The cheesecake runaway

[Steven Smith]

Originally Posted by lcoreyl

No. It goes back to the rule that lead to the thread where the cheesecake term came from, which was then reversed because FIRST was made aware of how it disallowed so many things that are good for FIRST.

At this point I've read this and the 900 champs thread, and all I've seen is this:

Team Cheesecake: "as a recipient of cheesecake I can tell you this was extremely inspirational for our team. Our kids loved being a part of this alliance"

Team lactose/gluten/fat free cake: "This made me feel icky regardless of the fact the team it happened to didn't feel icky. This wasn't the intent of FIRST. Also the other teams that could do things and didn't get drafted felt icky. This should be outlawed!"

Unless someone has a better argument than how seeing this makes you "feel", I think the evidence is pretty overwhelming that only good came of this.

I think Mr. Van's post is a reasonable start, but I think that it could be extended to allow more than just COTS parts.

While it might not have been directly specifically at me, the usage of the phrase "icky" and arguing that posts (like mine) are based on "feelings" (implying, not logical), are basically ad hominem comments.

We're all reading the same posts, and clearly there are stories of teams that have benefited, and I'm honestly happy for all involved. I don't think that in the short time between the Q/A clarification and champs, this could have evolved in a problematic way.

In fact, I'm not even arguing against your claim that "only good CAME of this". My argument is that I would not extend that to say that "only good could EVER COME of this". I do not want to see a bar set that the most competitive team is the one that can show up with 3 complementary robots, and bypass the alliance selection process by providing them to their selections. More clearly, up until now I worked under the assumption that you can make anything you want in the build season (twinkie robots, strategically building complimentary robots with a friend, etc), but this is tempered by the fact that once you got to a regional... there is no guarantee they will be on your alliance. Having a single team show up with all three robots and the ability to give them to anyone... after the alliance selection process, seems hard to explain to a spectator.

I don't seriously anticipate it occurring, but I also wouldn't want to encourage low resource teams to design around the ability to be cheese-caked. I'd rather continue to see them encouraged to come up with basic but effective mechanisms such as those shown in BuildBlitz / Ri3D that allow them to be effective 2nd picks and contribute to their alliance's success.

A bit redundant, but once again, this is all forward looking, not looking back. I am not suggesting ill-intent on any of the now-notable examples, but instead voicing concern of what it might mean for the meta-game in 2016.

[Basel A]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

As has been pointed out here already, what outside of practicality is preventing a team from bagging an entire robot and then cheesecaking it onto another team's RoboRIO during Division elims?

People keep bringing this up. After seeing it a few times, I feel like it needs an answer. What stops teams from doing this? The rules. The March 17th Team Update inserted the following into R17: "With permission from another Team, Teams may also have access to FABRICATED ITEMS that are part of that other Team’s WITHHOLDING ALLOWANCE to repair and/or upgrade their ROBOT." The end of the rule reads "Items made at an Event do not count towards this weight limit."

This means that if a team would like to cheesecake, they have two options: sacrifice their own withholding allowance (which has a weight limit) or sacrifice their own time at the event. It keeps teams from sharing huge mechanisms, while still allowing teams to help each other out within reasonable extents. This is a great rule. Kudos GDC.

[blazingbronco18]

Originally Posted by Basel A

People keep bringing this up. After seeing it a few times, I feel like it needs an answer. What stops teams from doing this? The rules. The March 17th Team Update inserted the following into R17: "With permission from another Team, Teams may also have access to FABRICATED ITEMS that are part of that other Team’s WITHHOLDING ALLOWANCE to repair and/or upgrade their ROBOT." The end of the rule reads "Items made at an Event do not count towards this weight limit."

This means that if a team would like to cheesecake, they have two options: sacrifice their own withholding allowance (which has a weight limit) or sacrifice their own time at the event. It keeps teams from sharing huge mechanisms, while still allowing teams to help each other out within reasonable extents. This is a great rule. Kudos GDC.

Bagged mechanisms don't count towards the withholding allowance. Thus bagging two robots would still be within the rules. Even if a team bagged two robots they would still be able to bring fabricated items which would count against their withholding allowance.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by Basel A

People keep bringing this up. After seeing it a few times, I feel like it needs an answer. What stops teams from doing this? The rules. The March 17th Team Update inserted the following into R17: "With permission from another Team, Teams may also have access to FABRICATED ITEMS that are part of that other Team’s WITHHOLDING ALLOWANCE to repair and/or upgrade their ROBOT." The end of the rule reads "Items made at an Event do not count towards this weight limit."

