Cheesecake: How far is too far?

[Josh Fox]

Originally Posted by twetherbee

I was not a fan of the level to which "cheesecaking" was done this year, either. But it had to be done to stay competitive in this year's game. One more reason to dislike Recycle Rush.

Emphasis mine. I think this is the most concrete thing to take away from the discussion.

I'm a fan of cheesecake. If a "better" team can work with a "lesser" team (purely in terms of mechanical ability of their robot) to improve it, I'm all for it. If that happens to be with a relatively simple mechanism? So be it.

I'm very against bad game mechanics.

Last year, cheesecake would have generally meant putting some sort of guide, and often a passive one at that, onto a partner robot. This was necessary because of a poor set of rules that dictated a robot must "control" a ball to complete a pass, which was a fundamental and essential component of the game, instead of simply pushing it or touching it momentarily.

This year, matches were decided in fractions of a second because of an insane amount of importance placed on controlling the cans, and the inability to recover cans once the opposing alliance had them on their side of the field. Obviously allowing teams to recover them once they crossed to the other side would entirely change the dynamic of the game as a whole, but at the root of the issue is that same game dynamic.

If you don't want teams coming in with pre-fabbed mechanisms, maybe don't design tasks that are essential to the game that can be completed with something so simple, or find another way for teams that may have more difficulty accomplishing complex tasks a way to positively contribute (see: defense, pushing game pieces into a lower goal, etc.).

tl;dr don't hate the player, hate the game design

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by twetherbee

... I was not a fan of the level to which "cheesecaking" was done this year, either. But it had to be done to stay competitive in this year's game. One more reason to dislike Recycle Rush.

This. ^

The issue is choke holds in the game, not whether teams should help each other.

987 and several other top-caliber teams got it right, played by the rules, and made this game look as good as it could. RR has many aspects I really like, including the emphasis on consistency and scoring capability.* But the choke hold opportunity created by step cans should have been foreseen and corrected. I think the IRI committee will find a way to do that.

-----
*That said, I am not a fan of the "one bad match kills your seed" impact of straight average ranking, nor of the ranking bias due to relative strength of qualification alliance partners. Not sure if W-L-T (with tiebreakers) would have fixed these or not -- maybe someone will analyze and make constructive recommendations to the GDC.

[xman206]

What do people considered small/large components? 1678 can theft auto proved to be useful for them considering they were in the cheesecake factory.

[Mrcope9]

In general, I'd say i'm pro-cheesecake. Mainly because I think it embodies (to a degree) what FIRST is all about. In doing this, it is an opportunity to learn from top-caliber teams in a competition environment. In the instances I saw, it wasn't about a powerhouse number one seed saying "your robot belongs to us, hand it over and let us do this our way." It was about using what an alliance partner can bring to the table and working together to make a new creative strategy, even if it was just strapping on a pole that kicked a can over. From my perspective, the takeaways were great. In the teams we worked with, we got to learn about how they work, and got a few tips on making quick parts. I am definitely interested in seeing how next years game could incorporate things like this.

[waialua359]

I miss the 6 week build season.



Where the challenge was designing, building, and testing robots in such a short time period.
Examples such as cheesecaking and the 30 lb allowance no longer makes a 6 week build season worth anything meaningful. The allowance initially started, IIRC, due to teams not having access to their shops (not able to work) due to weather conditions. It seems to have just continued since that time.

FRC is looking more and more like the VEX challenge. If that's the case, I hope FIRST makes some changes in the near future, so that I can eat right, sleep right, and not put my personal life on hold for 2 months not including the competitions we attend.
The time we gave up to be competitively ready for a week 1 event, went out the door 3 weeks later.

[connor.worley]

Originally Posted by waialua359

I miss the 6 week build season.



Where the challenge was designing, building, and testing robots in such a short time period.
Examples such as cheesecaking and the 30 lb allowance no longer makes a 6 week build season worth anything meaningful. The allowance initially started, IIRC, due to teams not having access to their shops (not able to work) due to weather conditions. It seems to have just continued since that time.

