Am I the only one that thinks that Breakaway is a game for the powerhouse vets?

[Ken Leung]

After attending SD in week one, I realized one thing about Breakaway - this game is HARD.

This is my first year working with 115. 115 is one of the veteran teams in the Bay Area, the team has built quality robots and won regionals in the past. But after 3 weeks into build, we realized the team was in deep trouble. And I mean, real trouble. The kids spent 2 weeks designing hanging mechanisms that were too heavy and too impractical for our robot, mechanisms that are supposed to be 3rd or 4th priority on our list (Going over the bump, controlling the ball, and kicking was supposed to come first). That's when I realized the kids need some serious hands-on assistant to get them through the rest of build with a somewhat presentable robot.

I remember one night on week 4, after seeing the kids struggling with kicker mechanisms after kicker mechanisms, when I finally said, "Ok, I've had enough. What can we put together with this Bosch extrusion, an axle, couple of shoulder blocks, and this surgical tubing right here?" 30 minutes later, we put together a kicker that was far superior than anything the kids have done in the past 4 weeks.

It takes a tremendous amount of FIRST knowledge just to put together a reliable, decently preforming robot in a game. On our team, that consist of Ted Shinta, a machinist/woodshop teacher who has been a 115 adviser since 2000, Mauri Laitinen, a senior electrical engineer/programmer who has been on the team since 2006, Patrick Wang, former 115 2003 student president who studied economics in Berkeley and specialize in game strategy and coaching, and myself, a mechanical engineer who has participated in FIRST since 1999. All of that and we just barely put together a working robot that kicks and go over the bump well in week 5.

I went around the Bay Area for a little while trying to help teams who need mechanical assistance, and I spent a lot of time watching the competition at San Diego on week one. Let me say this again: this game is HARD. I thought we were struggling because our kids lack the proper training this year. Then I looked at the 25-26 teams at SD who were barely driving/herding balls around, and realized we were actually doing pretty well.

I am not saying it's a good thing or a bad thing, but compare to robots 10 years ago, we are finding ourselves needing to build more and more sophisticated robots each year. I am having a great time building robot for this year's game, but I can see how others are struggling with it if they don't have proper resources on their team.

I think that's why the game is so hard for many teams out there. There are so much you need to learn/do if you want to compete with the likes of 217, 148, 1114, 254, 330, etc. It takes a huge amount of experiences and knowledge to do it, and it's almost impossible to do without the right people. Give me 10 minutes, and I can write down all the names of people directly responsible for the success of these teams.

Again, I am not saying that's a good thing or a bad thing. I am just saying that's how it is. Personally, after spending this season learning how this team works, I have no problem stepping up the game and try to compete at the higher level next year. But a lot of teams are going to be struggling again, if the game is going to be just as hard next year.

[Tom Line]

Ken, I agree 100%. This game is VERY VERY hard.

1. Creating a kicker that is adjustable, can rewind quickly, is consistent in kicking distance and robust is hard.
2. Creating a ball magnet system that can reliably hold balls is very, very hard. There are only a couple designs out there right now that do it, and those designs are propagating through the competitive teams. You've got the roller system (semi effective but relatively easy) pioneered by the 17XX ball magnet boys, the pinch system that 148 posted and so many people copied, and the vacuum system on a couple bots.
3. Creating a lifting mechanism is even harder within the given constraints - low COG, etc.
4. At least a decent drive train in combination with the above.

So far I've only seen a handful of bots combine those into a winning combination, and they ARE running away with things.

Think back to '07. There were hundreds of very different and effective ways to hang tubes. Think to '08. Forklifts, arms, firing mechanisms - there were many many bots that could gets those balls over quickly. Think to '09. Dumpers were a dime-a-dozen, incredibly effective, and generally easy to make.

In '10, you have to at least a combination of a good kicker + drivetrain, but you're going to get overlooked without a magnet. Likewise, a +2 points per match hanger is a pretty big thing if you can manange it. Just look at how many robots out there have managed to combine all three effectively and then tell me again how easy this game is. In the early week games, it wasn't uncommon for half the bots on the field to be unable to kick, and nearly NONE moved in auton.

Pushing balls into the goal is reasonably easy (except for the outside edges where balls get stuck on the goal). Any other facet of this game simply isn't.