This means that if a team would like to cheesecake, they have two options: sacrifice their own withholding allowance (which has a weight limit) or sacrifice their own time at the event. It keeps teams from sharing huge mechanisms, while still allowing teams to help each other out within reasonable extents. This is a great rule. Kudos GDC.

You're ignoring the fact that this ruling was made after the end of build. Cheesecake was effectively limited to exactly those items. The question is what the ruling is going to be next year when a team bags cheesecake with their robot and then wants to put it on another robot. All the arguments in favor of cheesecake are still going to apply to shrinkwrapped cheesecake, so why would the gdc rule against it if we weren't discussing the implications now?

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by blazingbronco18

Bagged mechanisms don't count towards the withholding allowance. Thus bagging two robots would still be within the rules. Even if a team bagged two robots they would still be able to bring fabricated items which would count against their withholding allowance.

Not sure if this would hold up. We used two bags for our robot this year at our first event with our robot in the first bag and in the second we had two of our spare upright tubes (2" square aluminum tube .063in wall 72" long) along with a few smaller miscellaneous items. All in all it weighed under 10lbs but we put it in the bag in case our witholding needed to be larger than its current 15lbs that we brought in.

As we left the event the inspectors saw it differently so we went back to one bag and used these parts as our witholding allowance since we didn't use much from event to event.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by BrendanB

Not sure if this would hold up. We used two bags for our robot this year at our first event with our robot in the first bag and in the second we had two of our spare upright tubes (2" square aluminum tube .063in wall 72" long) along with a few smaller miscellaneous items. All in all it weighed under 10lbs but we put it in the bag in case our witholding needed to be larger than its current 15lbs that we brought in.

As we left the event the inspectors saw it differently so we went back to one bag and used these parts as our witholding allowance since we didn't use much from event to event.

Pretty sure your inspectors were wrong. The withholding allowance rule says you have to bag all robot elements, including those used in alternate configurations of the robot. Admin section 5 also says you're allowed up to 2 bags in case you need to disassemble your robot. So I don't see a problem with two bags, and I don't see a problem with bagged robot elements. If we're nitpicking that the bagged parts aren't actually part of the robot because they're spares, that seems perverse and unnecessary.

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

Pretty sure your inspectors were wrong.

This comes up all too often. I didn't agree with it either but it came down to who's interpretation of the rule would be followed at which point we followed the instructions of the LRI and didn't go about it during the following events.

[Basel A]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

You're ignoring the fact that this ruling was made after the end of build. Cheesecake was effectively limited to exactly those items. The question is what the ruling is going to be next year when a team bags cheesecake with their robot and then wants to put it on another robot. All the arguments in favor of cheesecake are still going to apply to shrinkwrapped cheesecake, so why would the gdc rule against it if we weren't discussing the implications now?

Fair point. Now that you mention it, I'm not sure why teams are allowed to bag as much as they want on Stop Build Day. Would there be opposition to limiting this to 150 lb? 180? Can't imagine many teams bagged more than that.

[efoote868]

I think part of the solution can come from the definition of COTS and what vendors provide.

Can I give an assembled gearbox to another team? If AndyMark sells it assembled with popular modifications, no problem.

[Wayne TenBrink]

Originally Posted by Steven Smith

A rule (or game design) that lessened the strategic benefit of cheese-caking, while leaving the option to help other teams out would likely be well received. One idea I floated on the post a while back regarding the Q/A banning all help, was to potentially allow unlimited cheese-caking through X time (Friday quals at a regional?), and only limited (2-5lbs?) changes after alliance selection. If a well meaning team wants to help another team overhaul their robot, they could and should... but it shouldn't provide an overwhelming strategic advantage to the giver. It should be able to be scouted, or perhaps posted at the inspection station... so the gift has made the team inherently more valuable to other alliances. To me, there is a distinct difference between cheesecaking a team to help them, and cheesecaking a team to help myself.

I expect that this whole situation will lead to new rules that won't be particularly popular. The game manual is full of rules that have similar origins. Many people blame this game for driving the extreme cheesecake, but teams will find uses for it in all future games.

At Championship, the extreme examples were made more feasible by: (1) the long delay between the end of qualification matches and alliance selection and (2) having a 4th bot on the alliance that could be kept off the field for modification. Item #1 could be addressed by having the final qualification matches, alliance selection, and playoff matches on the same day (not something I would favor). Item #2 could be could be addressed by going back to 3-team alliances with a backup bot list.

