Don't Ban Can Battles in Offseasons

[Ty Tremblay]

I'll admit it. Recycle Rush is not an exciting game to watch. It was a fun puzzle to try and solve, but not a fun game to play. There just aren't that many exciting moments. The one exciting moment Recycle Rush does have, however, is the can battle. And removing can battles turns an already boring game into a snooze fest.

Now before you hit the reply button and say that can battles ruined the game, I agree with you. But as we've seen before, games with no interaction with the opponents (or no opponents, a la 2001) are boring. They simply dissolve into a race against the clock. There's no change in strategy between matches unless an alliance member breaks, no affecting the other alliance, no off-field chess matches like 2014 Einstein. It's just robots doing a task until time runs out.

Why take the only interaction between alliances out of the game? The answer is balance. Canburglars are overpowered. If you have a the fastest one, you have a huge advantage over your opponent. Losing all 4 cans in auto is a devastating blow for your alliance, making it almost impossible to win the match. It's unfortunate that FIRST didn't manage to balance canburglars, but that doesn't mean they should be eliminated from the game.

There are two ways to help bring balance to a game with an overpowered element. You can remove (ban) the element or you can reduce its effectiveness (nerf it). As I said earlier, removing canburglars from takes an already boring game and turns it into a set of drills. Why not nerf canburglars instead?

IRI and Chezy Champs have already taken steps toward nerfing can battles (if you ignore the fact that they're also explicitly banned), by adding 2 and 3 cans to each side of the field, respectively. They've reduced the advantage an alliance can gain by winning all 4 cans in auto, nerfing the can battle. If an alliance loses all 4 cans in auto at IRI, they still have 5 cans to work with. If an alliance loses all 4 cans in auto at Chezy Champs, they still have 6 cans to work with. Remember, this is a game where the highest score in the world was achieved with 6 cans.

Don't ban can battles from your offseason, nerf them. Bring them to a point where winning the battle is an advantage, not a necessity.

Braces for impact.

[Michael Corsetto]

Safety is my number one reason for removing the can battles. I'm glad their gone, it means my kids are more likely to live into their 20's.

-Mike

[logank013]

Originally Posted by Ty Tremblay

I'll admit it. Recycle Rush is not an exciting game to watch. It was a fun puzzle to try and solve, but not a fun game to play. There just aren't that many exciting moments. The one exciting moment Recycle Rush does have, however, is the can battle. And removing can battles turns an already boring game into a snooze fest.

Now before you hit the reply button and say that can battles ruined the game, I agree with you. But as we've seen before, games with no interaction with the opponents (or no opponents, a la 2001) are boring. They simply dissolve into a race against the clock. There's no change in strategy between matches unless an alliance member breaks, no affecting the other alliance, no off-field chess matches like 2014 Einstein. It's just robots doing a task until time runs out.

Why take the only interaction between alliances out of the game? The answer is balance. Canburglars are overpowered. If you have a the fastest one, you have a huge advantage over your opponent. Losing all 4 cans in auto is a devastating blow for your alliance, making it almost impossible to win the match. It's unfortunate that FIRST didn't manage to balance canburglars, but that doesn't mean they should be eliminated from the game.

There are two ways to help bring balance to a game with an overpowered element. You can remove (ban) the element or you can reduce its effectiveness (nerf it). As I said earlier, removing canburglars from takes an already boring game and turns it into a set of drills. Why not nerf canburglars instead?

IRI and Chezy Champs have already taken steps toward nerfing can battles (if you ignore the fact that they're also explicitly banned), by adding 2 and 3 cans to each side of the field, respectively. They've reduced the advantage an alliance can gain by winning all 4 cans in auto, nerfing the can battle. If an alliance loses all 4 cans in auto at IRI, they still have 5 cans to work with. If an alliance loses all 4 cans in auto at Chezy Champs, they still have 6 cans to work with. Remember, this is a game where the highest score in the world was achieved with 6 cans.

Don't ban can battles from your offseason, nerf them. Bring them to a point where winning the battle is an advantage, not a necessity.

Braces for impact.

I do have to say I agree. Now having 5 cans at IRI guaranteed is a great advantage. Can battles are not as important but are still important. Therefore, teams would still like to make their can burglars faster if the can battles are still like the battles at worlds. When you take the rule at IRI, you basically are guaranteed 7 cans. It now won't matter if it takes 2 seconds to get the cans in auto or the full 15 seconds. Going out on a limb here, I would guess that most teams with a can burglar has an auto for the can burglar. Basically, what IRI is doing is trying to prevent powerhouse teams from spending another couple thousand dollars on making their can burglars a split second faster. They also want to make it so teams aren't mad if their burglar get destroyed mid competition and again, preventing that extra cost. I believe the ultimate goal is to have teams save money on the off season. that's what a lot of events are doing.