Going into the middle of week 4, our team was in serious trouble. Our kicker was functioning well, but our magnet was DOA and our hanger not much better off. It took a herculean effort to get it into the bag. Indeed, our comp bot had NEVER been driven on the competition field before it went in. We ended up chucking most of our autonmous (we never moved at Cass Tech) in favor of getting the basic systems functioning well.

It's all just opinion of course, but this has been the hardest game to we've dealt with in the last 5 years on 1718.

[Nigel]

Originally Posted by Tom Line

Pushing balls into the goal is reasonably easy (except for the outside edges where balls get stuck on the goal). Any other facet of this game simply isn't.

even this wasn't always terribly easy to do WELL

[Alex Dinsmoor]

Originally Posted by Tom Line

In '10, you have to at least a combination of a good kicker + drivetrain, but you're going to get overlooked without a magnet. Likewise, a +2 points per match hanger is a pretty big thing if you can manange it.i

What we found is that a good magnet may even be more effective than a good kicker. If you have an amazing kicker with a crappy magnet they may not get chosen over a team with an awesome magnet but only a so-so kicker. Magnets let you score, while kickers can only guarantee ball movement.

And with the hanger, yes it is a good point boost if you have one, but more realistically many teams look for an effective scorer over a hanger; since a scorer can put more balls in than the hanger in most cases.

That's what I think at least.

[Jon Jack]

A team does not achieve "Powerhouse" status by dominating every once in a while... they achieve that status by consistently dominating every year.

Under their current leadership 148, 217, 254, 1114, etc will continue to dominate regardless of what game it is. That's what makes them powerhouse.

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by smurfgirl

I actually think this makes more sense at a small regional. The field isn't very deep, so by the time the last seeds get to pick alliance partners there aren't any really strong teams left... the first few alliances end up being the strongest. At larger regionals and on the Championship fields, there is a much deeper pool to draw from, so there can be really strong teams left later in the selection process leading to a lot of well-rounded alliances that are all capable of winning.

This seems very true. In St. Louis this past weekend... it wasn't until the 5th pick that someone who wasn't already an alliance captain (would have been if they said no) was selected. And to think prior to that i told my new members that we've never seen anyone ranked worse than 10th get to actually pick...

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by Jon Jack

A team does not achieve "Powerhouse" status by dominating every once in a while... they achieve that status by consistently dominating every year.

Under their current leadership 148, 217, 254, 1114, etc will continue to dominate regardless of what game it is. That's what makes them powerhouse.

This is very true.
One thing that I think is a little different concerning the teams mentioned is that they have become Team IFI in their minds and in others. They are like a super team made up of different parts (teams). With the way it is going, they haven't begun to max out the level of skill, talent, opportunity, or finding a bar to set for themselves, individually, or as Team IFI.

That is different from the majority of other teams, I think.

Jane

[ttldomination]

I agree with everything above, but I have to think that if people think this game is "easy" and that veteran teams are dominating, then we have to think about the challenges that the GDC has to accomplish each year.

The longer these veterans play, the more experience they gain. The more they become familiar with what it takes to play the game and what it takes to build a good robot and a good team. Rookie teams are scared by the fact that they have to create something "moving", much less anything that dominates.

At kick-off last year, the GDC addressed their attempt to bridge the gap between veterans and not-so-veterans. While the GDC does their thing and provide new, fresh games each year, powerhouse teams continue to build their arsenal.

[Mike Soukup]

I agree with Ken, Tom, and whoever else said this game is hard. Fitting a good ball magnet and kicker into a package that can either fit through the tunnel or climb the bumps is not an easy challenge. I have seen many traditional powerhouse teams struggle at their first & second events and get whipped in the eliminations in what some would consider an upset if they were just looking at team numbers. I have also seen the rise of a few teams at WI & IL that have built simple machines that focused on excellent ball control and an efficient kicker: 706, 1732, 2949.

That said, what is wrong with traditional powerhouse vets dominating? I had a lengthy discussion with some of the mentors from 2358 after they beat us in the eliminations on Saturday. We were talking about their first year in the program and the struggles they had and how much they've improved since then. I was reminded of the struggles that 111 had during our first season in 1996 and how my jaw hit the floor when at our first competition I saw the team from Nashua effortlessly scoop up big & small balls and place them in the goal. Sure, it was disappointing when our robot couldn't even make it through an entire match without the drivetrain failing, but it was also uplifting to talk to these elite teams and have them offer suggestions to fix our problems. It's experiences like these, seeing the cream of the crop up close, talking to them about their designs, and learning from them, that give the young teams the motivation and inspiration to become a powerhouse in a few years.

