FIRST Rule Changes

[ErichKeane]

Originally Posted by artdutra04

Almost unbeatable... except when up against 190.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5nnGGRi-94

Back from the days when defense on 'bots attempting to hang was still legal.

Holy crap that was nuts! I'm glad someone beat them! (sorry 237 ). Ah the days before bumpers! I remember at the NJ regional that there were quite a few broken welds and busted bots!

(Story time, sit down youngsters...)
This was in the time before the regionals had a shop area with everything in them.

At one point (friday I think!?) we were charging batteries and trying to get things fixed/working, and one of the other teams came over to ask if they could borrow batteries/a charger for a bit. At the time we were only swapping batteries out ever 3-4 matches, so we took our freshest battery and tossed it in the bot, and lent out the rest.

They went to the group next to us, and did the same. Finding that strange, we followed them to their pit. When we got there, we saw them with a very bent up robot, attempting to weld their frame back together with the batteries! It was the craziest thing I'd ever seen, they were sitting there using a battery connector on each battery trying to resistance-weld their frame back together!

If I remember correctly, they managed to make just about all of their matches.

[JohnBoucher]

You beat me to it. I was posting the same video. It was a wicked good game that year. The game sure has changed.
The video is a classic, lots of good memories.
I would hope that we get back to games like that.

[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

[Tetraman]

I agree with everyone to say that the change wouldn't happen as it's midway though the season and adding that change would make more headaches then it would be helpful.

However, if you are going to any off-season events, I suggest you propose this idea to them.

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by JohnBoucher

Yes, It was us. It was a great regional. We had one of those OMG moments when we developed the shimmy bot.

Sorry for busting up your bot.

237's shimmybot '04 was epic. I have a video somewhere of a team from 2000 that did the same thing in NJ (I think it was 41?)

[tangent]Anyone have video from 04 at NJ actually? I know our alliance 173, 195, and 11 lost against 237.[/tangent]

[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.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Dick,

What reason is there to restrict the number of defensive robots in an alliances home zone? This unfairly restricts the defensive robots' access to the single most important point scoring locale on the field, giving the alliance an unfair access to their own goals. Offensive double teaming in the this zone gives alliances an unfair advantage and unfair control of these goals. Defensive alliances should have unlimited access to an opponent's home zone so that they can adequately defend against this rule exploit.

The above argument holds just about as much water as yours, near as I can tell. Changing that rule would fundamentally change the game in numerous ways predictable and not, similar to your suggested change to the rules. Have you bothered to consider what other exploits and unfairness your rule change would unleash on the game? I've thought of a couple. The rules are the rules because they're the rules. We got a game we've all agreed to play and it's working out fairly well with, perhaps, one annoyance. I, personally, don't want to unleash such a large change as you're contemplating IN THE MIDDLE OF COMPETITION. If you really want to play a different game than the rest of us, wait till the offseason and make your pitch to the offseason committees.

[EricH]

I think it's like the pass interference penalties in football--they give a huge unfair advantage to the offense if they can induce the defense to do something illegal.

All you have to do, in football, is to induce the defender to contact you/interfere with the play while the ball is in the air and you're way down the field, such that the ball is catchable and isn't caught, and you're that much farther towards your offensive destination. It's a legal strategy to do that, AFAIK, but it's very difficult to implement effectively and repeatedly.

The difference here is that some teams figured out a way to do it every time they "call a pass play", and use that as a primary strategy.

As soon as some NFL team figures out how to use it as a primary strategy, I bet that somebody will be complaining using the exact same argument used here--and that it'll be changed for the next NFL season.

[James Tonthat]

We are given design specifications (rule book) at the beginning of the season to build a robot. We built the robot that we thought would best meet those specifications. 469 built one that used very little effort to play the game.

Look back to 2002 with Team Hammond, they built a dominate robot, cruised through championships but even then, there were teams that figured them out.

Instead of spending so much time on Chief trying to convincing a bunch of people that can't be convinced that they're wrong. Spend it toward something positive, such as developing your robot further or coming up with strategies to defeat theirs.

[JohnBoucher]

Dick,
The bottom line is that the game does not matter. FRC is about the 6 weeks and what happens to the students during those 6 weeks. They are given an impossible challenge and an impossible time frame. What they do with those two items is what counts. The only reason for regionals and champs is to showcase what the students did with the 6 weeks.

Examine what happened during the 6 weeks. Build on it for next year.

[RRLedford]

Originally Posted by James Tonthat

We are given design specifications (rule book) at the beginning of the season to build a robot. We built the robot that we thought would best meet those specifications. 469 built one that used very little effort to play the game.

Look back to 2002 with Team Hammond, they built a dominate robot, cruised through championships but even then, there were teams that figured them out.

Instead of spending so much time on Chief trying to convincing a bunch of people that can't be convinced that they're wrong. Spend it toward something positive, such as developing your robot further or coming up with strategies to defeat theirs.

I can and am doing both things at once.
Was the 2002 Team Hammond robot strategy to do something within "the letter of the rules" that produced an unfair advantage over the competition?

I am not trying to convince poeple they are wrong. I am trying to point out the biggest weakness in the 2010 rules that is allowing for effectively build and operated loopers to gain the unfair control of the flow of balls back onto the field. I do not care whether or not the GDC deliberately intended for this rule exploit to be available and to allow the looper scheme to use it for gaining unfair control of the flow of balls back onto the field. My purpose is to draw attention to how this weakness in the rules allows for deployment of a game strategy that is inherently unfair. To me, this is the exact type of situation that warrants a change in the rules. Obviously, at this late stage, the GDC is unlikely to make any such changes, but that does not mean I should stop pointing out the unfair aspect of this game strategy rule exploit. Perhaps it will help improve the integrity of GDC rules for future years. Perhaps it will affect how other teams decide whether to pursue unfair game rule exploits in future years.

-Dick Ledford

[Chris is me]

I (and several others) just can't fathom how a strategy can be "unfair", ever.

I apologize in advance for this analogy. In competitive Pokemon battling, there are some MUCH better than others. They quickly get discovered, as the best players use them. Then more and more people adapt their teams to handle them, or even add them to their teams. There are always people going "Overused Pokemon X is unfair!" and get offended when they battle against it, but that's really a combination of their own stubbornness and inability or unwillingness to adapt, since they are 100% free to use it or adapt their teams to it at any time.

Now, if there was a rule saying "<R99>: The only team allowed to use a ball return cycler is team 469, Las Guerillas, from Michigan. 217 is required to be on all of their elimination alliances to make them as good as possible.", I would very quickly object. But the simple truth is, as balanced or as unbalanced as the rules may be, they allowed you to build this robot, and they allow you to plan against it. They have from Day 1. The fact that you didn't build the robot is your own fault, so if you think it's overpowered, the only person who "screwed up" isn't the GDC.

[Vikesrock]

Dick,

I have tried really hard to grasp your logic that results in the usage of the word "unfair" to describe the looper strategy, but I just can't quite wrap my head around it. From what I understand you believe that their access to the ball return is unfair because you do not have equal access to the same space. By this logic an alliances access to the right side of the field in autonomous is unfair as your alliance does not have access to this area. By a similar token access to the far zone by two opposing robots is unfair as you can only have one, hanging is unfair as you can't have access to their tower, lifting in 2007 was illegal because you didn't have access to that zone, etc. etc. etc.

Basically what I'm saying is that there are often GDC imposed restrictions on how defense can be played. Lack of access to the opponent's ball return is just one of these restrictions. To defend the looper strategy you will need to find a way to do it within the defensive restrictions that currently exist.