FRC is looking more and more like the VEX challenge. If that's the case, I hope FIRST makes some changes in the near future, so that I can eat right, sleep right, and not put my personal life on hold for 2 months not including the competitions we attend.
The time we gave up to be competitively ready for a week 1 event, went out the door 3 weeks later.

What are your thoughts on FIRST adopting a much longer build term or even going year round like VEX?

[AdamHeard]

This year incentivized it more than previous years, but now that the cat's out of the bag it could really get out of hand.

Typically 3rd picks at many regions aren't that capable, so providing them a mechanism can be very overpowered.

30 lbs of custom part, plus unlimited COTS, is plenty to make meaningful systems for some years that could be installed quickly.

[marshall]

Originally Posted by connor.worley

What are your thoughts on FIRST adopting a much longer build term or even going year round like VEX?

Do it. Get rid of bag and tag. Teams already build multiple robots to subvert bag and tag. By removing it, you enable lower resource teams to compete at higher levels easier.

[RacerX]

It has been an interesting few days following the Championships….. Many thoughts and emotions, and reading these threads has, I can only guess, caused many of us, me included, to start writing responses, and then just deleting them…..

Well, for good or bad, here goes one that did not get deleted.

A couple points of clarification;

- I am new to the program, this being the second year of involvement for our daughter. From the first event that we attended a couple of years ago during a school field trip with our youngest, I was hooked. I think it is a great program. I only have perspective from my limited involvement.
- If it comes across that I am saying anything negative about the Teams that collaborated in this ‘Cheesecake Factory’ event, please note, I am not blaming Teams, I am only expressing my opinion about the structure that allowed such activity.

Also, let me state that this is only my opinion, not the opinion of the Team I am associated with, or anyone else, just mine….

Witnessing this activity reminded me of some experiences I had with another sport, and there are some similarities, and feelings. I just thought I would share my past experience. You can take it for what it is worth….

I have been involved with a race team and as a Team we worked very hard to compete, and with some luck and A LOT of hard, hard work and dedication by every member of our Team, we were able to compete at the highest level in our sport. Vying for the World Championship in a year-long battle that involved racing all over this great country of ours. It was an amazing experience, and one I will remember forever for the good and the not so good, for it all contributes in making experiences what they are.

We had resources, ie. $$$’s and a dedicated crew. We had the burning desire to be the best, and we did everything we could to make our Team as good as it could be. We did not have the same $$$’s as the top Teams, and we had not been in the sport as long as some of them, but we had desire and determination….. You cannot just make those things, or buy them…..

We had been steadily building our program, getting more competitive. We decided that we would make a run at seeing what we could do, and set out to compete as if we were running for the World Championship, to see how we stacked up against the best of the best. We started out the year reaching the Finals our first seven races, winning three of them. We were on a roll…… As the year progressed, we were leading the points chase, staying ahead of our competition….. People started talking about ‘upsets’ as we could be in a position to unseat a 4-time Champion..... We just kept our heads down and worked hard. Then, interesting things started to happen…….

Similarly to FIRST, we had an Eliminations format when it came to race day. Depending on the event, there were either 8 or 16 Qualifiers who raced on Sunday. It was true eliminations, you lost, you were on the trailer, no averages, no best of two or three, nothing….. Just two race teams, a race track and +/- 5.30 seconds to decide who was moving on…..

Now to the interesting things…… As the season began to wind down, we were still leading the points chase. We started seeing the Crew Chief from the rival Team talking with other Teams, especially the Teams that were in the lower qualified positions. Hmmmm……. Here we are qualified #1 or #2, and he is talking to the two lowest qualified Teams, the ones we would likely be racing 1st Round. If we were to lose early in Eliminations, our points total would take a hit. We worked harder….. Then it became more than just talking, it became replacement of key components, first a supercharger, then a complete motor, a tune-up…… Teams that barely qualified are now having another Team replace their complete drive-train and being told how to run their car, with the sole purpose to beat us…..

