Why I think having no defense was a great idea

[rick.oliver]

Originally Posted by David Lame

Who are we trying to inspire? Ourselves? I don't think so. I think it's the rest of the world. Everyone who joins First is already inspired.

Dean Kamen says he wants to transform the world into a place where scientists and engineers are looked up to like sports heroes and entertainers are today. Well, if that's to be the case, we need to get people to look at us. We need to keep our game interesting and, well, sport-like.

I have a much different understanding of the Vision and Mission statement of F.I.R.S.T. as published on the website. Culture change is the goal, the strategy is to inspire young people. The sponsors with whom I have dealt over the years are most interested and excited by the development of future engineers, scientist and technologist. They understand the value of maintaining an inspired pipeline of innovative young women and men.

I very much enjoyed the absence of robot-to-robot interaction and the emphasis on consistency of execution. It illustrates the power of reliability.

[grstex]

I can't recall the last time teams were allowed to "de-score" or "steal" points from their opponent. The one example that sticks in my mind forever was team 25's 2000 robot.

I think defense gets something of a bad wrap because it's been mostly limited to pushing and blocking in recent years. I think if there was a game that opened up more defensive possibilities, then we'd have a chance to see more unique defensive specialists, and your basic "pusher-bot" would still get to play a role as counter-defense. Plus it would push high offense teams even harder.

[Abhishek R]

Originally Posted by grstex

I can't recall the last time teams were allowed to "de-score" or "steal" points from their opponent. The one example that sticks in my mind forever was team 25's 2000 robot.

I think defense gets something of a bad wrap because it's been mostly limited to pushing and blocking in recent years. I think if there was a game that opened up more defensive possibilities, then we'd have a chance to see more unique defensive specialists, and your basic "pusher-bot" would still get to play a role as counter-defense. Plus it would push high offense teams even harder.

What about in 2007, Rack And Roll?

[evanperryg]

I think the need for defense varies based on the game. The kind of defense we saw in 2014 would have ruined this game. Just look at 2003: the only truly successful stacker I know of, 67, was designed to make one stack and protect it from all the robots trying to plow bins and knock over stacks. The same would have applied to this game if there had been a significant amount of interaction. This is purely speculation, but even if scoring platforms had been "safe zones" and knocking over the other alliance's stacks would award them penalty points equal to the value of the wrecked stack, that mess of gamepieces would have crippled the scoring abilities of many teams. An inherent part of defense is that it is spontaneous and very on-the-fly. Sure, the ultimate goal of defense is to stop the other teams, but this year's game would have been too heavily impacted by even the slightest misstep in defense (knocking over another team's stack). This year's game was centered around very precise, intricate mechanisms that would never be viable if defense were present, and defense would have made scoring any points extremely difficult.

Different levels of defense suit different types of games. Just because defense was a valuable part of 2014 and many previous games, doesn't mean that it would contribute anything positive to this game.

[Ken Streeter]

Originally Posted by FIMAlumni

If I have all the data right here are the robots that have played at least 100 matches.

1023 has played 103 matches
125 has played 100 matches
and
1519 has played 100 matches

Wow, I never would have guessed our robot played the third-most official matches this year. If only we had got to the Carson semifinals (just one more noodle!) we would have tied Bedford Express!

Amazingly enough, this year's robot was maybe the most reliable one we have ever had -- the pit crew even mentioned it was "a boring robot" -- hopefully next year's will be even more boring!

[jtrv]

Strongly pro-defense game here.

Why? This year's game had ... zero counterplay. Zero strategy. Zero metagame development.

So how do you out-score the opponent? You better pray that you just get the luck of the gods and that the enemy screws up a few times. This year, the alliance that screwed up the least won. Sure, that sounds great - strive for absolute perfection. But most of the time, the screwing up is not always something you can help. Ex, your robot loses comms with the field. Then you look at the DS logs and it literally tells you nothing. "Oh you lost comms, nothing was wrong, your comms just cut out." and the assistants don't have an idea either.

No defense leads to very uniform designs. Sure, you had a lot of different designs this year. Did you see each of every design win? Absolutely not. The multi-bot self-stacking mechanisms destroyed everyone. They're stacking while scoring - maximum efficiency. Sure you had some ramp based bots, but in perfect execution, they won't keep up.

"Oh, the defense was the cans in the middle!" Yeah, for auton. That's it.

"You had noodle defense!" Hahah good luck throwing those things very far when every other team bends them at 180 degree angles and they rarely get replaced or people get fed up with replacing them each and every game.

There was zero strategy. It's like - "Okay, we'll score here, you score here, and you score here. Let's just hope for the best. Since X team grabs these two cans in auton then we go for the other two." That's it.

There weren't any clever strategies at all. Honestly. It's awful. No critical thinking during the competition, you're just going out and hoping to do your best.

