FIRST Rule Changes

[JohnBoucher]

I appreciate you bringing this topic up. It worthy of discussion. I must say that I take exception to the phrase "game exploit scheme". Isn't having a different solution what all teams want? My elevator pitch to bring outsiders to a regional is that all 60 teams have a common challenge and there are 60 different solutions to that challenge. There are going to be teams that have very unique solutions.
Example: 2004 FIRST Frenzy: Raising the Bar. There was a 50 point bonus awarded for hanging on the 10' bar at the end of the match. We had one of those "game exploit scheme" ideas of moving back and forth across that bar and defending it. Only 3 or 4 teams total did that. We dominated our first regional and then got our butts handed to us once others understood what we were doing and how to defend it.

The competition is the big leveler. It will be defendable. We're looking for 1700 different ways to play this years challenge. That's why we keep coming back.

[GaryVoshol]

We often think of exploitation as being negative. Dictionary.com gives 3 senses of exploit - positive, negative and neutral:

–verb (used with object)
1.to utilize, esp. for profit; turn to practical account: to exploit a business opportunity.
2.to use selfishly for one's own ends: employers who exploit their workers.
3.to advance or further through exploitation; promote: He exploited his new movie through a series of guest appearances.

Taking advantage of game rules for the team's benefit is exploitation of those rules, but in and of itself that is neither positive or negative. It's how teams should look at strategy.

If a team thought any particular strategy or design would be negative exploitation of the rules and chose not to do it, that's their decision. That another team decided it would be a positive benefit is another decision. Neither is right or wrong.

[Lil' Lavery]

Dick,

Your whole argument is based around one core opinion that you have.

"Loopers hurt the quality of the game."

I, and many others, disagree.

Even ignoring the other fundamental differences and horrific flaws in your argument, the core that you base it around is a matter of opinion, not fact. Once you accept that, you'll realise why the GDC should not, and will not, change the rule you are suggesting to be changed.

[Rob]

Did anyone stop to consider that the gdc may have thought of this design/strategy while creating the game and purposly written the rules in a way that would allow it?

When reading over the rules that govern these areas it strikes me how each is worded in a way that specifically allows this strategy and design as long as the robot is built in a very specific way.

Perhaps sensitive to the (IMO well founded) criticism that the rules of Lunacy limited the creativity of the competing teams the GDC chose to leave an Easter Egg for us to find. Only the most creative and outside the box thinking teams could gain from it, and it is still not an easy ting to pull off.

Rob

[Kevin Sevcik]

I'll chime in as having though of this idea and prematurely discarded it as well. We figured it'd be too difficult to pull off consistently. Mostly because you're at the mercy of other teams sitting there looping balls. We figured hanging off the tower with a looping mechanism would leave us too exposed to being mangled by other teams. Clearly we didn't follow that thought through and examine how we could mitigate that problem. Very clearly 469 did; the wedge system and those vertical supports make this obvious.

At no point did we think to discard the idea simply because it was too good. Once the GDC allowed it in Update #2, we considered it fair game, but ultimately discarded it.

Fundamentally, trying to guess the GDC's intent/philosophy for the game and design to that is going to be pointless and frustrating to you on an annual basis. The GDC often isn't sure what their opinion is on certain matters. To co-opt Rob's argument above... Did anyone stop to consider that the GDC may not have originally considered this idea strategy and didn't know what they thought of it? And then the Q&A's on it came in very early in build and they had plenty of time to consider it, decide, and notify teams of their decision. And at a point when it wouldn't cripple a team that made that design choice.

So, it's much better to read the rules as written, find your strategies, and the ask a Q&A if any of them look too good to be true. As long as you ask an appropriately general question, the GDC is prompt about answering and others aren't going to leap to your exact design solution. There's really no risk in the whole process as long as you make sure your Q&A actually covers your design, but is couched in general terms so the GDC doesn't fire back with the standard "we can't comment on specific designs".

[RRLedford]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Dick,

Your whole argument is based around one core opinion that you have.

"Loopers hurt the quality of the game."

I, and many others, disagree.

Even ignoring the other fundamental differences and horrific flaws in your argument, the core that you base it around is a matter of opinion, not fact. Once you accept that, you'll realise why the GDC should not, and will not, change the rule you are suggesting to be changed.

