A Recycle Rush Reflection

[jvriezen]

Originally Posted by JesseK

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.

You are correct-- I fell into the W/L mindset. The closer you get to finals (and when you are competing against the stronger/strongest team, it can still be sufficient to deny the cans to minimize the opponents score relative to yours if you are both near the 'cut line' of who gets to advance.

[mrnoble]

"No, I would like to see FRC continue progressing toward "sport" rather than "game". It is much more exciting for the spectator to see a simpler game played with strategy and skill than to see a technical task accomplished. There are plenty of science fairs, but FRC is becoming the true sport for robots."

I said the above last December. FRC sort of shocked me with the introduction of this new game, because I thought they were moving away from such things. I get why they did it, I think:

• Make it easier on referees and other volunteers
• Help students see the specific application of their learning experience in industry
• Give students a larger field of possible designs, with additional, new challenges

But, put me in the camp of moving FRC toward "sport" still. Long term, I think that is the niche that FRC best fills. Other events are better suited to the science fair/complicated game side. I'm not disappointed in RR, but that's because it has turned out to be more fun than I expected, and my expectations were pretty low. My team had a great time rising to the design challenge, and playing the game, and FRC is not at risk of losing 1339 as participants because of RR. But, if this is the beginning of a trend, and future games follow this pattern, we might reconsider.

[MrForbes]

Originally Posted by JesseK

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.

The cans are interesting. They can be placed on any size stack of totes, and putting them on a stack of two (or even one) totes does interesting things to your qualifying scores, at a typical regional that does not have many "really good" robots.

I've been really amazed by the general lack of understanding of the value of cans on short stacks.

[Boltman]

Originally Posted by MrForbes

The cans are interesting. They can be placed on any size stack of totes, and putting them on a stack of two (or even one) totes does interesting things to your qualifying scores, at a typical regional that does not have many "really good" robots.

I've been really amazed by the general lack of understanding of the value of cans on short stacks.

Yup wasted cans are wasted scores...

3 totes = 1 can on 1 tote
6 totes = 1 can on 2 totes
9 totes = 1 can on 3 totes
12 totes = 1 can on 4 totes
15 totes = 1 can on 5 totes
18 totes = 1 can on 6 totes

Such a shame to see any uncapped stacks.

[itsjustjon]

As a freshman, this game didn't seem that bad to me. Of course, it helps that I've never participated in any other seasons before but I still had tons of fun.

I feel like this game made it somewhat easier for me to help out with. I'm sure we can all agree on its simplicity and this actually made it relatively appealing to me. No, there wasn't that ecstatic gameplay I've seen from last year's YouTube videos but there was still a sense of teamwork where I felt like I could help in some way.

Sure, go ahead and beat a dead horse. It's a boring game to watch but on the back end, it was (at least for me) a hell of a time to participate in and I can't wait for next year.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by JesseK

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.

A superior chokehold is a virtual guarantee out of the semifinals. Assuming the transitive property holds (Team A is faster than B is faster than C is faster than D), so long at Team A puts up 5 stacks of 36 points in each match (and ignoring uncapped stacks) Team C can only advance by putting up 7 stacks of 42 points in its match where it is faster than D and puts ups 3 stacks of 42 in its matches against A and B.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by itsjustjon

As a freshman, this game didn't seem that bad to me. Of course, it helps that I've never participated in any other seasons before but I still had tons of fun.

I feel like this game made it somewhat easier for me to help out with. I'm sure we can all agree on its simplicity and this actually made it relatively appealing to me. No, there wasn't that ecstatic gameplay I've seen from last year's YouTube videos but there was still a sense of teamwork where I felt like I could help in some way.

Sure, go ahead and beat a dead horse. It's a boring game to watch but on the back end, it was (at least for me) a hell of a time to participate in and I can't wait for next year.

(emphasis mine) I wonder what you mean by simplicity in this case. In terms of the minimalist engineering involved (e.g. minimum competitive concept), it's probably most complicated in modern FIRST history. On the other hand, the ceiling is lower in some ways. Can you pinpoint what exactly you liked about it and maybe how future games could bring a similar element?

Oh, and welcome to FRC!

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

A superior chokehold is a virtual guarantee out of the semifinals. Assuming the transitive property holds (Team A is faster than B is faster than C is faster than D), so long at Team A puts up 5 stacks of 36 points in each match (and ignoring uncapped stacks) Team C can only advance by putting up 7 stacks of 42 points in its match where it is faster than D and puts ups 3 stacks of 42 in its matches against A and B.

I get that this holds, and with the math it makes total sense. We did it from the perspective of quantity of game pieces score at their most valuable placement rather than total points.

However, this analysis makes a fundamental assumption that there exist alliances A, B, C, & D in the Semis who were capable of handling that quantity of game pieces to begin with. Maybe that's an easier data set to come up with - given the tote & container scores posted, which C & D alliances at what events would have benefited from more canburglaring.

Again, not trying to say that canburglaring isn't absolutely critical for Champs - but rather trying to reflect on how design decisions are made early in the build season.

[Sunshine]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

A superior chokehold is a virtual guarantee out of the semifinals. Assuming the transitive property holds (Team A is faster than B is faster than C is faster than D), so long at Team A puts up 5 stacks of 36 points in each match (and ignoring uncapped stacks) Team C can only advance by putting up 7 stacks of 42 points in its match where it is faster than D and puts ups 3 stacks of 42 in its matches against A and B.