[Ekcrbe]

Originally Posted by jtrv

The multi-bot self-stacking mechanisms destroyed everyone. They're stacking while scoring - maximum efficiency. Sure you had some ramp based bots, but in perfect execution, they won't keep up.

Where are you getting this idea from? Which "multi-bot" robots exactly are you referring to? In terms of the top-tier teams, I only think of one, and that's 148. Everyone else at the highest level of competition had one main robot, and a number did have ramps. The majority of robots on Einstein, however, were neither of these types. They were mostly integrated-ramp feeder stackers and can stealer/landfill stackers.

[BariSaxGuy]

One problem that I saw this year was that some teams didn't do anything, yet were told to just stay out of the way. In Kansas City one alliance had two Chute fed robots and one that could have used the landfill, but didn't do anything. Our alliance, partly due to lack of scouting knowledge, had three that used the landfill. A lot of those second-pick teams got lucky and had a high average from being on good alliances during qualifications. In 2014, we had a bot that was almost too light, and got pushed around, but we beat the 5th seeded alliance when the other two robots on our alliance were broken. So I really don't see a difference, with defense and no defense, teams just need to have effective designs that other people like to get picked.

[jtrv]

Originally Posted by Ekcrbe

Where are you getting this idea from? Which "multi-bot" robots exactly are you referring to? In terms of the top-tier teams, I only think of one, and that's 148. Everyone else at the highest level of competition had one main robot, and a number did have ramps. The majority of robots on Einstein, however, were neither of these types. They were mostly integrated-ramp feeder stackers and can stealer/landfill stackers.

Not every team with the self-stacking mechanism made it to Einstein - hence why I added the bit about complete perfection in execution... that in itself isn't possible, plus not that many teams even had a self-stacking mechanism. and if they did, most weren't well executed.

[Ekcrbe]

Originally Posted by jtrv

Not every team with the self-stacking mechanism made it to Einstein - hence why I added the bit about complete perfection in execution... that in itself isn't possible, plus not that many teams even had a self-stacking mechanism. and if they did, most weren't well executed.

Right. Execution is everything. There were a few of them, and a small proportion of them made it to Einstein. There were a lot of other types of robots, and a small proportion of them also made it to Einstein. I see none of this as having to do with what archetype they were and everything to do with the efficiency with which they worked on the field--a combination of good engineering and driver skill and practice. No one was playing under perfect conditions, so if a single-robot stacker had a lower ceiling than a multi-robot stacker (say 4 stacks compared to 5, which is what I think we could have seen) but the single robot could perform at a 75% level in the real world more consistently, that was the better choice. If you had the ability to get your multi-robot to that level too, then it was the better choice. But I wouldn't say that either is a better design or that one is inherently more likely to win competitions.

Many of the lower and middle range teams had similar looking robots and creativity really blossomed in the highest echelon. I think that's the same as most other years and that it's good for the game to see that pattern.

On all your other points I agree, though. I should have said that earlier.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Abhishek R

What about in 2007, Rack And Roll?

Spoilers could reduce score in Rack 'N Roll, but you were not allowed to remove game pieces (other than spoilers) from the rack. Removing game pieces is typically what's considered de-scoring. This has been allowed in some VRC games recently.

[WillNess]

Originally Posted by BariSaxGuy

yet were told to just stay out of the way.

In Arizona West there was a team who had a robot that was a box bot, with an arm that would pick up noodles. That was it, and it rarely worked. When we were on an alliance that's basically what we had to do.

[BenGuy]

Originally Posted by lynca

Agreed 2013 was the best mix of defense and offense.
2014 was way too much defense.
2015 was no defense.

I get upset when teams build fantastic scoring robots and lose to inferior robots built only for defense.

Hopefully the FRC GDC finds a good balance and rewards teams for building great robots !

Yeah, but we all have to remember - Dean Kamen's challenge (as usual) is to grow FIRST. 2013 and 2014 were much more fun to just watch, frisbees and balls flying everywhere and robots having to come up with complicated strategies, pushing wars, and robots smashing into each other. Spectators and potential future participants would have been much more intrigued and willing to join if it were as fun to watch as the last two years. Defense makes for a fun game.

[GreyingJay]

Originally Posted by WillNess

In Arizona West there was a team who had a robot that was a box bot, with an arm that would pick up noodles. That was it, and it rarely worked. When we were on an alliance that's basically what we had to do.

Obviously I can't speak for your team or for the noodle bot team, but I think there is a difference between a team that comes onto the field and essentially says "Ok, we know our robot doesn't do much, but we'll do our best and help out however we can", versus you telling them "just stay out of our way". One would hope that each team would be capable of judging how best they can help, even if the best thing to do is park in a corner.

My team can say "been there, done that". We went to our first regional with a lift that kept malfunctioning. In this year's game, if you can't pick up a tote or can, you literally can't do anything useful.