisbees. This year, the human players have to load totes, something that has some level of skill to make it smooth and consistent, load noodles into cans, again, something that can done slowly or quickly, and most challenging, they can throw noodles for a fairly significant number of points. At championships, the best noodle throwers will be targeting robot's paths or aim for a side of the landfill.

Finally, there have been complaints about the amount of clutter on the fields this year. I actually like the clutter - whenever I watch a 2014 game in particular, the game feels so empty. This year has so much going on, especially for middle level alliances in these last week (see 1726 at AZWest).




One other note, someone earlier in the thread mentioned that there are two camps - an "FRC should be a Sport" camp and an "FRC should be a Engineering Challenge" camp, more or less. I personally don't ever foresee FRC becoming extremely fun for spectators without a major restructuring.

• Too many qualifying matches - outsiders won't watch 80+ matches to find the really exciting ones for them. Maybe a Dakar Rally style recap series of videos would work, though.
• Too much expected knowledge. Show 2014, a simple game, to someone new. They don't know how big the robots are, how hard it is do intake and relaunch the balls, they aren't going to intuitively keep track of the different robots, they don't understand the strategy of the scorign systems...
• The matches are designed in such a way that no one really cares. They are short, preventing you from getting invested, it's often easy to tell who will win 1/2 way through (not just in RR). You spend 5 minutes explaining the game to someone, and then play them a 2 minute match and they don't get anything out of it.
• They stakes of winning aren't presented to the audience - partly because they don't exist. I would think the culture FIRST wants to foster doesn't care about winning as much as learning and the experience (evidenced by Chairman's and many other decisions), but spectators want a reason to root for their team.

When I show our team's victory to an outsider, be it a family member, a friend, a potential sponsor, I think their experience is something like this:

"BLUE ALLIANCE WINS" - Ok, so they won. Now what? They get to go to Championships and lose against teams I have never heard of? Uh...

Very few outside viewers care that we are learning about programming / engineering / design / teamwork / leadership.

NOTE: Please let me know if any of my opinions about earlier years are misinformed, I'll be honest that I haven't spent much time researching.

[MooreteP]

One aspect off this game that I like is that the performance of teams is obvious on the field during and at the conclusion of a match.

Like LogoMotion (2011), or Rack-"N"-Roll (2007), the scoring implements are apparent at the end of the match. Rack-"N"-Roll's climbing on your partners Robot was a great endgame.

In most games (Aerial Assist, Ultimate Ascent, Rebound Rumble, Breakaway, Aim High) the scoring pieces disappear and the only indication of scoring progress is with the Real Time scoring on the screen.

The added bonus of stacks obscuring the view of the Drive Teams as scores are accrued is cool. Tethered bots scoring on the closest platform degrade the ability to work the landfill.

Say what you will about the game this year. It is what it is.
I understand the concerns about engaging the General Public in STEM activities.
The energy of the students dancing (witness the PNW championship) make the events pop!

Looking forward to this weekend's District Finals in Michigan, Mid-Atlantic, and New England. Watch them if you can as they are precursors to the CMP.

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

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.

This is always true, and never more so than when are playing a game that 'sucks' -- from the viewpoint of (some) top-tier competitors.

I didn't like tape measures in 2002. I didn't like minibots in 2011. I don't like intentional litter on the floor this year. I am trying to keep an open mind about canburglars. Like others, I fear there is a wasteful and uninspiring arms race looming.

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

There was discussion of it on chief. I distinctly remember posting that they'd be the only thing that mattered once a relatively low point threshold was achieved.

Just like this year, many people who didn't understand competition argued they weren't that important.

To be fair, this year the canburglars only matter insofar as the point values that can be attained after the cans are acquired. In 2011, a fast minibot gave points regardless.

The statistic that hasn't even been evaluated, probably because it's tough to acquire the data, is what % of canburglaring turned into points, and whether or not those extra points changed an outcome of Elims averge ranking. If we could get that data and analyze it I think (IMO) it'd translate back to the average team's design decisions in Week 1-2 to not do canburglars given the efficiency in match flow of few high stacks vs many short stacks at a typical event.

-----

Moving forward to champs, niche things like this seem to be the only publicly-discussed thing that matters for the average champs-bound team. While I don't think canburglars are the only thing a team who can't solo > 2 capped 6-stacks, I think it's almost a must. Such a shame too.

