Recycle Rush Farewell

[Sunshine]

I still say.....and will always say a tether is not a string in robotics competition.

[PayneTrain]

I think Recycle Rush added some positive elements that can be included in FRC games in 2-4 years, but on the whole it sort of came together into a pretty smelly mess. We don't have any interest in offseason competitions this year, that's for sure.

I still find it totally bizarre that between 2010-2014 you have 5 years of games to draw from. Each game has different elements and pros and cons lists that can draw from each other. I think between 2010, 2012, and 2014 (2013 is just 2012b) alone you have ingredients and themes of game design you can take and make a really really great game. Instead they threw out everything but the field perimeter and the robot weight limit. Seriously, everything else got tossed.

I like that it put us on our toes and there are some things in RR that can be used later, but I don't want to see Recycle Rush get the Rebound Rumble --> Ultimate Ascent treatment.

[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

Nonlinear scoring makes for a good challenge. It also moves OPR from the realm of the uncertain to the often just wrong. Consider this: If OPR/DPR meant anything this year, every team would have a DPR very close to zero unless it had a good canburglar or a wicked HP noodler. Canburglar DPRs would be diluted further whenever playing against an alliance that couldn't put up more than three big tote stacks.

I agree that DPR and CCWM are nearly meaningless this year, but I am curious to know what has led you to believe that OPR is such a horrible metric for this game.

[tindleroot]

The Tethering and Cheesecaking were my least favorite parts of this year's game. Coincidentally, both aspects were covered at some point by FIRST after kickoff day, and I believe they may not have thought through it enough.

The tethered ramps allowed any landfill robot to become equally efficient (if not more so) at the HP station just by adding .5 pounds of ramp and tether. Those HP robot specialists got the short stick with a task that was not much easier than landfill (since the totes came out at an odd angle and didn't fall flat).

The cheesecaking essentially removed the downside for high seeds in the serpentine draft if the alliance captain (or first pick) had a good cheesecake. The whole point of serpentine is to allow the low seeds to pick up the best 3rd robots, but even the 24th picked robot could become equally useful as the 17th picked robot (8th seed 2nd pick) at the cost of 1 pound of withholding allowance and a chance for mistake. IMO, cheesecake was a poor decision on FIRST's part and it could have been fixed by saying that your team's withholding allowance could only be used on your team's robot.

Other than that, I agree with most everyone else's comments. I hope FIRST listens to the community and decides to revert somewhat back to a contact game with win-loss.

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by Richard Wallace

That's because we didn't actually stack them in 2003. We attacked them.

Correction.We attacked each other.

[GeeTwo]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

Each game has different elements and pros and cons lists that can draw from each other. I think between 2010, 2012, and 2014 (2013 is just 2012b) .. but I don't want to see Recycle Rush get the Rebound Rumble --> Ultimate Ascent treatment.

OK, you said it twice in two different ways. I don't get the similarity. I have:
Comparisons (a few fairly normal conditions in common):

1. flat carpet; no ramps or steps
2. defense; robots with bumpers
3. flying game pieces
   • high (throwing) goals wider than they are tall
   • low (pushing or dropping throwing) goals essentially square
4. Most autonomous points are scored like main game points at double value.

Contrasts:

1. Auto start location permits easy goals in UA; most 'bots must move for goals in AA
2. End game that requires significant compromise to do well for most teams vs no end game
3. no analog to pyramid goal in AA.
4. one game piece vs more than most alliances could ever hope to score
5. spherical vs flat game pieces
6. Human players operate 1-way through slots only vs interactive
7. essentially no alliance intra-action vice both assist points and throw/catch points
8. small game pieces (though they did limit the number you could carry) vs large game pieces (even if there had been 2 you could legally carry, few robots could have carried them both at the same time)
9. obstructions (pyramid legs and lower rungs) vs open field.
10. No goal tending (can't be tall enough) vice limited goal tending allowed

So in what distinctive way(s) was 2013 like a 2012b?

[iVanDuzer]

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

So in what distinctive way(s) was 2013 like a 2012b?

Three off-the-ground goals worth 3 and 2 points respectively.
Limited number of game pieces able to be controlled at one time.
Similar floor intake mechanisms.
Engame based around structures in the middle-ish of the field.
Robots designed specifically for the endgame (to an extent I haven't seen since 2007).
Protected offence zones in similar areas of the field.

Not that I agree with GeeTwo, but the similarities are there.

EDIT: Also, I think you're comparing 2013 to 2014, when GeeTwo was saying 2013 was basically another 2012.

[DanielPlotas]

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

OK, you said it twice in two different ways. I don't get the similarity. I have:
Comparisons (a few fairly normal conditions in common):

1. flat carpet; no ramps or steps
2. defense; robots with bumpers
3. flying game pieces
   • high (throwing) goals wider than they are tall
   • low (pushing or dropping throwing) goals essentially square
4. Most autonomous points are scored like main game points at double value.