Your scenerio is valid IF the fastest burglar team can actually capitalize on having additional RC's. If the burglar bot can do little but steel RC's the outcome could come down to great autonomous points and a great human player from a starved alliance. I can also see that outcome happening in some divisions.

I'm looking forward to seeing if and how many 300 point plus alliance totals we may see.

[Sunshine]

Originally Posted by Siri

............. it's probably the most complicated in modern FIRST history. On the other hand, the ceiling is lower in some ways.

Can you elaborate on why you feel this way?

[itsjustjon]

Originally Posted by Siri

(emphasis mine) I wonder what you mean by simplicity in this case. In terms of the minimalist engineering involved (e.g. minimum competitive concept), it's probably most complicated in modern FIRST history. On the other hand, the ceiling is lower in some ways. Can you pinpoint what exactly you liked about it and maybe how future games could bring a similar element?

Oh, and welcome to FRC!

I meant simple in the fact that most (if not, all) robots this year are similar in design. For me, I did not see too many designs that were unique (One exception being 2122 with their table for resting an RC). All designs have same/similar intake style and lift design. They all do the same thing except some are faster or more efficient. Of course there are other exceptions that I didn't name. One other dichotomy is that either your bot does landfill or feeder, and very few bots do both. I honestly do not know what I was necessarily expecting but I just feel that there wasn't room for uniqueness.

This lack of uniqueness makes the game simple because the task isn't too hard. It doesn't demand thinking outside of the box. All you need to do is stack something. No more, no less.

That being said, I still found the game very fun and I think it will be more exciting at Champs.

[Ginger Power]

This is a very difficult game. Watch videos of matches with combined scores under 30 points and you will understand where I'm coming from. There are quite a few of them.

[Mark Sheridan]

Originally Posted by itsjustjon

I meant simple in the fact that most (if not, all) robots this year are similar in design. For me, I did not see too many designs that were unique (One exception being 2122 with their table for resting an RC). All designs have same/similar intake style and lift design. They all do the same thing except some are faster or more efficient. Of course there are other exceptions that I didn't name. One other dichotomy is that either your bot does landfill or feeder, and very few bots do both. I honestly do not know what I was necessarily expecting but I just feel that there wasn't room for uniqueness.

This lack of uniqueness makes the game simple because the task isn't too hard. It doesn't demand thinking outside of the box. All you need to do is stack something. No more, no less.

That being said, I still found the game very fun and I think it will be more exciting at Champs.

Hey Jon,
I think you had a fun time because you students were prototyping a lot. Think about how many prototypes you went through. I remember your original tote lifter, I am very happy you continued testing to find a vastly superior design. Not to mention how many intake ideas were traded back and forth with 3476.

Your CAD team worked very hard this year to make sure everything work as designed. I am glad everything came together so smoothly and simple. There were pitfalls along the way, your robot was vastly different before the intake was finished.

The funny thing this game was anything but simple for robots, a lot of the tough stuff was in the details, intake geometry, space for the tote lifter, geometry of the tote lifter. A lot of the unique stuff is in the details. i am sure when our 2 robots are side by side each other sometime this summer your will notice a lot of similarities but also a lot key differences when you look up close. for one 3476 holds up a stack using a disc brake and you have a second set of pneumatically driven latches. These are 2 very different solutions to the same problem. If dig under the hood of most robots you will find plenty of outside of the box ideas.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by Sunshine

Your scenerio is valid IF the fastest burglar team can actually capitalize on having additional RC's. If the burglar bot can do little but steel RC's the outcome could come down to great autonomous points and a great human player from a starved alliance. I can also see that outcome happening in some divisions.

I'm looking forward to seeing if and how many 300 point plus alliance totals we may see.

I'm assuming that any alliance that can get into the semifinals of divisions (and certainly Einstein) can put up at least 5 stacks which seems quite reasonable. There will be almost certainly be at least one alliance in each division capable of this. Just a few uncapped totes puts this alliance completely out of reach.

Jesse K:

I get that this holds, and with the math it makes total sense. We did it from the perspective of quantity of game pieces score at their most valuable placement rather than total points.

However, this analysis makes a fundamental assumption that there exist alliances A, B, C, & D in the Semis who were capable of handling that quantity of game pieces to begin with. Maybe that's an easier data set to come up with - given the tote & container scores posted, which C & D alliances at what events would have benefited from more canburglaring.

Again, not trying to say that canburglaring isn't absolutely critical for Champs - but rather trying to reflect on how design decisions are made early in the build season.

Watch the PNW champs. I expect the Divisions to be of higher quality. 3 alliances were over 200 points in the semis. RC availability will be constraining.

[bduddy]

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.

The one thing that most shocks me about this game is that the GDC made the same mistake again. The scoring system was the biggest flaw in Logomotion (a game with many flaws) and led directly to the introduction of a rule, in all future games, saying the GDC reserves the right to change it. Now, once again, we have a game where, at a high level, one simple task essentially locks out the game and, barring catastrophe, renders the remainder of the match pointless. Now, perhaps the flaw is less apparent and less impactful this year, but I guarantee you'll see elimination matches at championship divisions, not just Einstein, decided by the cans.

Or, will we finally see the values changed? Hmm...