A rule change that would be cool is if they did something like this: You have to wait 5 seconds into auto to touch the cans on the left side. Then, teams that have fast burglars still have the advantage but don't have to worry about speeding the can burglars up. A team that has a 4 second can burglar doesn't have to be concerned about a team with a 3 second auto. So then, you can line up 4 robots at the step (like at worlds) but have the robots on the left side on a 4.9 second delay so they still get the cans in auto. Then, it would be more like worlds where having a good auto truly does matter.

Tell me what you think, I hope all of what I said made sense. Thanks for reading

[logank013]

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

Safety is my number one reason for removing the can battles. I'm glad their gone, it means my kids are more likely to live into their 20's.

-Mike

Has a can launching into the stands ever been a concern? (This is a sincere question. I can't be at every event so I'm just curious.

[T^2]

Originally Posted by logank013

Has a can launching into the stands ever been a concern? (This is a sincere question. I can't be at every event so I'm just curious.

I'd be more worried about a carbon fiber rod splintering into many pieces and flying everywhere.

[logank013]

Originally Posted by T^2

I'd be more worried about a carbon fiber rod splintering into many pieces and flying everywhere.

Didn't think about that... lol... but obviously first didnt think that was an issue and, I don't know of any matches where flying parts have been an issue. I definitely could see that as a concern though.

[Nathan Streeter]

I agree that banning the can battles is silly (if the concern is 'game-breaking')... particularly because even at the highest levels at CMP, they weren't game-breaking at all! It almost always came down to 'who scored the most totes, made the most of their RCs, and/or just consistently avoided mistakes.'

The winning alliance of 118-1678-1671 won or tied on the cans against the alliance of 987-2826-2512, but I think the real reason why 118-1678-1671 won was because they avoided mistakes and kept scoring totes in the finals, whereas 987-2826-2512 had their worst two Einstein matches in the finals. They scored 232 (5 RCs), 256 (4 RCs), 271 (5 RCs), and 283 (6 RCs) in the QF and SF matches with video on TBA... If they had scored at the levels they scored in the QFs and SFs with only the 4 or 5 RCs they got in the Finals, they could've won.

This isn't to dig up difficult memories for 987, 2826, and 2512... (although I know how hard it is to lose on Einstein; they honestly have a ton to be proud of with their machines, their performance at CMP, and their 270pt average in the SF of Einstein), but is a case-study in the fact that even at the highest levels, consistent performance was still more important than Canburgling... Granted, if both alliances perform 'perfectly' canburglars are still the tie-breaker, but if an alliance could score 250pts every single time with only 4 RCs (particularly if they sometimes capped a 5th stack), I think they would've won on Einstein.

[logank013]

Originally Posted by Nathan Streeter

I agree that banning the can battles is silly (if the concern is 'game-breaking')... particularly because even at the highest levels at CMP, they weren't game-breaking at all! It almost always came down to 'who scored the most totes, made the most of their RCs, and/or just consistently avoided mistakes.'

The winning alliance of 118-1678-1671 won or tied on the cans against the alliance of 987-2826-2512, but I think the real reason why 118-1678-1671 won was because they avoided mistakes and kept scoring totes in the finals, whereas 987-2826-2512 had their worst two Einstein matches in the finals. They scored 232 (5 RCs), 256 (4 RCs), 271 (5 RCs), and 283 (6 RCs) in the QF and SF matches with video on TBA... If they had scored at the levels they scored in the QFs and SFs with only the 4 or 5 RCs they got in the Finals, they could've won.

This isn't to dig up difficult memories for 987, 2826, and 2512... (although I know how hard it is to lose on Einstein; they honestly have a ton to be proud of with their machines, their performance at CMP, and their 270pt average in the SF of Einstein), but is a case-study in the fact that even at the highest levels, consistent performance was still more important than Canburgling... Granted, if both alliances perform 'perfectly' canburglars are still the tie-breaker, but if an alliance could score 250pts every single time with only 4 RCs (particularly if they sometimes capped a 5th stack), I think they would've won on Einstein.

