Don't Ban Can Battles in Offseasons

[Kevin Leonard]

Originally Posted by DareDad

It may put an extra strain on the refs, but what I would suggest is that no team may remove a container from the step unless all containers on that side are already scored on top of stacks and only one container may be removed from the step at a time.

That removes the can battle deciding the match in the first 2 seconds.

It benefits fast stacking teams or teams that strategically place containers on short stacks.

Sadly, it could be bad news for Wave (probably the best robot of the year) since their partners wouldn't be able to grab from the step until they'd capped their third stack.

But overall I think that's a significantly better solution than the "let's throw more containers on the field" plan.

If this were implemented at the beginning of the season, tons of teams would have completely different robots.
It makes traditional-style can grabbers near-useless, makes capping far more valuable, and makes for some other interesting play, like (lets make 3 stacks of 1 so we can get the cans, then pick those up and turn them into stacks of 6).

I don't think its a useful rule change for an off-season, especially not a high end one.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by Kevin Leonard

If this were implemented at the beginning of the season, tons of teams would have completely different robots.
It makes traditional-style can grabbers near-useless, makes capping far more valuable, and makes for some other interesting play, like (lets make 3 stacks of 1 so we can get the cans, then pick those up and turn them into stacks of 6).

I don't think its a useful rule change for an off-season, especially not a high end one.

Totally agree. If this were the rules from the very beginning, we would have seen a lot more 1986-esque robots.

[carpedav000]

Originally Posted by dodar

Totally agree. If this were the rules from the very beginning, we would have seen a lot more 1986-esque robots.

OR a lot of 1024-esque strategies.

[Doug Frisk]

Originally Posted by Kevin Leonard

If this were implemented at the beginning of the season, tons of teams would have completely different robots.
It makes traditional-style can grabbers near-useless, makes capping far more valuable, and makes for some other interesting play, like (lets make 3 stacks of 1 so we can get the cans, then pick those up and turn them into stacks of 6).

I don't think its a useful rule change for an off-season, especially not a high end one.

Not useful?

As opposed to banning noodles? That removes about the only defensive capacity teams have.

Or perhaps you mean as opposed to just throwing so many cans on the field that can grabbers are pointless. That gives a huge advantage to a couple of machines and removes that competitive interaction over the cans on the step.

The 2 second can war is a chokehold so to address the chokehold you address the chokehold. By forcing teams to meet criteria before a can may be removed from the step, it removes the chokehold without removing the need for competition over the step cans to win a match.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by DareDad

Not useful?

As opposed to banning noodles? That removes about the only defensive capacity teams have.

Or perhaps you mean as opposed to just throwing so many cans on the field that can grabbers are pointless. That gives a huge advantage to a couple of machines and removes that competitive interaction over the cans on the step.

The 2 second can war is a chokehold so to address the chokehold you address the chokehold. By forcing teams to meet criteria before a can may be removed from the step, it removes the chokehold without removing the need for competition over the step cans to win a match.

Not allowing noodles to be thrown vs changing the stacking mechanics is totally different; and one doesnt change a team's robot design/strategy.

[Qbot2640]

Originally Posted by dodar

Not allowing noodles to be thrown vs changing the stacking mechanics is totally different; and one doesnt change a team's robot design/strategy.

Not true (albeit rare) 3971's innovative litter-grabber was responsible for their high rank at NC...and their subsequent ability to captain the finalist alliance (of which I commend their partner choices)...and their wild-card invitation to Championship (which, regrettably, finances prevented them from using).

Considering that in the finals every competitor scored litter was converted from a four point deficit to a one point positive, this was a tremendous addition to the alliance. If memory serves, 3971 put up 39 points in one match, and those two finals matches were decided by three and seven points respectively.

While I did not particularly like the litter-throwing aspect of the game, it is not universally correct to say it did not change a team's design/strategy.

EDIT: I failed to note that they also won the creativity award at NC.

[Carl C]

Originally Posted by Qbot2640

Not true (albeit rare) 3971's innovative litter-grabber was responsible for their high rank at NC...and their subsequent ability to captain the finalist alliance (of which I commend their partner choices)...and their wild-card invitation to Championship

...

If memory serves, 3971 put up 39 points in one match, and those two finals matches were decided by three and seven points respectively.

Their robot was as close to a defensive powerhouse as you could get with this year's game. It was a work of genius.

[Wayne TenBrink]

If it were up to a vote, I would vote against banning the can battle. (I'm on the planning committee for WMRI, so I get a real vote there.)

Teams build the best machines they can to play the game they are dealt at kickoff. In a well designed game, it takes a well rounded variety of bots to form a winning alliance. By fundamentally changing a hardware-specific aspect of the game, you cut the legs out from under teams that built for that task. I understand that losing the can battle puts you in a big hole in short order, but if you aren't competitive then perhaps you built the wrong robot or picked the wrong alliance partners. This game isn't perfect, but it is what it is.

There are ways to address the valid safety concerns that don't involve throwing out the baby with the bath water. This isn't the first game where stored energy devices are a concern. FIRST does a good job promoting many aspects of safety. However, there is a lot of room for improvement regarding stored energy.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by Wayne TenBrink

If it were up to a vote, I would vote against banning the can battle. (I'm on the planning committee for WMRI, so I get a real vote there.)

Teams build the best machines they can to play the game they are dealt at kickoff. In a well designed game, it takes a well rounded variety of bots to form a winning alliance. By fundamentally changing a hardware-specific aspect of the game, you cut the legs out from under teams that built for that task. I understand that losing the can battle puts you in a big hole in short order, but if you aren't competitive then perhaps you built the wrong robot or picked the wrong alliance partners. This game isn't perfect, but it is what it is.

There are ways to address the valid safety concerns that don't involve throwing out the baby with the bath water. This isn't the first game where stored energy devices are a concern. FIRST does a good job promoting many aspects of safety. However, there is a lot of room for improvement regarding stored energy.

I generally would agree with your sentiment, e.g., not changing the 2012-14 games because of the design parameters. However, this year is different. We are perhaps the most salient example of a team that built targeting the middle cans (and 118 might be another example). But for the Capital City Classic we're adopting the IRI/Chezy Champs rules. We see it as a challenge for our team in the fall, but it also makes it more competitive for other teams as well. (I might have approached this differently by changing the scoring, e.g., giving only a double point bonus to RCs instead of triple.)