Did Lunacy really level the playing field?

[nlknauss]

It is sort of possible for us to level the playing field, right? In fact it happened a few times during this season. After a few competitions we began to see scoring mechanisms change, with shooters turning into dumpers and fans being added for propulsion. Because of the FIRST ethos we share ideas and make each other better. Many of the robots we saw at week 1 regionals reappeared differently at later competitions. It just depends on the teams and the resources they have available to them to make the changes happen.

I really doubt that FIRST would try to level the playing field of the entire competition. If that were the case they'd have to figure out how to limit the hard earned and developed resources of many of the teams out there. That really should never be tampered with, it would be like the salary cap in the NHL. The use of the wheels and the playing surface this year, from my perspective, is just a part of the game challenge and many of us just had to adapt.

[dqmot17]

i believe you really can't level the playing field with FIRST. There will always be teams like HOT, Wildstang, Thunder Chickens, that have more resources than everyone else (money, kids, mentors). The real goal of this year, was to try and be as good as them, with half the resources. That is what i think a rookie team should shoot for, is being as good as the 'name brand' team.... Rookies have lots of help, but even with the new challenge of Lunacy and the control system, the veteran teams will always have a lead...and you can't get rid of that lead without getting rid of mentors, and i don't think we can do that.

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by dqmot17

i believe you really can't level the playing field with FIRST. There will always be teams like HOT, Wildstang, Thunder Chickens, that have more resources than everyone else (money, kids, mentors). The real goal of this year, was to try and be as good as them, with half the resources. That is what i think a rookie team should shoot for, is being as good as the 'name brand' team.... Rookies have lots of help, but even with the new challenge of Lunacy and the control system, the veteran teams will always have a lead...and you can't get rid of that lead without getting rid of mentors, and i don't think we can do that.

There's ways to heavily argue this but for the most part I'd agree. Money, mentors, and resources don't grow on trees for these teams and I hate it when people assume this.

[Aren_Hill]

Originally Posted by dqmot17

There will always be teams like HOT, Wildstang, Thunder Chickens, that have more resources than everyone else (money, kids, mentors).

You dont need a crazy amount of resources to build a robot that plays on the same level as these guys, you just gotta think

us as an example

27ish kids
1 self employed architect
1 controls mentor
1 guy whos been in maintenance for awhile (knows too much random stuff)
1 retired mechanical engineer who only does our welding
and plenty of exuberant helpful parents

this years bot had no CNC'd parts on it, the most complicated parts were done on a manual mill, and there werent too many of those. The majority of teams ive seen at competitions could build our robot.

One of the biggest things ive seen that seperates the good from the best is the strategy the teams decide to play and how well they design the robot to suit it. I myself view week 1 and 2 of build when the idea is coming together as the most important step in determining your success that season.
Ive also seen team come up with an amazing strategy then start building the bot and keep making compromises and "settling" for less (dont do this lol).

So these "powerhouse do amazing every year teams" mainly just have their strategy system nailed down, and know how to build a robot to suit it, and also make it pretty because they've honed the efficiency to allow for the extra time of powdercoating anodizing etc.

[Akash Rastogi]

Aren has a very good case in 1625's example.

The other hand of this equation is that there are teams with the same resources as the teams mentioned prior, but do not put out the same quality robots.

[Chris is me]

Strategy and experience developing strategy are everything, in my opinion. There's a reason the best rookie in terms of Atlanta placing this year, 2753, was where they were: They were an accomplished FTC team, so they already knew how to come up with an effective strategy and a robot to meet that strategy.

That's probably why you see the same higher number teams winning, too. It's not as much "resources" as "experience playing in FIRST". If there's one thing I've learned about FIRST, is that it is 5000% strategy.

[XaulZan11]

I don't think the root cause for the gap between the successful and unsuccessful teams is the amount of resources (mentors, money, tools...), but a varying level of commitment. I think that some teams view FIRST has an 'after school activity,' rather than a 'varsity sport' or something more. Some teams don't go to offseason events, do demonstrations, try new drive systems in the fall, work 4+ days during build season. Their goals and expectations are drastically different than the 67s, 111s, 217s, 1114s. It is almost as if they are playing a completely different game. I think that it's important to remember that the people/teams that post here are no where near representative to all the teams in FIRST.

I think this level of commitment is the true cause for successful and unsuccessful teams. I think there is very little a game can do to 'level the playing field'. Even if you make a game where only kitbots can be made to push blocks into goals, some teams will spend 100x more time making the kitbot perfect, dreaming up and perfecting strategies, and practicing driving. Those teams that do this will do better than the teams that just build the kitbot in a day or two and practice an hour before the competition.

[sgreco]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

Strategy and experience developing strategy are everything, in my opinion. There's a reason the best rookie in terms of Atlanta placing this year, 2753, was where they were: They were an accomplished FTC team, so they already knew how to come up with an effective strategy and a robot to meet that strategy.

I wouldn't say all of 2753's success was because of FTC. Regardless of whether you've done FTC or not, it still takes a tremendous amount of skill and dedication to be good at FRC. It's a totally different challenge altogether to go from FTC to FRC. 2753 was just an absolutely amazing rookie team. Hats off to them on arguably one of the best rookie seasons ever.

I do agree that strategy is key though.

[Akash Rastogi]

The Case of 2753 (since you all are very interested):

Team Members: The members of Overdrive are highly experienced and dedicated homeschoolers. Dedication means they go out and learn on their own and from their very good mentors. Tyler, who frequents CD, is one of the most knowledgeable students I've ever talked to from a rookie team. The kids know how to run their team like clockwork.

