Team Update 14 (2016)

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by dodar

Then give us an analogy that would fit this situation.

And bin grabbers from 2015 and minibot/minibot launchers from 2011 dont count.

A good analogy is all of the 469 clones that surfaced in 2010. In Michigan they have a lot of powerhouse teams that had the resources to copy their game breaking strategy and with unbag time unique to them. On top of that we had expanded withholding allowance rules in light of the massive snowfalls the northeast received that year. By MSC, nearly all of the major teams there had copied 469. Later on, 469 lost to 67 at World Championships with the mechanism they themselves had originated.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by BrennanB

Yes. No bag day would mean it is more realistic to copy entire robots/subsystems of robots. I am relatively confident that at least shooters/pickups/hangers/whatever will be copied on a much larger scale due to it just being easier to do. Thus upping general competitiveness and lowering design diversity.

So you believe teams will spend tens of thousands of dollars to "compete" early on and wait till good teams play and then try to copy what they have based off streams and then hope that what they tried to copy will help them maybe when a later regional?

Show me a team that will do that and I will show you the worst set of mentors in FIRST.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

A good analogy is all of the 469 clones that surfaced in 2010. In Michigan they have a lot of powerhouse teams that had the resources to copy their game breaking strategy and with unbag time unique to them. On top of that we had expanded withholding allowance rules in light of the massive snowfalls the northeast received that year. By MSC, nearly all of the major teams there had copied 469. Later on, 469 lost to 67 at World Championships with the mechanism they themselves had originated.

Post a link to 1 robot that copied 469 from 2010 and having it pay off significantly. I sure dont remember it.

[AllenGregoryIV]

We regularly make in season changes to our robot based on what other teams did that year and we are definitely doing it this year. The copies won't get you 100% there but they can definitely help. We did a full robot rebuild last year that got us at least into the playoffs at both our regionals and at championship. Last year we actually took a lot of inspiration from 118 and 1678 for the rebuild, so I guess we choose pretty well. Hopefully we don't have to do that much of a rebuild ever again but you can do a lot with 30 pounds of fabricated parts at 3 events. The bag rules make the changes harder but not impossible and even without them no one is going to take 254, 1114, or 118s design and make a better version during competition season, it's just not possible.

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by dodar

Post a link to 1 robot that copied 469 from 2010 and having it pay off significantly. I sure dont remember it.

Me either.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by cadandcookies

Could you explain to me why you don't think those "count"?

Because there was only a limited amount of ways to actually build these things, 99% were made to be modular to begin with, and to be competitive everyone had to build them to begin with.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by BrennanB

I think that's the point. Right now it's not realistic to just copy a robot because of bag day. Removing bag day may make it more feasible.

It's not realistic for most teams, but it is possible for some teams currently (with high resources).

Any time the combination of the rules and the metagame making something that only elite and well resourced teams can do a huge competitive advantage, it's a bummer.

It's not possible to level the playing field entirely, but the more we can remove areas where throwing time and money at the problem (past the point of diminishing returns for most teams) the better for everyone.

[Rangel]

Originally Posted by dodar

Then give us an analogy that would fit this situation.

And bin grabbers from 2015 and minibot/minibot launchers from 2011 dont count.

Not that I agree or disagree with the argument but why wouldn't bin grabbers and minibots count? If anything they are perfect arguments for teams cloning each other within the withholding allowance rules. In my view, it can definitely be argued that lessening the risk of copying would drastically increase copying. A team doesn't even have to commit to the situation being described where a team waits until week 1 of regionals to start building. They could just build two robots like they already do. One that they build to the best design they could come up with and another to copy another team if their design can't cut it.

I'm not sure where I stand on having bag day. I'm not so sure it would lift the bottom teams up all that much rather than just solidify the dominance of the elite teams. Even if elite teams mess up and have a bad year, they can just copy or redesign much more easily.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by AllenGregoryIV

We regularly make in season changes to our robot based on what other teams did that year and we are definitely doing it this year. The copies won't get you 100% there but they can definitely help. We did a full robot rebuild last year that got us at least into the playoffs at both our regionals and at championship. Last year we actually took a lot of inspiration from 118 and 1678 for the rebuild, so I guess we choose pretty well. Hopefully we don't have to do that much of a rebuild ever again but you can do a lot with 30 pounds of fabricated parts at 3 events. The bag rules make the changes harder but not impossible and even without them no one is going to take 254, 1114, or 118s design and make a better version during competition season, it's just not possible.

Yes, but you guys didnt build half a robot just trying to wait to see what 118 and 254 and 1114 built to copy it later. You modified what the complete robot you had, not just copying what they built and placing it on top of your half built robot.

[nikeairmancurry]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

A good analogy is all of the 469 clones that surfaced in 2010. In Michigan they have a lot of powerhouse teams that had the resources to copy their game breaking strategy and with unbag time unique to them. On top of that we had expanded withholding allowance rules in light of the massive snowfalls the northeast received that year. By MSC, nearly all of the major teams there had copied 469. Later on, 469 lost to 67 at World Championships with the mechanism they themselves had originated.

I totally disagree with this. Only 51 tried something similar as a re-director into the goals. Others just put up a piece of lexan to keep them on their side of the field.

No one could copy 469.

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by Rangel(kf7fdb)

Not that I agree or disagree with the argument but why wouldn't bin grabbers and minibots count? If anything they are perfect arguments for teams cloning each other within the withholding allowance rules. In my view, it can definitely be argued that lessening the risk of copying would drastically increase copying. A team doesn't even have to commit to the situation being described where a team waits until week 1 of regionals to start building. They could just build two robots like they already do. One that they build to the best design they could come up with and another to copy another team if their design can't cut it.

I'm not sure where I stand on having bag day. I'm not so sure it would lift the bottom teams up all that much rather than just solidify the dominance of the elite teams. Even if elite teams mess up and have a bad year, they can just copy or redesign much more easily.

They are places where the metagame placed an undue level of emphasis on because of how much of its overall value was tied to its weight w/r/t withholding allowance and the tight, high level requirements necessary to gain the desired competitive advantage led to design convergence "organically" in the way that mold organically gets in wet drywall.

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by dodar

Post a link to 1 robot that copied 469 from 2010 and having it pay off significantly. I sure dont remember it.

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

Me either.

Team 1815, 3rd overall pick at GTR in 2010.

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by nikeairmancurry

I totally disagree with this. Only 51 tried something similar as a re-director into the goals. Others just put up a piece of lexan to keep them on their side of the field.

No one could copy 469.

It's not your fault that this happened to you and dodar, but you are making the exact point I was trying to make. I created fiction to respond to the other fiction in the thread.

[BrennanB]

Originally Posted by nikeairmancurry

No one could copy 469.

And if a top level team had full access to their robot for 4-5 weeks before championships...? I'm sure people could do a decent copy.

[AllenGregoryIV]

Originally Posted by dodar

Yes, but you guys didnt build half a robot just trying to wait to see what 118 and 254 and 1114 built to copy it later. You modified what the complete robot you had, not just copying what they built and placing it on top of your half built robot.

We completely destroyed our bagged robot. it was down to an electronics panel, and two drive rails. The rest we built between week 1 and week 2 and at the event.

This year we bagged an intake and a drive train. In all likely hood by champs we will only be using the drive train still. The intake will probably get replaced and a whole lot will be mounted on top.