[pfreivald]

I think it's pretty amazing how many teams seemed to have underestimated the importance of -- and the subtlety of design required for -- a good ball handler. I spoke to many teams who almost seemed to consider it an afterthought.

We considered it #1 priority after drive train, and we're really glad we did!

[DarkFlame145]

no way, this year is seeing more first time regional winners then i can remember. With the new scoring system it lets teams be ranked more on their performance then their alliance partners.

[Doug G]

Originally Posted by Mike Soukup

That said, what is wrong with traditional powerhouse vets dominating? ... It's experiences like these, seeing the cream of the crop up close, talking to them about their designs, and learning from them, that give the young teams the motivation and inspiration to become a powerhouse in a few years.

I absolutely agree - the teams that dominate will continue to dominate and that's ok, and actually inspiring for most of us. Much of our team, while a little jealous of the dominating teams, are so fired up after these competitions to perfect the engineering process for the next year. While they may not come right out and say it that way, that's what they are talking about. How do we do what the poofs did? How can we tweak our process to get to that level. It's a conversation I enjoy hearing. Thank you to those teams!!

[Dan 1038]

I agree that there are teams that are perennial powerhouses; 1114, 111, 67, etc. In reality, veteran teams have a huge advantage over rookies - especially the "Power House" teams - as they have developed a systematic approach over many years to develop effective strategies and then executing decisively - younger teams lack the experience of prior competitions and are generally not as well prepared. That being said, I offer 3138 for your consideration as an example which refutes your claim:

- Rookie team with no FRC experience on the team at all, mentors or students!
- KISS design which performed quite well in Pitt until wheel issues in the finals hurt them, which they were not prepared for - rookie mistake they will not make this week at Buckeye, I would bet.
- #4 seed at Pitt, picked by the #2 alliance and competed well against 1114's alliance into the finals.
- Rookie All Star - they will be in Atlanta, based on thier performance, while several other veteran teams failed to get a bid...

Every year we see some teams execute flawlessly, but I don't agree that this year offers any advantage to vets that is not normally present...

[Wayne TenBrink]

Sure, Breakaway is a game for the powerhouse vets - just like any other game. That's why we call them powerhouse teams. A lot of other teams are doing pretty well with it, though.

Building a robot is kind of like the old scoring system they used for figure skating. If you recall that system, the skater got two scores - one for artistic impression and the other for technical merit. In robotics, you spend the first week or so brainstorming, modeling, prototyping, sketching, imagining how the game will play out, and envisioning the kind of machine would be effective at playing it. Your ingenuity is the "artistic impression". The remainder of the build season is spent to achieve the goals you set with a machine that is reliable, servicable, and robust. Your craftsmanship is the "technical merit". Good teams do both parts well.

Every year, there seems to be some feature that separates the successful teams from the rest. In 2008, the hurlers dominated the hurdlers. In 2009, the dumpers dominated the shooters.

In 2010, ball control is shaping up to be that feature. Some teams do it better than others, but teams that didn't foresee the value (artistic impression) and then achieve some degree of success (technical merit) will struggle to go far.

When teams get both parts right, they have a good year on the field. The perennial powerhouses have the brainpower, experience, and resources to get it right year after year.

Students win when they fully participate in an organization that uses, tests, rewards, and freely shares both aspects of the creative process.

[Tom Bottiglieri]

Every year teams worry about the "cool" features of the robot, like the hanger, kicker, ball shooter, etc. Unfortunately, those are rarely the most important things on the robot. How good is a "perfect" kicker if the robot can't grab a ball? The better teams are the ones who understand the pyramid shaped set of design dependencies we see in each and every game, and mold their robot around what is REALLY important, rather than what SEEMS important at first glance.

If you want to learn more about how to do this, I recommend checking out the panel discussion at the FIRST Robotics Conference in Atlanta this year. There should be a ton of useful insight to be had there.

All in all, these robots aren't rocket science. If you work hard enough and gain enough experience, you can compete with the best.




...Or you can pull a Tom and follow the old homage of "If you can't beat em, join em."