Don't Ban Can Battles in Offseasons

[Doug Frisk]

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.

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.

[Doug Frisk]

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.

Oops, forgot to mention, the penalty for each infraction of removing a can from the step when not allowed would be to descore your highest scored container. That's a potential 24 point penalty for each container removed.

[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.

[Amit3339]

I can understand why those offseasons want to ban can battles, in playoffs it can destroy an alliance score in a specific match and even cost them in advancing during finals. I can say clearly that can battles are the most interesting thing in this year challange therefor I would recommend on adding an additional bin/s to each alliance like they did on IRI but decreasing the amount of bins on the step. That move will allow alliances that couldn't get some of the bins to actually advance during finals and will make the game more interesting.
but again... that's my opinnion

[themccannman]

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 he's referring to is the stored energy in most canburglars. If something breaks, that 200mph aluminum spear has no qualms about going straight through you. Even with multiple failsafes there are still opportunities for things to go wrong, particularly when teams are tensioning their mechanisms or when they remove the safeties after lining up the robot on the field.

It's especially dangerous when you're testing the mechanism. Making an error in the autonomous code could mean your robot spinning around before firing it's mechanism. I don't think any team has, or will ever go an entire season without making a mistake in auto. A mistake during auto this year could cost you more than just points.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[IronicDeadBird]

Originally Posted by 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.

Wow that is a really interesting compromise, shifts the game balance. Might have to steal this as an example of how subtle shifts in game rules can change a lot.

[AllenGregoryIV]

Originally Posted by IronicDeadBird

Wow that is a really interesting compromise, shifts the game balance. Might have to steal this as an example of how subtle shifts in game rules can change a lot.

One of the main thoughts was we didn't want a really high level team (cough 118 cough) to be able to intentionally race another team on the left side, win, and then immediately go get the other two cans during teleop. Their alliance wouldn't be able to put up the 7 RCs but they wouldn't need to and would almost be guaranteed a win.

The single restricted RC seemed to do it's job well this weekend at an event with a very wide range of robot skill levels. The entire rule set for TRI played out very nicely in my opinion, it drastically reduced penalties, and allowed the game play to come through. We ended up not having chute doors, not by choice, but because the field we were using just didn't have them and it wasn't to big of a problem for most teams.

[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.)