It was all within the rules…… Teams would help other teams with parts and crew when they needed it, that was something I always enjoyed, was helping others. But, when it got to the point that a Team was taking over another Team, in an effort to beat someone else, I thought that crossed a line. In the middle of all of this were all the other teams. Teams that worked hard, put everything they had into their operations and they competed at their best. They might have been a mid to high placed Team, but they got run over by the steam rollers of the Top Teams, and the newly created bottom Team with a bunch of new go-fast parts, and knowledge that was only given on a need to know basis……

So, how did it all end? We ended up losing the World Championship by one Round of racing. We crisscrossed the country, went to 23 different races, had the highest of highs and the lowest of lows…… It was fantastic, and I will remember it forever…… Likewise, I will remember experiencing activities that I thought were a detriment to the sport that I loved…..

When Mega-teams could out spend, and out work all of the others, it was one thing. We worked hard and did what we could with what we had to compete with them. But when it started to become Mega-team 1, and Mega-team 1 creating Mega-team Jr., it was dang, how many times do we have to beat them???? Often times Mega-team Jr. was extatic at given the shot to compete at a higher level. When it worked, they ran quicker and faster than they had ever gone, and often quicker and faster than they would ever go. Once the parts were taken back, they were where they were….. Maybe it was a good experience for them? They got to run with the big dogs…… Maybe it will fuel them to work harder, to dig deep, and figure out how to make their Team better, figure out how to become a Top Team…… Who knows…..

What I do know is, there was no shortage of Teams who were willing to scrap their program, yank their motor out and try to covet the attention of those who had the go-fast parts, and the knowledge……

Was there any redeeming value in all this activity? That can be debated for all eternity…… I am not claiming to know the answers…… But in my opinion, the redeeming value benefitted a very few, and not the program as a whole.

The cheesecake activity that we witnessed this weekend reminded me of what we experienced that year with our race Team, and our quest to see how we stacked up against the best of the best…… The memories were not the good ones, and I would hope that similar memories are few and far between as we continue this great journey in FIRST…..

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by connor.worley

What are your thoughts on FIRST adopting a much longer build term or even going year round like VEX?

Our program is heavily involved in both VEX and FRC as you know.
We enjoy both very very much.
My wish is that FIRST either completely do one or the other and get rid of the in-between. The rules as it exists benefit some and not all. Without getting into details, it puts us at a disadvantage because of the traveling we need to do in order to compete. It also puts teams that only have the time to do just 1 robot at a huge disadvantage as well, if your robot is stuck in a bag, crated away from home once shipped to the initial event.

The old argument to not extending the build season was not to burnout mentors.
To me, that no longer holds valid.
The intensity of the program is now almost 4 months, if you expect to be competitive at the level of the elite teams that consistently make Einstein, generally speaking.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by marshall

Do it. Get rid of bag and tag. Teams already build multiple robots to subvert bag and tag. By removing it, you enable lower resource teams to compete at higher levels easier.

Interesting thought. Many (most?) teams compete at multiple regionals and districts (particularly the latter). So extending the build season won't really give late competing teams an advantage--the teams competing earlier will get an opportunity to learn from their experience.

Look at the average scores and OPRs this season. Some teams had remarkable turnarounds in the season. 195 and 1671 are excellent examples of teams that went to the elite level by working after their first regional. Shouldn't we encourage students to learn from their experiences and then apply those lessons?

[The Lucas]

Perhaps we need more transparency in regards to what constitutes every team's ROBOT and WITHHOLDING ALLOWANCE. We could achieve this by having a website available to all teams with pictures of all robots with all configuration parts (like they are at weigh in) and possibly the withholding allowance as well.