Contrasts:

1. Auto start location permits easy goals in UA; most 'bots must move for goals in AA
2. End game that requires significant compromise to do well for most teams vs no end game
3. no analog to pyramid goal in AA.
4. one game piece vs more than most alliances could ever hope to score
5. spherical vs flat game pieces
6. Human players operate 1-way through slots only vs interactive
7. essentially no alliance intra-action vice both assist points and throw/catch points
8. small game pieces (though they did limit the number you could carry) vs large game pieces (even if there had been 2 you could legally carry, few robots could have carried them both at the same time)
9. obstructions (pyramid legs and lower rungs) vs open field.
10. No goal tending (can't be tall enough) vice limited goal tending allowed

So in what distinctive way(s) was 2013 like a 2012b?

2012 was Rebound Rumble, and 2013 (so-called 2012b) was Ultimate Ascent.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Sunshine

I still say.....and will always say a tether is not a string in robotics competition.

And the response is the same. Regardless of how the community uses the word "tether," the word isn't part of any of the rules surrounding the use of ramps or other string-attached mechanisms.

[Ichlieberoboter]

Someone should totally do an off season competition with the center step removed. That'd be awesome. You'd probably have to make teams have bumpers and just let them add them onto their robot not counting them in the size limits.

[GeeTwo]

Originally Posted by Caleb Sykes

I agree that DPR and CCWM are nearly meaningless this year, but I am curious to know what has led you to believe that OPR is such a horrible metric for this game.

DPR can be meaningless in three ways. First, every team can get the same number (with a bit of noise, of course). Then, it's meaningless, but that would not invalidate OPR. Second, if DPR is systematically incorrect, I have confidence that OPR shall also be systematically incorrect as well. FInally, if DPR has such wild scatter as to appear to mean something, I have confidence that OPR shall be wildly inaccurate as well.

Non-linearity and limited game pieces inherently confuse linear models. For example:

• Q. How many offensive points is a can burglar (by itself) going to be worth?
• A. If the alliance can't build more than three decent stacks, nothing. If the alliance can build and cap seven tall stacks, perhaps 100 points.

• Q. How many offensive points are making inverted totes and totes on the step scorable?
• A. If the alliance is not starved for totes, nothing. If totes become the limiting factor, up to 44.

[tindleroot]

Originally Posted by Ichlieberoboter

Someone should totally do an off season competition with the center step removed. That'd be awesome. You'd probably have to make teams have bumpers and just let them add them onto their robot not counting them in the size limits.

By the comments I've heard, it's possible many of this year's offseason events will remove the step as part of their rules changes. (I personally believe that IRI will do something like that)

[cmrnpizzo14]

I actually didn't hate this game!

PROS:

1.) Promoted interesting designs! Less robot constraints this year encouraged innovation and a fewer percentage of teams that simply went with a robot in three days design!

2.) Different design challenge than the shooter games that we have had! I honestly got tired of throwing things.

CONS:

1.) Game overall didn't feel as finished as previous years. It felt like there was supposed to be more that never really panned out. I think this had a lot of potential but it almost seemed like the GDC ran out of time.

2.) I'll admit, it just wasn't as spectator friendly as previous years. I personally liked it. I enjoyed the autonomous battles. I loved watching the stacks go up. I just think that for an average person observer it was lacking.

[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

DPR can be meaningless in three ways. First, every team can get the same number (with a bit of noise, of course). Then, it's meaningless, but that would not invalidate OPR. Second, if DPR is systematically incorrect, I have confidence that OPR shall also be systematically incorrect as well. FInally, if DPR has such wild scatter as to appear to mean something, I have confidence that OPR shall be wildly inaccurate as well.

Are you saying that one of these three cases happened this year, thus invalidating OPR? If so, which one?

Non-linearity and limited game pieces inherently confuse linear models. For example:

• Q. How many offensive points is a can burglar (by itself) going to be worth?
• A. If the alliance can't build more than three decent stacks, nothing. If the alliance can build and cap seven tall stacks, perhaps 100 points.

• Q. How many offensive points are making inverted totes and totes on the step scorable?
• A. If the alliance is not starved for totes, nothing. If totes become the limiting factor, up to 44.

This is true, these things will cause poorer results in linear models. At the highest-caliber events, many teams were performing better than their OPRs might imply, for reasons such as limited game pieces.

However, at weaker events, OPR seemed to be a very good description of a team's contribution, and at all events, the relative rank of OPR also seemed to be a good descriptor of a team's contribution relative to the rest of the field.

[lynca]

Originally Posted by cmrnpizzo14

I actually didn't hate this game!

PROS:

1.) Promoted interesting designs! Less robot constraints this year encouraged innovation and a fewer percentage of teams that simply went with a robot in three days design!

2.) Different design challenge than the shooter games that we have had! I honestly got tired of throwing things.

Agree !

The engineering challenge of this game really helped many teams focus on offense. Many teams build a defense robot and never take the time to add more features to their robot. Recycle rush was the 1st game that challenged these teams to go beyond defense.