You misrepresent my "core opinion", and the title of the thread I why I posted it here.
It is an issue with the game rules that allow ONLY the offensive team to have PRIORITY ACCESS to the balls as they return to the playing field. I critique only the rules for allowing any team that pulls off a decent looper design (like 469's) to gain too much of an advantage over their opponents, often leading to very dominating blow outs. Any competitive game with rules that facilitate more frequent blowouts would be considered (at least by TV sponsors paying for the advertising during such games) a "ratings killer". This means people quickly lose interest in watching such blowout games, especially if there are very many in a relatively short time frame.
So, if you are suggesting that [Ulooper ]blowouts[/u] will stimulate the interest of more people in viewing the FIRST competition matches than close scoring matches will, then I assert MORE facts exist to back my opinion on this than yours. It's fine to have an opinion that looper blowouts are what the matches should become AS LONG AS THE RULES ALLOW IT, but I will never agree with your opinion, and until I see the appearance of an effective strategy that can neutralize decent loopers, I will keep thinking this rule exploit is bad for Breakaway 2010.
-Dick Ledford

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by RRLedford

You misrepresent my "core opinion", and the title of the thread I why I posted it here.
It is an issue with the game rules that allow ONLY the offensive team to have PRIORITY ACCESS to the balls as they return to the playing field. I critique only the rules for allowing any team that pulls off a decent looper design (like 469's) to gain too much of an advantage over their opponents, often leading to very dominating blow outs. Any competitive game with rules that facilitate more frequent blowouts would be considered (at least by TV sponsors paying for the advertising during such games) a "ratings killer". This means people quickly lose interest in watching such blowout games, especially if there are very many in a relatively short time frame.
So, if you are suggesting that looper blowouts will stimulate the interest of more people in viewing the FIRST competition matches than close scoring matches will, then I assert MORE facts exist to back my opinion on this than yours. It's fine to have an opinion that looper blowouts are what the matches should become AS LONG AS THE RULES ALLOW IT, but I will never agree with your opinion, and until I see the appearance of an effective strategy that can neutralize decent loopers, I will keep thinking this rule exploit is bad for Breakaway 2010.
-Dick Ledford

Dick,

First and foremost, continuing to call this strategy a "rule exploit" probably won't win you any friends or help you persuade anyone to your side of the argument. This strategy isn't an exploit, it's completely valid and well within the rules and was thought up by a LOT of people. There was a whole thread about it a while ago. I fail to see how something that so many people thought of can be an "exploit" in the sense you mean.

Also, I'm confused by the implications of your last statement there. You seem to be saying that a dominant strategy is bad for the game. I've always operated under the assumption that the FRC design process was about discovering and implementing a robot that can win the game. The whole premise is that there are some strategies and designs that are better than others. If you're looking for a game where you're guaranteed a level playing and close matches because everyone's evenly matched, then lobby for FRC NASCAR. Otherwise, you're admitting that some strategies are going to be better than others and you're down to a matter of degree.

If you think that this particular strategy in this particular game is just too dominating, then consider this: A single team out of a field of thousands has managed to make this work this flawlessly. If one robot in a thousand dominating this game is too much for you to handle, then, again, I point you to FRC NASCAR. In the FRC of my experience, there's a dominate robot in the field every single year.

[RRLedford]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

Dick,

First and foremost, continuing to call this strategy a "rule exploit" probably won't win you any friends or help you persuade anyone to your side of the argument. This strategy isn't an exploit, it's completely valid and well within the rules and was thought up by a LOT of people. There was a whole thread about it a while ago. I fail to see how something that so many people thought of can be an "exploit" in the sense you mean.

My assessment is to call it an exploit because it takes advantage of what I consider a flaw or a weakness in the rules that restricts expansion at towers to => OFFENSE-ONLY. I have yet to see any post indicating why this rule is necessary. How does OFFENSE-ONLY expansion at towers help to make the game better? It could have been applied for only the last 20 seconds, if encouraging hanging was the goal. Instead, what this rule has done is to allow loopers to gain what I feel is unfair access to and unfair control of the most critical ball flow point in the game. Once a team deploys an effective looper scheme, there is NO LONGER ANY FAIRNESS regarding balls returning to the field from their ramp. The design of the game ramp seems to have been done from the perspective that scored balls should re-enter play AT MID-FIELD, and in direction OPPOSITE TO the goal at which it was scored, This would tend to help keep the match scoring more balanced, and the game outcome more uncertain, but this idea gets circumvented by the looper scheme. Teams deployed the looper scheme because they saw that rules ALLOWED for for them to gain a dramatic advantage at controlling the ball return flow. Sure, they still had to design and build well, in order to realize this advantage, but it is basically just the pursuit of the opportunity to gain an unfair, but still legal, advantage. I say most people would assess the advantage that deployed loopers achieve to be UNFAIR, and they would assess that the rules should not allow such an advantage to be available within the rules. Gaining an advantage within the rules is fine, but pursuing an unfair advantage within the rules => I call an this an EXPLOIT.