I'm not sure that I agree. 148 and 1114 were putting up 6 or 7 stacks each match. If they have only 4 bins. that's a 72 point difference between no bins or bins on 3 stacks. Most of the alliances on Einstein were putting up 5-7 stacks a time. The difference between 3 or 7 bins was massive. this is just my opinion but, I'd like to see what others say too

[AllenGregoryIV]

We are compromising at TRI.

The furthest left RC is off limits for each alliance. This means the two center cans are still up for grabs by both sides. The thought process being that most alliances at an average to weak off-season won't put up more then 4 capped stacks so protecting a single RC is enough and it allows the robots that are built to grab the center cans (610, 2587, etc) to continue to do that. We aren't adding RCs to the field.

[Nathan Streeter]

Originally Posted by logank013

I'm not sure that I agree. 148 and 1114 were putting up 6 or 7 stacks each match. If they have only 4 bins. that's a 72 point difference between no bins or bins on 3 stacks. Most of the alliances on Einstein were putting up 5-7 stacks a time. The difference between 3 or 7 bins was massive. this is just my opinion but, I'd like to see what others say too

148 and 1114 (particularly 1114) struggled mightily in their last two matches; SF 3 and 6. They scored 190 in SF3, possessing 4 RCs but only using 3... then scored 210 in SF6, with 4 RCs possessed and scored. By my argument, if they'd just scored that 4th RC in SF3 or if 1114 had just scored more totes, they could've gotten the 6 points they needed to make it to the finals. By your argument, if they'd stolen another RC from 118-1678-1671 in SF6 and scored it, they would've made it to the Finals.

Either way, 1114 had some of their worst matches of the season in the SF on Einstein... even if they and 1923 stole only 1 can collectively in both of those matches, and 1114 had just cleared the landfill and scored 1 RC, they would've moved onto the Finals.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by logank013

Has a can launching into the stands ever been a concern? (This is a sincere question. I can't be at every event so I'm just curious.

The danger that Mike alludes to is setting up two hyperfast can grabbers with hair triggers.

[logank013]

Originally Posted by Nathan Streeter

148 and 1114 (particularly 1114) struggled mightily in their last two matches; SF 3 and 6. They scored 190 in SF3, possessing 4 RCs but only using 3... then scored 210 in SF6, with 4 RCs possessed and scored. By my argument, if they'd just scored that 4th RC in SF3 or if 1114 had just scored more totes, they could've gotten the 6 points they needed to make it to the finals. By your argument, if they'd stolen another RC from 118-1678-1671 in SF6 and scored it, they would've made it to the Finals.

Either way, 1114 had some of their worst matches of the season in the SF on Einstein... even if they and 1923 stole only 1 can collectively in both of those matches, and 1114 had just cleared the landfill and scored 1 RC, they would've moved onto the Finals.

I have to agree on the 1114 stand point. If they don't have a can on top, it fails them. also, their robot seemed to fail even with a can on top. I meant earlier on, they could score that high... my point is with all the powerhouse teams in essentially 1 division at IRI, then each alliance can put 7 stacks up. especially in finals. that is why the can battles are important. 148 would also put up 4 stacks each match with no problems. so it still was important

[Loose Screw]

Originally Posted by logank013

... my point is with all the powerhouse teams in essentially 1 division at IRI, then each alliance can put 7 stacks up. especially in finals. that is why the can battles are important. 148 would also put up 4 stacks each match with no problems. so it still was important

I think this point works in favor of removing the can wars for offseason events. It places a greater weight on consistency and scoring beyond 7 or 8 stacks. Yes, adding two or three RCs to each side helps lessen the importance of the can wars. Scoring 5 or 6 42pt stacks is challenging for most alliances, but if you only have 5 or 6 RCs to work with, the other alliance just needs to score one more to get ahead and win.

With IRI in mind, a 7-7 split becomes a match of consistency and totes. If both alliances can score all their RCs (not hard with 2+2+3 split), then the other points come into play. After your alliance makes 7 42pt stacks, there are 21 totes left to be scored (auto totes can be scored), 3 noodles to throw, and 32 potential auto points. With most alliances being able to do a 20pt auton and the 4pt auto impossible with the tethers, that leaves an 8pt advantage for teams that can do a 28pt auto. 2*21+3*4+8=62 points. The alliance that gets the most of those 62 points will win IRI.

Let's put this in an example with 2826, 148, and 254 on an alliance, and a nameless alliance to go against. For this example, it will be IRI rules with the can wars still existing. 2826 gets their 28pt auto, but their alliance loses the 4 RCs in the war. 2826 and 148 clear out the HP zone and 254 clears the landfill, scoring 5 42pt stacks and 33 totes. They get all the noodles on the other side. With this set up, we can calculate the number of just 42pt stacks the other side would need to score to win.

