The cheesecake runaway

[BigJ]

I don't think any arbitrary limits need to be placed. I can't think of any other year (since 2007) that "cheesecake" would affect the outcome of matches and makeup of alliances to such an extreme.

The closest I can think of is the minibot race in 2011, but even then a 3rd alliance partner could run at least some interference on the opposing alliance (depending on how good their human players were).

In 2015 a lot of alliances just had no need for a 3rd robot in their strategy aside from "[Burgle cans/tether to ramps/scoot the auto totes] and then sit out of the way next to the wall", and this was caused by the non-interactive game design.

[nlj007]

For those interested in the harpoon contraption (:

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh....php?p=1476748

[Ichlieberoboter]

Originally Posted by BigJ

The closest I can think of is the minibot race in 2011, but even then a 3rd alliance partner could run at least some interference on the opposing alliance (depending on how good their human players were).

Ha, that year was kind of unfortunate for us, cause that was one of the few years we had a really good solid robot so we actually had a solid chance. And then at one point we gave another team a minibot because they were panicking and scoring pretty low because they didn't have one and they ended up using said minibot to just beat us out and proceeded to win and go to worlds. We were happy for them and stuff, but kind of sad it ended up working out like that.

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

I'm not entirely sure that changing the game is going to change cheese caking on its own. Let's take 2013 for example. How hard would it be for a powerhouse to make a dialed in, fast Frisbee loader and shooter that can mount onto drivetrains compared to the awesome canburgler stuff we've seen. Heck with the current rules, couldn't a team give away an entire robot as cheesecake? Now that teams know it's possible to cheesecake to this degree, I can easily see it being used in future games to be ensure a reliable third bot.

[Skyehawk]

Originally Posted by Rangel(kf7fdb)

... Heck with the current rules, couldn't a team give away an entire robot as cheesecake?

Way to take to an extreme, why not bring an entire alliance of bots with you? And cheesecake your partners EVERY match...

In all actuality though, there is the root of the problem, so long as the other team had something to do with the design on the robot what's to stop a team from cheesecaking most (if not all) of a robot?

I find anything past minor cheesecaking repulsive, its like saying "Hey good job this season team 9999, but hey, umm, how about you change the functionality of your bot, throw all your strategy, engineering, and work-hours out the window, and go win this next match for us."

While it may be cool to get mechanisms from other teams (you can learn a lot) it takes away from the work with what you have aspect of matches that I love so much. A tweak here or there from other teams to improve existing mechanisms or to optimize a strategy with the addition of a pair of wheels on some grabbers, or a better gearbox is fine in my opinion, but, as has been stated before, some of this stuff can get really out of hand at times.

[asid61]

Originally Posted by Rangel(kf7fdb)

I'm not entirely sure that changing the game is going to change cheese caking on its own. Let's take 2013 for example. How hard would it be for a powerhouse to make a dialed in, fast Frisbee loader and shooter that can mount onto drivetrains compared to the awesome canburgler stuff we've seen. Heck with the current rules, couldn't a team give away an entire robot as cheesecake? Now that teams know it's possible to cheesecake to this degree, I can easily see it being used in future games to be ensure a reliable third bot.

Definitely possible. Teams like 254, 1678, etc. already build multiple robots. If they just build one or two extra robots and bag them, any team could theoretically use them.

[Skyehawk]

The only problem is the amount of spare parts you can have, I don't know exact rules, maybe bagging extra robots could work as the rules are written.

[DampRobot]

To add another perspective, I was a big "cheesecaker" back in 2013 and 2014 before it was even called that. Perhaps the teams I was on didn't do it to the same degree that some teams have this year, but I fondly remember fixing a lot of elex and pneumatic issues on other teams in order to get them working for qual or elim matches. Some of the most fun I've had as a student or a mentor was getting teams ready to run and contribute to the alliance in time for quarter finals or a critical qualification match.

Why did I enjoy it, and why was this a good thing? It taught me that what many people might call impossible can be accomplished, and gave me a huge amount of experience diagnosing system level problems. Ten mins till a match, and your compressor isn't working? No problem. Intake's illegal? We'll get it through inspection. Drive base acting funny? I'll see what I can do. Need an inbound or FCS blocker? Give me a lunch break and it'll get done.

This year people really took helping other teams to another level, and for the most part, I'm fine with it. As much as I like to pooh-pooh the value of inspiration, going deep in elims and working with world class teams really changes your perspective. It'll make you hungrier for future success and learning, which in my mind is why FIRST is the way it is. I guess I don't want what happened with 900 to happen to all third picks, but I think the logistic challenge of maneuvers like that will prevent it from happening often.

In any case, I can't see any attempt to regulate cheesecaking going very well.

[Ubiquity]

I love CheeseCake - I think I like the citrus flavor best.

Cheesecaking has been part of FIRST for at least 12 years, but In every FRC competition I have been involved in it always seems that offense is what counts in the qualifiers, and defense is what ultimately decides eliminations. Now while in general a good offense is the best defense, this isn't always the case. This year was unusual, in that the only viable defense was grabbing the cans in auto. (Despite the catchy video, it wasn't "It's all about the totes.." and there was defense.) There was a secondary defense that almost never worked, and that was throwing pool noodles. In the case of the Poofs, that was the ultimate reason they didn't make to Einstein. The most sophisticated teams realized that in eliminations burgling was the key to success, and were prepared to make a super defense robot if they couldn't find one.