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

Also, I'm confused by the implications of your last statement there. You seem to be saying that a dominant strategy is bad for the game. I've always operated under the assumption that the FRC design process was about discovering and implementing a robot that can win the game. The whole premise is that there are some strategies and designs that are better than others. If you're looking for a game where you're guaranteed a level playing and close matches because everyone's evenly matched, then lobby for FRC NASCAR. Otherwise, you're admitting that some strategies are going to be better than others and you're down to a matter of degree.

No, I'm saying that when this dominance is gained from pursuing a legal, but unfair, advantage, available with a well executed looper scheme, then, merely because the rules have created this this unequal access to balls situation, does not mean that exploiting it for blowout level dominance is going to increase the fan interest in the FIRST program.

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

If you think that this particular strategy in this particular game is just too dominating, then consider this: A single team out of a field of thousalynds has managed to make this work this flawlessly. If one robot in a thousand dominating this game is too much for you to handle, then, again, I point you to FRC NASCAR. In the FRC of my experience, there's a dominate robot in the field every single year.

It is not about NASCAR, it is about fairness for ball access.

-Dick Ledford

[ComputerWhizIA]

Originally Posted by RRLedford

Gaining an advantage within the rules is fine, but pursuing an unfair advantage within the rules => I call an this an EXPLOIT..

-Dick Ledford

What is the difference between an advantage and an unfair advantage?

I know from personal experience, the first thing that 469 does after kickoff, is to split off into smaller teams and read the rules (see there is an advantage to reading the rules line by line ) and brainstorm anything and everything a team can do. There's nothing wrong with reading the rules and finding a creative way to play the game.

Now if they purposely bent the rules or tried to tried to make a design legal by by using vague descriptions or trivialities, then this design would be considered an exploit. But all they did was look at the rules and figure out a way that fits in both the letter and the spirit of the rules.

[RRLedford]

Originally Posted by ComputerWhizIA

What is the difference between an advantage and an unfair advantage?

I know from personal experience, the first thing that 469 does after kickoff, is to split off into smaller teams and read the rules (see there is an advantage to reading the rules line by line ) and brainstorm anything and everything a team can do. There's nothing wrong with reading the rules and finding a creative way to play the game.

Now if they purposely bent the rules or tried to tried to make a design legal by by using vague descriptions or trivialities, then this design would be considered an exploit. But all they did was look at the rules and figure out a way that fits in both the letter and the spirit of the rules.

Our rookie team did the same. We also concluded that a looper scheme could make us a highly desirable partner, even if it did not score, but only held balls in our scoring zone. Yet we abandoned the idea because, as rookies, we felt it was an unfair advantage, might be dis-allowed, and was too much against the GDC's intent of how the game was intended to be played within the spirit of the rules. So we bailed on the whole idea. We later saw that others were pursuing the same idea, but we never expected it would reach the almost unstoppable level of design refinement that 469 has achieved.
So, I agree that we all had the same fair chance to choose what I still consider an unfair rule exploit design scheme for gaining unfair access to the point where reversing the the ramp's ball flow becomes a game breaker strategy.

[EricH]

Let me get this straight for a minute.

You're saying that you didn't use this design "category" because you think 1) it's unfair, 2) it might be disallowed, 3) it's not the GDC's intention of how the game is to be played, and 4) it's not within the spirit of the rules. Am I correct, so far?

I'll start out with 3) to answer. The correct answer to that is that you don't know the GDC's intention except as they choose to reveal it. All teams operate under that same constraint. I haven't seen anything from the GDC, officially or not, saying that this is or is not how the game is supposed to be played. (Any GDC members that see this, feel free to chime in...)

2) is a moot point. It's been held legal by the GDC (and as the GDC holds it legal, so do the inspectors and refs) on multiple occasions. The loophole, if loophole there is, could have been closed at any time between Kickoff and Ship Day without too many complaints (other than 469, 51, and 125, at least one of whom also has a kicker, and few of whom would actually come out and complain loudly). Changing it now would of course generate massive complaints from Weeks 1, 2, and 3, not a lot of cheering from Week 4, and a "What did they do that for?" from Week 5. Not gonna be changed at this point in time.

1) That's your opinion, and I'm not going to try to change it. I think you've already figured out that you're in the minority on this.

4) See 3) for my response.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by RRLedford

Yet we abandoned the idea because, as rookies, we felt it was an unfair advantage, might be dis-allowed, and was too much against the GDC's intent of how the game was intended to be played within the spirit of the rules.

YOU abandoned the idea, I want to emphasize that point. YOU made the choice to abandon that idea and that was your choice to make. 469/51/etc chose differently. That was THEIR choice. They ran the same risks as you did but came up with a different conclusion.

