Did Lunacy really level the playing field?

[Jon Jack]

I also have to say that we spend a lot of time debating wide or long. We had several pages of notes on the pros and cons of both orientations, but in the end we decided that long was better for two reasons... 1) Made ball manipulation easier 2) It allowed us to squeeze through tight gaps to get to our target.

If we had to make the decision again, I'm not sure that we would have changed our orientation.

Overall Lunacy did not level the playing field...

I think in terms of designing this game made it easier on veteran teams. As Cory stated in his first post, there wasn't nearly as much time put into the drivetrain design as there were in previous years. All we did was redesign Tough Boxes to fit with our 'West Coast Drive'. Really by mid week 2 our drivetrain out of the design phase and into the fabrication phase. This left us with a lot of time to work out the finer details of our ball manipulation systems. By the end of week 4 we already had both superstructures welded (and one Powder Coated) and had started running balls through them. The first few iterations were NOT pretty and far from where they are now. However, having all of week 5 and most of week 6 to refine the superstructures was a big part of why we had the success we did.

Having a second robot to practice with was HUGE. I cannot stress this enough. Going into our first competition with ~40 hours of practice time in was huge. Not only did our driver already know how to drive on the FRP, but our driver and operator had already been working on how to stalk and attack trailers. Our operator knew when it was okay to let loose on a trailer and when not to.

On top of this after San Diego we went back and refined our strategies and design. We put our drive team through the ringer, putting them in pinning situations and then forcing them to have to work throughit and get out of it. While they were practicing trying to score in trailers, we'd have another robot coming up and pushing them out of the way.

We did the same thing after Las Vegas. We would refine the design, play matches, create and play through scenarios.

Lunacy did have glaring flaws though that gave it the perception that it was 'leveling the playing field'
1) Too much reliance on alliance partners
2) Too much freedom for human players
3) Lack of pinning rule or vehicle for pinned robots to get out of a pin

I don't think these game features were put in to intentionally 'level the playing field' but instead these were overlooked by the GDC and once announced at kick-off they would have been too drastic of changes to implement in an update or Q&A.

[ShaunT]

Originally Posted by Jon Jack

3) Lack of pinning rule or vehicle for pinned robots to get out of a pin

I don't know how it worked for robots like your narrow body, but with a wide body you can get out. It might take more time than you have to be stuck in one spot, but you can eventually spin out using the carpet on the edge. And if you had crab, you really were not pinnable as you could always just drive away using the carpet. (Of course, this all assumes one robot is trying to pin you. If it's a two on one, game over.)

[Jon Jack]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

The reason that there was a rim of carpet around the field was to get out of pins. Robots could be designed to get out of pins (stuff like swerve and a generally powerful drivetrain helps, which indeed did benefit the veterans who had them, but even that wasn't necessary and some veterans dropped swerve this year). Pinning was an issue that the GDC couldn't make more obvious was going to be a big part of the game, and teams that designed robots and strategies to get around rudimentary defense would win, big.

I don't see how relying on your alliance partners is a flaw for this competition at all. It's a team event intentionally; picking your team correctly is the difference between being a winning team and having a quality alliance upset in Round 1.

18" of carpet is not enough carpet to give a pinned team any kind of traction advantage. Look at how many 'shut down' pins there were this year. It's not like the drivers just simply let go of the controls and said 'oh well, we're done'.

Really, there was only so much torque you could put into these wheels before you slipped (Here is a simple lesson on why). So I don't know how much having a 'powerful drivetrain' helped. Having a swerve didn't help that much with pinning either. I've seen several swerve drives get shoved in a corner and shut down. The one thing a swerve did help with was strafing left and right to follow a goal or break from a potential pin before the pin occurs (exampe, 111, 1717).

When it comes to relying on alliance partners, I was referring to qualification matches (the elims are a different situation). This is a team sport, alliances need to work together. However having a partner no-show or die in the middle of the match should never seal a victory for the other alliance. I've lost track of how many matches I've watched with no-show/dead robots this year. Out of those matches I saw two, maybe three matches all year where the under-manned alliance pulled off a victory.

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by Jon Jack

18" of carpet is not enough carpet to give a pinned team any kind of traction advantage. Look at how many 'shut down' pins there were this year. It's not like the drivers just simply let go of the controls and said 'oh well, we're done'.

Really, there was only so much torque you could put into these wheels before you slipped (Here is a simple lesson on why). So I don't know how much having a 'powerful drivetrain' helped. Having a swerve didn't help that much with pinning either. I've seen several swerve drives get shoved in a corner and shut down. The one thing a swerve did help with was strafing left and right to follow a goal or break from a potential pin before the pin occurs (exampe, 111, 1717).

When it comes to relying on alliance partners, I was referring to qualification matches (the elims are a different situation). This is a team sport, alliances need to work together. However having a partner no-show or die in the middle of the match should never seal a victory for the other alliance. I've lost track of how many matches I've watched with no-show/dead robots this year. Out of those matches I saw two, maybe three matches all year where the under-manned alliance pulled off a victory.