I like your suggestion of limiting hardware changes after qualification matches are complete.

[Kevin Leonard]

I don't understand why this is such a big deal. Teams shouldn't be unable to help alliance partners due to the rules of the game.
The rules of the game need to not necessitate such extreme measures.

I read the rules on kickoff weekend and knew that things like this would happen. It wasn't hard to foresee. Don't make the game come down to a challenge of whether or not a team has resources. Plain and simple.

[Skyehawk]

Originally Posted by DareDad

2512 did much better in quals at Duluth and Peoria, enough that they were top seeds and ended up finalists in both events.

One of the things they did was an adjustment to the robot to make it a more reliable six stacker which was capable of doing 2 six stacks with noodled totes. Prior to champs they were mostly making capped 5 stacks.

That seemed to have affected their auton reliability. They scored an average of 17.8 in quals in Duluth and 19.3 in Peoria. On Hopper, they averaged only 9.2.

Their coopertition was also significantly down compared to the regionals.

I think Wave (2826) knew that 2512 was better than the stats showed and saw it fit into a team strategy. Removing 2512's 45% effective 20 point auton and adding 987s can burglers left them with an extra can or two and an extra 2 six stacks.

Watch the matches and you can see them always play that very consistent role, after the can wars they pick up a green container and trundle to the drivers station 3 corner, build a six stack with a noodled container (42 points) and a second 6 stack (12 points) with the remaining totes (unless Wave needed more to finish their 3 6 stacks). That had them contributing a reliable 54 points to each match in finals and doing an excellent job of staying out of 987's way.

Meanwhile 2826 did their 28 point auton plus 3 42 point stacks for 164 points and 987 would make 2 to 3 six stacks from the landfill with typically unnoodled containers as containers were available for 70 to 100 points per match.

If everything had gone perfectly in auton and teleop, they could have had 7 capped 6 stacks, 4 (maybe 5) with noodles which would have taken them to 312 or 320.

They worked very effectively as a 3 robot team and that's why they are the only ones who managed 290.

I know, I was there for both of those regionals, 2512 is one of my teams closest friends, they are a great group. I am by no means saying they had a bad robot, quite the opposite, 2512 just picked up their game enormously as soon as those can-burglers appeared. All they needed was that extra little push to reach their max potential (they were defiantly an important player in that 290 all-time score).
When I started this thread I intended it to be used to discuss how much cheesecaking effected a teams performance in a vastly positive way, and how the first community felt about extreme cheesecaking.

[Rman1923]

Originally Posted by Josho499#4613

Now that the championships are over, I definitely think that FIRST must implement rules about cheese-caking other robots. For example, The top seed alliance of the Curie Division (1114 Simbotics and 148 Robowranglers) picked two other teams (1923 and 900), and didn't even play with them in playoffs. They faced off with just the two robots while the mech team from 1114 and 148 worked on attaching ridiculously good burglars to 1923. By the time these modifications were finished, it was the finals of Curie Division and they brought out their third team to take the division finals. After this, they set about disassembling the entire drive-base and structure of team 900, to attach four of 1114's ridiculous harpoon guns so that they would be in the weight limit. Now while I have no problem with 1114 and 148 having great mech teams that can build this machinery, I think it is not in the spirit of FIRST to ask other teams to change their whole robot with something they prepared earlier to ensure their own victory. It does not embody gracious professionalism, does not enforce the idea that FIRST is "more than just robots", and does not encourage problem solving skills or strategy, its more like "We are a great team so lets just basicly build two robots that make the perfect alliance and win championships"

In short, I think that there should be some ruling that says, "The robot inspected on the first day must be the same robot as enters the field", with the job of deciding what the same robot is up to the judges. Obviously new parts and innovation must still be allowed, but not all of this crazy 4 harpoon gun tethers and stuff.

As a student on 1923, I am disturbed by the inaccuracies of this post. Let me shed a little light into our perspective. Yes, 1923 and 900 got cheesecaked, but you can be hella sure that students and mentors of 1923 and 900 not only had a say in the cheesecake, but contributed significantly to the design and the build of them.

If you look at the video that 900 posted with the GoPro feed, you can see that two FIRST teams are working harmoniously together to do what this is all about: build robots and amaze people. Teams like 1114 and 148 give you a model to look up to and gave us inspiration to do better.

As human player, i could not believe the amount of help and courtesy I was shown when 1114 and 148 came to our pits, when we competed with them, or anything. They didn't become good by being arrogant people who thinking that their design is better, they became better by absorbing and emulating FIRST ideals.