I must also comment on the notion of fairness. FIRST is not fair. Is it fair that 397 has only a handful of college mentors? Is it fair we have to spend 90% of the build season doing homework rather than helping inspire our students? Is it fair that we only have what we can make by hand? Is it fair that our students don't have access to classes such as Calculus or Physics? Get the point? You make due with what you have, complaining about it won't get you anywhere.

Finally, 469 is NOT unbeatable. 469 LOST 4 matches during qualifications. They are only really dangerous when coupled with a powerful scorer. 469 is designed to play Elimination matches but that often means they are somewhat at the mercy of the picking system.

[RRLedford]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

YOU abandoned the idea, I want to emphasize that point. YOU made the choice to abandon that idea and that was your choice to make. 469/51/etc chose differently. That was THEIR choice. They ran the same risks as you did but came up with a different conclusion.

I must also comment on the notion of fairness. FIRST is not fair. Is it fair that 397 has only a handful of college mentors? Is it fair we have to spend 90% of the build season doing homework rather than helping inspire our students? Is it fair that we only have what we can make by hand? Is it fair that our students don't have access to classes such as Calculus or Physics? Get the point? You make due with what you have, complaining about it won't get you anywhere.

Finally, 469 is NOT unbeatable. 469 LOST 4 matches during qualifications. They are only really dangerous when coupled with a powerful scorer. 469 is designed to play Elimination matches but that often means they are somewhat at the mercy of the picking system.

My issue is only regarding the rules, and specifically the one rule preventing expansion at the opponents tower. I feel that at least within the rules, there is at least a good chance of keeping them and the game play fair. I don't expect all aspects of the FIRST program will ever come close to being fair, and as you say, we will all make due with what we have.
I am only questioning the fairness of a specific rule, and suggesting how a simple change to it could improve on fairness in game play. If you want to characterize this as complaining, that is just your assessment of my statements.

-Dick Ledford

[EricH]

I don't think it would improve gameplay. One example was suggested earlier--the wall-bot. You might also get a robot wedging itself into its opponent's tunnel, just to prevent tunnel traffic.

And, as I pointed out earlier, it's too late to make the change. Any time between Kickoff and Ship Day, great. Between Ship Day and Week 1, not the best, but OK. After Week 1, you don't make a change unless you really need to--and the change that was made was made because the game wasn't being played the way that was intended, and it didn't really affect gameplay, just strategy. But if you change anything after Week 2, something just hit the fan. If the GDC did make this change, especially if they gave you the credit for suggesting it, you'd wind up on the receiving end of a lot of criticism.

As for equal access to the balls: Given no loopers, that is the fact. Having a looper, though, is like having an sports defense that has a bunch of turnover-creation specialists. Would you complain if you were watching an NFL game, and every time one team got the ball, the other team forced a turnover before the endzone? How about in basketball or hockey? It's not fair, but the rules are fair--they allow that team. They also allow the creation of the team that can go up against that team and never turn it over.

I think that's your beef with the rules--any team that can avoid the turnovers can't do it by expanding at that end of the field. Just means that the easy way is gone; if you don't like having to do it the hard way, then you don't have to do it at all. Instead of trying to get people to support making the easy way legal, use engineering skills to solve the challenge of doing it the hard way. A number of people proposed strategies to beat the loopers very quickly after the fact that there were loopers came out. I'm not saying that you aren't doing that, but when you're actively trying to get people to agree that there is a loophole in the rules, and seeming to spend all your time doing that, you're making yourself look like a complainer (or a lawyer or a politician or a lobbyist) instead of an engineer.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Dick,

A number of things need to happen for a looper bot to be successful:

1> The looper bot needs to get into, and stay in, position. 469 does an excellent job of this in autonomous.

2> The pump (looping) needs to be primed. Without balls being scored the looping strategy is a weakness as it leaves teams 3 vs 2. 469 also does a good job at this in autonomous by shooting 2.

3> The looping strategy requires that the opposing defender bot be neutralized. This can only be done if the defender is poor, the striker is very good at pinning, or the looping alliance can bring forward the third bot. Cass Tech elim rounds showed the looping strategy at it's best, but if you look at the seeding rounds you'll see holes in the strategy. In effect, the looping strategy only works if the whole alliance in in sync with what needs to happen.

4> The looping strategy also requires that any balls that miss the goal (469 had quite a few) are then scored by the strikers. This again means that loopers require their partners to be good (and probably be able to change zones).

In essence, a looper bot can only be as good as it's alliance partners, and cannot carry any alliance. They are the ultimate alliance bot this year, much like the ramp bots were in Rack-N-Roll. Without their alliance partners being able to support their unique gamestyle they will be just another ineffective bot.