Where would a canburglar specialist be picked in selections? Where do they fit, outside of the 2-3 elite alliances who can do 5+ capped 6-stacks?

[jvriezen]

Originally Posted by JesseK

To be fair, this year the canburglars only matter insofar as the point values that can be attained after the cans are acquired.

Not really true. If you can grab three cans off of the step to own six total, the other team can cap at most four stacks. You probably only need to cap five stacks to win. If you grab all the cans from the step to own seven, you only need to cap four to exceed the three capped stacks the other alliance has.

[Sunshine]

Kinda funny
My biggest complaint with this year is what to do with the robot(s) at the end of the season. We generally keep one in for demonstrations or teaching. We already have the same drive train on past assembled bots so that's useless. We have made "forklift bots" in the past, so no need for displaying that element. And showing our sponsors, potential sponsors, admin or community how we pick up totes or a garbage can truely isn't very glamorous. So, I guess I need to agree with some of the thought process represented in this thread. This game has aspects of boredom. I know that the experience my students had was phenomenal but we were lucky to end up in the 2-5% winning two regionals. So obviously my/our opinions are a bit skewed. But having a forklift sitting around isn't very exciting versus a frisbee thrower or basketball bot that gets others a bit excited when they see it.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by Necroterra

First of all is the simply insane robots some teams have built. I realized more teams had realized the potential for adventurous designs so we would have more of these at Champs, but teams like 1987 and the other ConveyorBots, 1726, with their more-or-less pure stacker, 1212 with their double robot, Batman and Robin, Zenith and Zipline, 2840's robot, 1671's under-ramp... maybe this has always happened, but seeing 1212's robot at Arizona West was amazing to me, even though it was having trouble.

It's true, you get some crazy looking awesomeness when you lift size restrictions. You also get something similar when you get teams climbing a 10-foot pyramid. These examples are hard to find for two main reasons: first, they're probably about as common as the really crazy ones this year (a couple conveyors, a couple powered tethers). Second, 2013 did screw up the scoring if this is what you're looking for; high climbs weren't weighted enough.

Originally Posted by Necroterra

Second is it seems to me like the human players, at least through the weeks of regionals, are more interesting this year. 2014 has them catching and re-introducing balls, and 2013 has them inserting and throwing (for a few seconds) the frisbees. This year, the human players have to load totes, something that has some level of skill to make it smooth and consistent, load noodles into cans, again, something that can done slowly or quickly, and most challenging, they can throw noodles for a fairly significant number of points. At championships, the best noodle throwers will be targeting robot's paths or aim for a side of the landfill.

This is probably an issue of deceptive simplicity. Uber-fast frisbee loading took technique and practice for both HPs and drivers. It was actually pretty cool to see the different speed demons that had really cool techniques. If you're thinking sports models, just because it's fast doesn't mean it's easy (usually means it isn't, actually). Also, 2012 was even bigger for that, if we go all the way back in a standard high school tenure. Throwing those balls through the opening to make them all the way across the field, with robots trying to score and block you on the near side? Not easy at all. It's also a good year for clutter if you like that, and the bridge balances could get quite crazy.

Originally Posted by Necroterra

"BLUE ALLIANCE WINS" - Ok, so they won. Now what? They get to go to Championships and lose against teams I have never heard of? Uh...

Maybe I just haven't been in high school recently enough, but this process seems quite familiar. District tournaments, regional tournaments, state championships... We do Worlds, which is maybe more baseball-y, but it's not like parents know every team in (at least the larger) states anyway.

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by jvriezen

Not really true. If you can grab three cans off of the step to own six total, the other team can cap at most four stacks. You probably only need to cap five stacks to win. If you grab all the cans from the step to own seven, you only need to cap four to exceed the three capped stacks the other alliance has.

I don't think this is correct for 80-90% of teams at a typical event. In Quals, QF's and SF's you aren't directly competing with the opposing alliance, but also all of the other teams. Denying the RC's in one match is irrelevant unless their next opposing alliance can also deny the RC's. All that matters in Qual/QF/SF are individual scores - so Canburglaring is only effective if used as the means to that end. At a typical events, I seriously doubt they made a big difference before Finals.

At champs they matter even in Quals because there is a good chance that average teams are paired with elite teams who can use 4+ RC's.