I have been so inspired and motivated by them that I don't even care that we didn't win finals. Their significant contributions and help showed me that FIRST still has more to give me and that this truly is an amazing program.

I also wanted to say that the students of 1923 and 900 helped this alliance both on and off the field. When 148 came to our pits, they told us what they had planned, listened and accommodated to our needs/wants and asked courteously if we were okay being cheesecaked. As a student, I can tell you that these two teams have taught me more than I could ever hope to learn in just one season.

Just to summarize,
1) 1923 was involved in the design process as well as the build process for any cheesecake done to our robots
2) 148 and 1114 are the most inspirational teams I have ever worked with or even seen at an event.
3) Cheesecaking allows FIRST teams to not only have better robot competition, but also allows teams to learn from other teams and get inspired
4) Being graciously professional involves working with other teams to learn and succeed. I learned a ton, and succeeded.
5) I looked around me standing in queue in Einstein, I saw a happy drive team from 900, saw my team extremely excited and crying out of joy. I think that 1114 and 148 not only donated their resources and time to two teams, but made us realize the potential that we all have.

Your assumptions only put blemishes on an otherwise perfect experience for me, and for my fellow students.

[ice.berg]

Originally Posted by Skyehawk

When I started this thread I intended it to be used to discuss how much cheesecaking effected a teams performance in a vastly positive way, and how the first community felt about extreme cheesecaking.

So I have a couple things about this whole cheesecaking thing, especially after going to worlds.

First, I believe there are two ways to cheesecake. One, where a team adds parts/mechanisms to another robot, but the robot still serves an important roll besides just having those parts (usually can grabbers or ramp) Or two where a team adds parts/mechanisms to another robot, but then is told to after using those mechanisms to just sit in a corner so they dont screw anything up.
Number two is where I have a problem with cheesecaking. If you pick a team and you know they are that much of a hazard to the alliance then you should have just picked a different team. Do your scouting and know which teams are reckless and topple stacks or which teams have careful drivers who are precise.

Second, for our team going into alliance selections on hopper I could pretty much guarantee, being ranked 52nd, that if we were picked we would be cheesecaked in some fashion. Being picked by 987 we knew they had can grabbers for us. And the only thing I asked was to involve our students somehow in the process. I know our team wasn't going to do the whole thing, but with our capable students in the pits I thought we should utilize all of the available resources. We then collaborated with 987 on how to best attach the grabbers and then proceeded with the process. Overall I thought our alliance handled it all very well, and was very pleased with the balance of work being done by all the teams.

[Chris is me]

Putting aside the discussion about whether or not cheesecaking being allowed is a good or bad thing, just for a moment... I think calling for a rule to regulate or ban the practice is a huge overreaction that's just going to result in some overzealous volunteer somewhere disqualifying some alliance for upgrading each other's robots based on the subjective interpretation of an imperfect, knee jerk reactionary rule.

Instead, we just need to realize that there's a reason this behavior was so strongly emphasized this year. It's the game design. We just need the GDC to never design a game with this perfect storm of unique attributes again:

• Extremely critical task that is difficult to accomplish
• Strong incentive to "race" to complete this task first
• Chokehold strategy present with successful task completion
• No defense
• To a lesser extent: Cluttered field with lots of areas for congestion

When you have this, you'll have essentially mandatory cheesecaking if you want to win the world championship. While there was some upgrading in 2014 to get robots to provide assists, and in 2013 to block frisbees, all of these upgrades were fairly simple, limited, and things that teams could probably have done with all of the parts they had themselves lying around their own pits. The biggest instance of "cheesecaking" to the same scale and importance I can think of in the past was actually 2011, with the minibot race. My team went to an event where the event winner survived a scorched earth alliance selection by picking the best tube scorer in round 1 (despite lacking a minibot), and a kitbot in round 2 that they could mount their minibot and deployer to. A few alliances at the Championship played with placing the spare minibot ramp of the fastest robot on the alliance onto a second alliance robot.

If you look at the list of attributes above, you can see why it happened in 2011 as well - a chokehold strategy was present with the minibot race (unbeatable score), there was a strong incentive to do the task best / first (denies points to other alliance), and the task was extremely difficult to do well. Can we eliminate these features from our games? Then we don't have to write some complex or subjective rule to eliminate a behavior that at least some people really don't like. We can sidestep this discussion entirely by just not playing with these terrible game mechanics.