2826, 148, 254
28+42*5+33*2+4*5 = 324 points

Unnamed Alliance
20+42*x > 324, x=8, or x=7 if they can score 10 points elsewhere.

You have a case here where an alliance can score every possible point available to them, but still lose. This is definitely better than Worlds as they have to score 7 or 8 42pt stacks rather than 4 or 5.

In my opinion, the 7-7 split is the best and most exciting option that IRI could have went with. It becomes a battle of consistency and scoring beyond 7 stacks, rather than a 0.1 second faster burglar. Another thing to note is that it won't always be 7-7; teams can miss their cans in auto and lose them to the other side in teleop. It is my belief that removing the can wars balances Recyle Rush to its fullest potential.

[Kevin Leonard]

Originally Posted by Loose Screw

I think this point works in favor of removing the can wars for offseason events. It places a greater weight on consistency and scoring beyond 7 or 8 stacks. Yes, adding two or three RCs to each side helps lessen the importance of the can wars. Scoring 5 or 6 42pt stacks is challenging for most alliances, but if you only have 5 or 6 RCs to work with, the other alliance just needs to score one more to get ahead and win.

With IRI in mind, a 7-7 split becomes a match of consistency and totes. If both alliances can score all their RCs (not hard with 2+2+3 split), then the other points come into play. After your alliance makes 7 42pt stacks, there are 21 totes left to be scored (auto totes can be scored), 3 noodles to throw, and 32 potential auto points. With most alliances being able to do a 20pt auton and the 4pt auto impossible with the tethers, that leaves an 8pt advantage for teams that can do a 28pt auto. 2*21+3*4+8=62 points. The alliance that gets the most of those 62 points will win IRI.

Let's put this in an example with 2826, 148, and 254 on an alliance, and a nameless alliance to go against. For this example, it will be IRI rules with the can wars still existing. 2826 gets their 28pt auto, but their alliance loses the 4 RCs in the war. 2826 and 148 clear out the HP zone and 254 clears the landfill, scoring 5 42pt stacks and 33 totes. They get all the noodles on the other side. With this set up, we can calculate the number of just 42pt stacks the other side would need to score to win.

2826, 148, 254
28+42*5+33*2+4*5 = 324 points

Unnamed Alliance
20+42*x > 324, x=8, or x=7 if they can score 10 points elsewhere.

You have a case here where an alliance can score every possible point available to them, but still lose. This is definitely better than Worlds as they have to score 7 or 8 42pt stacks rather than 4 or 5.

In my opinion, the 7-7 split is the best and most exciting option that IRI could have went with. It becomes a battle of consistency and scoring beyond 7 stacks, rather than a 0.1 second faster burglar. Another thing to note is that it won't always be 7-7; teams can miss their cans in auto and lose them to the other side in teleop. It is my belief that removing the can wars balances Recyle Rush to its fullest potential.

You forget step totes! (And upside-down totes, but that's just too ridiculous to even discuss as a joke)

Depending on how consistent your top teams at IRI are (1114, 148, 118, etc.) It is possible (although unlikely), for an alliance to want to score step totes as well (meaning they'd want 225, because no one else has shown they can do it that is going).

The conditions for this to occur are very difficult, though. It would require two robots to together clear the feeder station of totes, and some of the landfill, and that they can do this while using up all 7 cans they have available on stacks of 6.
With the ability to start with a can inside your robot, as well as begin the match with a stack partially built (yellow totes), I think its possible an alliance would want the ability to score those.

I really want to see the game progress to that point, but I doubt it will.

As for banning can battles in off-seasons, I think it was necessary for IRI and Chezy Champs. Team have been known to make major changes (sometimes even building entirely new robots) to be competitive at IRI, and an arms race for the fastest can grabber before IRI would be unproductive.

At other off-seasons? I would keep can battles. No one is making an entirely new can grabbing system for the Tech Valley Robot Rumble (or so I hope), because its a fun off-season event not intended to be super-competitive. Teams will use the can grabbers they had from during the season, and teams will retain the edge they had in-season when can grabbers were so important.

[orangelight]

Originally Posted by T^2

I'd be more worried about a carbon fiber rod splintering into many pieces and flying everywhere.

I believe we only broke one rod during the season. Broken carbon fiber hurts.