Our team only made it to Champs, because the Poofs and Circuits cheesecaked us at SVR. We came to champs as a pure can burglar and nothing else. We ultimately made to the Newton quarter finals as the fourth pick of the 6 seed, and were delighted to have got that far. The Robonauts and Citrus Circuits(the Circuits even brought us a spare set of arms) and both coached and helped tune our can grabbers during qualifiers. They wisely picked the BirdBrains (one of the best human side stackers) and Griffengears (because 118 could modify them as a pure pneumatic 4 can tethered grabber) I don't know if they ever got it working, but I would have loved to see it in action.

I don't think cheesecaking should be banned. I think a game design where defense and offense are more balanced would be better, but you have to have the bar set high enough to challenge the experienced teams, but low enough so the rookies with a KOP base can do something to aid their alliance. The game design committee has a darn hard job, and I think they get it right 99% of the time.

In the old days, I know of at least two occasions where a rookie team showed up at an event with an unassembled KOP and had a working robot by the end of qualifiers. Even at Davis this year one team showed up 40 lbs overweight, and I am proud to say the Apes of Wrath won the GP award for helping them to pass inspection. Instead of banning cheesecaking, we should encourage it.

[Conor Ryan]

I work in an industry where people will literally do anything to get ahead, when it goes too far rules get put into place (IE - Wolf of Wall Street when they are selling Pump and Dump Schemes, perfectly in the grey area of the law). Lets embrace STEM education the right way and push the right values through better rule guidance.

I didn't like the type of cheesecake at Worlds this year. 2011 style cheesecake, where robots shared Minibots? Awesome. I can't get enough of that. It didn't reconfigure the robot in the eyes of the community, it was just a neighbor helping a neighbor.

Throwing the robot that students built with mentors and teachers in their community and proudly showed off to sponsors and schools in the name of a last ditch effort to get picked? This is questionable ethics. Would I do it if I was in the situation? Sure, its a survival tactic, and as a mentor my students would be down in the dumps and it would be terrible to say no, that is just not in the spirit of mentoring. Should it be against the rules? Yes. Keep the Build Season Sacred.


Now this is starting to sound like the Financial World and Regulation. Do financial institutions like making lots of money? Yes. Should we be allowed to do it certain ways? No.

[RyanShoff]

Originally Posted by asid61

Definitely possible. Teams like 254, 1678, etc. already build multiple robots. If they just build one or two extra robots and bag them, any team could theoretically use them.

I don't think anything in the rules would have prevented bagging a whole alliance this year. Anybody know a rule that would break?

If you had time to get reinspected, you could even switch back and forth between two different robots in quals this year. Have three landfill bots in a qual? Just walk your chute bot through the inspection line.

Teams with resources to make two machines already have a huge advantage. Imagine the disparity between teams if the standard to be competitive on Einstein is making 3 robots and backups.

[Joe Johnson]

Perhaps I should have read this thread first, but I didn't. I read 900's Championship Cheesecaking Chronicles before this one.

I am full square against Cheesecaking. Read my arguments in that other thread here.


Dr. Joe J.

[Carolyn_Grace]

Originally Posted by Nyxyxylyth

To me, it sounds a lot more like copying someone else's answers for an exam. I just couldn't throw away everything we'd worked on for months for the sake of winning.

In an education environment goals and objectives are set for you: they're called standards (Common Core, State Standards, etc.). Teachers are required by law to teach these standards in public school. So, yes, someone copying an exam (designed to assess the ability of students to master those standards) is wrong, both ethically and educationally.

But, FIRST doesn't provide standards for us. FIRST doesn't set goals or objectives for us. We set those individually on each team. So assessing if our strategy is "wrong" is something that should be done individually and not declared by others outside our team organization.

There's nothing wrong with you declaring that you wouldn't "throw away everything...for the sake of winning" if it fits with the goals and objectives of your team.

BUT every team has different philosophies and goals. Every team has different strategies in order to fulfill those goals. And every team should be free to strategize to fulfill those goals, as long as it fits within the rules provided.

[ASmith1675]

Originally Posted by BigJ

In 2015 a lot of alliances just had no need for a 3rd robot in their strategy aside from "[Burgle cans/tether to ramps/scoot the auto totes] and then sit out of the way next to the wall", and this was caused by the non-interactive game design.

This is exactly right. The extent of the cheesecaking this year was 100% a result of a poorly designed game. When two robots can cap 7 6-stacks by themselves the third robot is not useful. Additionally, I doubt there were many (or any) teams that were designed purely to burgle cans in less than 1 second, which is really all that some of these alliances needed. The other cheesecaking which took hold (ramps) were mostly used as a correction to a poorly designed field.

Basically, I believe the level cheescake we saw this year was much more of a result of a poorly designed game than some more insidious intent to 'win at any cost'. The reason we haven't seen this level in the past is that in most games it would hurt you to play a majority of the match with only 2/3 robots, where in this game it could easily be argued to be a benefit.

[blazingbronco18]

Originally Posted by asid61

Definitely possible. Teams like 254, 1678, etc. already build multiple robots. If they just build one or two extra robots and bag them, any team could theoretically use them.

This was definitely something my team was joking about during the season. And with the rules of being able to use two bags to bag your robot it could very well have been done with no rules being broken.