A short anecdote: At an early competition, this year a team started installing using their own can burglar arms late in competition (prior to that they had kept them off so they wouldn't get in the way). Many people approached me (an RI) and the rest of the inspection crew about the that team changing their robot without getting reinspected. We told them that yes they did get weighed with those arms and it wasn't really a problem. However, now I think about those countless people that noticed the change but didn't ask a RI for clarification. Are they suspicious that the team was breaking the rules? In absence of any simple tools to gather better info, are they saying things that damage that team's reputation behind their back when that team followed proper procedure? They probably have similar questions about the RIs.

There are already tools in place to manage all these pictures. If you went to events in MAR, California, or North Carolina, you may have seen volunteers using the GMS (Game Management System) Android app to manage inspection, queuing, judging, etc... In MAR inspections, the basic procedure is to take a picture of the robot at weigh in. This picture is accessible to other volunteers in the Team Notes. It would not be hard to extend this functionality to designate a Current Robot Pic to for public sharing on the website that GMS already runs. For those events not ready to deploy a broad solution like GMS, simply take pictures and upload them automatically or at the end of the day to a photo sharing site.

The withholding allowance is a little more difficult since pretty much the only requirements under R17 is it is under 30lbs and loaded in initially. It is a set of items in different places (in or out of bag, attached to a robot or held off until necessary). A change in the inspection process would be needed. Perhaps by the end of the first qualification day, teams should collect all off robot FABRICATED ITEMS (whether they came from the bag, withholding allowance, or fabricated from COTS at the event) for inspection and picture.

An additional benefit of public pictures of robots is that teams will not have to devote resources to taking pictures of robots during pit scouting and teams without these resources will get the info for free. This can improve traffic flow in the pits since getting a good picture in the crowded pits can cause traffic jams.


This game is ending, but there will be future games where multiple configurations to fit different strategies will be very beneficial. Teams will continue to reconfigure their robot and their partners. With rulings like this Q&A 440, the incentives for reconfiguration are even greater. Consider the possibility of a team building 2 nearly full weight configurations that complement each other strategically. They move their control system between the 2 configs to fit qualifying match pairings, getting reinspected each time. For the playoffs they pick a configuration for their robot and have a partner plug their control system into the other config. If we are going to allow this level of reconfiguration, at the very least, the public should be informed at every step of the process.

[AGPapa]

Originally Posted by The Lucas

This game is ending, but there will be future games where multiple configurations to fit different strategies will be very beneficial. Teams will continue to reconfigure their robot and their partners. With rulings like this Q&A 440, the incentives for reconfiguration are even greater. Consider the possibility of a team building 2 nearly full weight configurations that complement each other strategically. They move their control system between the 2 configs to fit qualifying match pairings, getting reinspected each time. For the playoffs they pick a configuration for their robot and have a partner plug their control system into the other config. If we are going to allow this level of reconfiguration, at the very least, the public should be informed at every step of the process.

Interestingly enough, a team tried this in the past.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=65363

In 2008 1519 has two different configurations (which, together, weighed inside the 120lb limit, so no need for re-inspection). It was designed so the control system could be taken out of one config and put into another. They were ruled illegal as the rules state that "Each registered FIRST Robotics Competition team can enter ONE (1) ROBOT into the 2008 FIRST Robotics Competition" and the inspectors considered each configuration a separate robot.

[Mastonevich]

Many times has been mentioned the 30 lb keep back limit in addition to any COTS.

What stops a team from bagging more than 120lbs?

Teams come in over weight at every regional. They reduce their weight and get inspected at 120 lbs. I think I have seen as much as 20lbs for some teams. What is the limit?

10, 20, 50, ?, ? lbs

[Scott Morgan]

Originally Posted by connor.worley

What are your thoughts on FIRST adopting a much longer build term or even going year round like VEX?

As far as I'm concerned the build season has already grown to cover the entire competition season. I'd probably be okay with a slightly longer build, or eliminating bag and tag, but a full year build season is out of the question for me as it would drastically lower my life expectancy.