Team Structure: very early in the season it was quite clear that Overdrive had one of the best team structures that worked for THEM. Find your own team structure that works for YOU. With a parent organization of Teen Technology they have funding and sponsor money when they need it.

Team Mentors: With awesome parents and engineers (some not even in the field of Mech E) Overdrive has flourished as an FRC team just as they did in FTC.

Team Bonds: Overdrive knows when to ask for help and who to get it from. If teams cannot understand this point that the education of a team is most important as soon as they start off, they cannot be as successful as Overdrive. They not only searched local teams for information (103, 25, 56, 11, 816) but also teams from far away (1114, 1771, 1323, many others). THEY DID THEIR HOMEWORK!!!

*Rant of Overdrive over*

My only hope for them is that they sustain this amount of success in the future. Success does not grow on trees, make the effort and "be excellent in everything you do and the results will just happen."

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pockets

Just curious, how would FIRST go about "leveling the playing field" if that was their aim?
[...]
So in a sense FIRST naturally balances the playing field.

You asked. I answer. Take a game like the set between 1999 and 2004 (inclusive).

Wait, what?

The common element between the games included is that they all have multiple types elements to control. Some are easier. Some are harder. Strategy may be easy (1999, control the puck, win the game) or hard (2002, ball or goal? You need both...) or impossible (2004, my team's strategy discussion turned into rock-paper-scissors before we figured out how to neutralize one while doing another). Oh, and do you a) do the winning strategy or b) do a complementary strategy that will get you picked? In 2004, my team could team with any of a particular class of robot (not our class) and do really well. But if you paired us up with a team similar to us, we'd most likely lose. We had a winning strategy. But we picked complementary strategies given the chance. I've explained in some of my previous posts in this thread how the balancing works in this kind of setup.

To some extent, you're right, the field is self-balancing. However, this is only to a certain extent. Some teams have perfected drives that work really, really well. They didn't use those this year because they couldn't. But, given a chance to use them to optimum effect, they will. Same with arms/lifts. Same with ball collectors. It's not totally balanced, because those teams have the experience, but they are willing to share that experience.

[Mr. Pockets]

Originally Posted by EricH

To some extent, you're right, the field is self-balancing. However, this is only to a certain extent. Some teams have perfected drives that work really, really well. They didn't use those this year because they couldn't. But, given a chance to use them to optimum effect, they will. Same with arms/lifts. Same with ball collectors. It's not totally balanced, because those teams have the experience, but they are willing to share that experience.

You're right, but for all intents and purposes wouldn't it be slightly impractical to try to take away a veteran team's advantage of experience.

Originally Posted by EricH

The common element between the games included is that they all have multiple types elements to control.
[...]
Oh, and do you a) do the winning strategy or b) do a complementary strategy that will get you picked? In 2004, my team could team with any of a particular class of robot (not our class) and do really well. But if you paired us up with a team similar to us, we'd most likely lose. We had a winning strategy. But we picked complementary strategies given the chance. I've explained in some of my previous posts in this thread how the balancing works in this kind of setup.

Didn't the three different types of game pieces count as different elements?
I also thought that there were complementary strategies used this year as well.

By the way, thanks for mentioning the other games. I need to look up what some of them were.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pockets

Didn't the three different types of game pieces count as different elements?

No, in 2004 you had 2 different game pieces and a completely separate goal, all three needed DIFFERENT manipulators. (Big Yellow balls, Small Purple? balls, Bar) This year there were 3 differently marked scoring pieces, all of which could be handled by any robot.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pockets

You're right, but for all intents and purposes wouldn't it be slightly impractical to try to take away a veteran team's advantage of experience.


Didn't the three different types of game pieces count as different elements?
I also thought that there were complementary strategies used this year as well.

By the way, thanks for mentioning the other games. I need to look up what some of them were.

Experience is the one thing that you cannot take away. You also cannot get it without having it. (If that makes sense... if not, PM me.)

What I meant was that each individual game had several types of game pieces (game elements) worth varying amounts of points. It didn't matter much if they were restricted to one alliance or open to anyone. The variety was amazing, as you might see (to take 2004) a bar-bot that was tall and a mouth-bot that opened very wide on the same alliance.

As for this year having complementary strategies, that's kind of debatable. You see, there was really only one main strategy: load balls into your opponents' trailers as fast as possible. Reload. Repeat. Compare that to 2004, where if you were a herder that could handle the doublers (60/254, 980, for example), you might want a better small-ball robot (like 33), but if you were going up against a bar-blocker like 330 or 190, you had a much smaller chance of success. However, if 330 and 190 were on the same alliance, they'd have very little chance of winning because they'd score a hundred points, but as soon as their opponents scored 10 5-pointers into the mobile goal and doubled that, it came down to human shooting. So they wanted somebody like 980 or 60/254 to increase chances of winning.

This year, it was either pin or score, or both. (Or score on a moving target, which was understandably difficult.)

[J93Wagner]

In my personal opinion, Lunacy or any other game will never truly be able to completely level the playing field. First of all, veteran teams will more than likely have effective strategy meetings at the beginning of build. Second, said veteran teams will more than likely have more resources (mentors, students, materials, time, and money). And lastly, those veteran teams will also know what they want to do during build because of EXPERIENCE. It makes a big difference to know what you and your team are doing.