I believe Jon hit the nail on the head with this. Even Beatty and WildStang had some trouble maneuvering around GOOD opponents.

[ShaunT]

Originally Posted by Jon Jack

18" of carpet is not enough carpet to give a pinned team any kind of traction advantage. Look at how many 'shut down' pins there were this year. It's not like the drivers just simply let go of the controls and said 'oh well, we're done'.

That depends on how you get pinned. If you get pinned into one of the alliance station foam pads, you are stuck there until an alliance partner peels off the pinner. However, in the middle along the sides 18" is plenty of carpet to keep from being pinned. If you are sitting at one of the ends of the field you are just asking for trouble.

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

Even Beatty and WildStang had some trouble maneuvering around GOOD opponents.

Maneuvering in the open field and maneuvering out of pins are two completely different situations.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by ShaunT

That depends on how you get pinned. If you get pinned into one of the alliance station foam pads, you are stuck there until an alliance partner peels off the pinner. However, in the middle along the sides 18" is plenty of carpet to keep from being pinned. If you are sitting at one of the ends of the field you are just asking for trouble.



Maneuvering in the open field and maneuvering out of pins are two completely different situations.

eh, when you talk about two robots pinning one, they can do it anywhere they feel like it; carpet doesn't help a bit.

[ShaunT]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

eh, when you talk about two robots pinning one, they can do it anywhere they feel like it; carpet doesn't help a bit.

In no situation was I referring to a two on one. You are correct, if they play it right two robots will be able to pin another robot for a whole match. However, now it's their third robot against your two alliance partners. It will not usually be a winning strategy to double pin any robot, unless it is a qualifying match where there is clearly only one scoring robot on a particular alliance.

[Chris is me]

But if you have two robots on one, then you have two robots able to score versus one scorer, with two completely free targets to get hit by HPs and robots, there's a bit of risk and reward to that strategy. 2 on 1 pins were rarely beneficial for an alliance, unless each alliance basically only had one good scorer.

Shaun beat me to it.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

But if you have two robots on one, then you have two robots able to score versus one scorer, with two completely free targets to get hit by HPs and robots, there's a bit of risk and reward to that strategy. 2 on 1 pins were rarely beneficial for an alliance, unless each alliance basically only had one good scorer.

Shaun beat me to it.

1717 used it very effectively against us in the galileo semis. They would pin and score, and 2775 would finish off the pin. game over for us.

[Chris is me]

The reason that there was a rim of carpet around the field was to get out of pins. Robots could be designed to get out of pins (stuff like swerve and a generally powerful drivetrain helps, which indeed did benefit the veterans who had them, but even that wasn't necessary and some veterans dropped swerve this year). Pinning was an issue that the GDC couldn't make more obvious was going to be a big part of the game, and teams that designed robots and strategies to get around rudimentary defense would win, big.

I don't see how relying on your alliance partners is a flaw for this competition at all. It's a team event intentionally; picking your team correctly is the difference between being a winning team and having a quality alliance upset in Round 1.

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

The reason that there was a rim of carpet around the field was to get out of pins.

I thought it was because FRP came in 8x50 rolls, and 3 rolls would leave a gap on the standard 27x54 field.

[Jon Jack]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

I thought it was because FRP came in 8x50 rolls, and 3 rolls would leave a gap on the standard 27x54 field.

FRP does not come in 8' x 50' rolls unless it is a custom order. FIRST had to custom order the FRP. The 18" gap was intended to give teams a tractional advantage when they were on the side of the field.

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

I thought it was because FRP came in 8x50 rolls, and 3 rolls would leave a gap on the standard 27x54 field.

Haha, Gary is a master of logic.

Originally Posted by ShaunT

Maneuvering in the open field and maneuvering out of pins are two completely different situations.

If you did not realize, I was talking about you guys and your driving.

And for those arguing about wanting to level the playing field, there is a reason I have this quote in my signature since the end of Championships this year and there is a reason for what my custom user title says. I agree with Adam about everything in his last post (#55) Well stated. People need to want something and reach out and grab it. Make the attempt, whether you succeed or fail in reaching your final goal the first time around, you have built a foundation for even greater development.

I hate that every year people turn this competition into whining rather than winning.

[Mr. Pockets]

Just curious, how would FIRST go about "leveling the playing field" if that was their aim? This has been my first season, but the way I see it the mere fact that the game changes every year should be more than enough in terms of keeping things level.

The fact that the game always is changing means that teams always have to come up with new ideas to adapt to the new game environment. This gives an advantage to both sides.

Rookies come in with no preconceived notions of how things "should be done" and are theoretically more able to think outside the box, though they may lack the technical understanding that comes with experience.

Veterans have to forget much of the strategies and rules from previous years and develop a totally new mentality, but at the same time have greater experience

So in a sense FIRST naturally balances the playing field.

[bobwrit]

I don't think it did level the playing feild. Mainly because of the influence of the human player on the game. Large teams have a larger talent pool to pick from so their more likely to have a realy good human player, and they could have a better chance of having a good driver, which was what it took to win.