Cheesecake: How far is too far?

[Rachel Lim]

Originally Posted by Tungrus

...create any number of rules...someone will find a loop hole.

Design a game that requires cheesecaking to win, and it will happen no matter what rules are created to try and prevent it.
Design a game that doesn't require cheesecaking to win, and it won't happen even if there aren't rules created to try and prevent it.

As long as cheesecaking is required to win, it will happen. The chokehold strategy requiring a complex mechanism, limited game pieces, cluttered field, and lack of defense in Recycle Rush required it, and it happened.

Ban the ingredients for cheesecake, and stores will find substitutes. Remove the market for them, and stores have no reason to make them.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by Rachel Lim

Design a game that requires cheesecaking to win, and it will happen no matter what rules are created to try and prevent it.
Design a game that doesn't require cheesecaking to win, and it won't happen even if there aren't rules created to try and prevent it.

Eh. Cat is out of the bag now.

973 is likely going to regionals next year with 3rd picks that in an average game won't contribute much.

We will likely be able to make a sub 30 pound mechanism that allows our 3rd to be statistically far better than the other teams available in the draft.

If the rules don't change, we must assume that others are doing this as well. If we assume others are doing it, we must do it to remain competitive.

[Jared]

Everybody blames this on the game design, but I'd argue that cheesecaking has always been a viable strategy for teams who are extremely competitive.

In 2014, your third pick could become an autonomous shot blocker.
In 2013, your third pick could get a 50 point climb and dump mechanism, or a full court shooter.
In 2012, your third pick could get a bridge stinger to help balance or a simple shooter to throw balls to your side.
In 2011, your third pick could get a minibot deployment and minibot.
In 2010, your third pick could get a climber.
In 2008, your third pick could become a 30 pound lap bot.

Cheesecaking is also deceptively difficult.

[techtiger1]

At this point you might as well let teams bring their practice bots and enter those in the competition too.

[Rachel Lim]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

Eh. Cat is out of the bag now.

973 is likely going to regionals next year with 3rd picks that in an average game won't contribute much.

We will likely be able to make a sub 30 pound mechanism that allows our 3rd to be statistically far better than the other teams available in the draft.

If the rules don't change, we must assume that others are doing this as well. If we assume others are doing it, we must do it to remain competitive.

I've only been in FRC for two years, but from what I saw last year, 2nd picks (assuming that was what you meant) weren't on average that much better than this year in terms of individual scoring capability. Yet I didn't see cheesecaking to this extent. Maybe I just didn't pay as much attention, but I don't remember this debate at regionals or on CD.

Would cheesecaking robots from 2014 help alliances? Yes. Why wasn't it done then? Was the idea really not thought of until this year?

I guess a better question would be:
If we replayed Aerial Assist, would we see cheesecaking to the extent that we saw it in Recycle Rush?

[Jasmine Zhou]

Originally Posted by Rachel Lim

Would cheesecaking robots from 2014 help alliances? Yes. Why wasn't it done then? Was the idea really not thought of until this year?

I guess a better question would be:
If we replayed Aerial Assist, would we see cheesecaking to the extent that we saw it in Recycle Rush?

Cheesecaking in 2014 (in the form of modifying/adding mechanisms to alliance members) definitely happened, at least from 1678. Mike mentioned this in the original uproar when he popularized the term cheesecake. http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...1&postcount=81
By the time we left the Sacramento regional (and possibly earlier, my memory is already fuzzy on this), we went to competitions knowing we'd be adding passive mechanisms to many robots in qualifications in order to maximize assist points in an attempt to seed first.

The key word there is probably "qualifications". We didn't pick robots for eliminations specifically for the ease with which we could add an assist mechanism to them- the second pick was often defense and driving, not how easy it would be to modify their robot. Because defense was still a thing.
I think that the cheesecake-ability affecting alliance selections seems to be what people are objecting to, not cheesecaking teams throughout the event.

I think we'd also see more cheesecake passed around if we replayed Aerial Assist in the current climate, just because more people have realized that it's an option.

[George Nishimura]

2014 is interesting because there was a pretty low-barrier for 3rd robots. Kitbot + intake was the minimum viable robot.

Even then there was still some 'cheesecaking'. Didn't 254/2056 modify 865 at Waterloo?

[Kevin Sheridan]

Originally Posted by George Nishimura

2014 is interesting because there was a pretty low-barrier for 3rd robots. Kitbot + intake was the minimum viable robot.

Even then there was still some 'cheesecaking'. Didn't 254/2056 modify 865 at Waterloo?

We cheesecaked 2135 at CVR last year by adding some pex tubing to make it easier to inbound through their robot. We "cheesecaked" 865 by zip-tieing their intakes in place to make a ball tunnel for inbounding. Both these robots competed at champs with our modifications still on their robots.

We were also preparing to cheesecake a goalie pole onto our 3rd or 4th robot at champs but the pole was never completed (we had it in our pits though) and it was unnecessary once we knew we were picking 469.

[Citrus Dad]

I think the concern this year is over the level of cheesecake that we saw. I will reiterate a point made by several people: This is entirely in response to this year's game and rules. The best way to limit the amount of cheesecake is create a game in which the least experienced teams can make an effective contribution to the game at all levels. I and other have pointed out that the GDC did not accomplish this objective in this year's game, and statistical analysis of the OPR distribution supports this contention. This was obvious to us on the day of Kick-off; the GDC should have seen that as well. (I would like to know the composition of the GDC, but I urge that it have a number of non-engineers involved in game development.)

I've pointed out in earlier threads that an absolute prohibition would have prevented us from working with two rookie teams on Newton last year that greatly improved their games in qualifications. FIRST wants strong interaction across teams at the Championship (see the justification for going to 2 Championships.) Why remove one of the frequently used means of facilitating that interaction? Remember that competition really is only a secondary objective of FIRST; this is not the NFL. Promoting cultural change is the primary focus.

[Rachel Lim]

I guess I should have said that in 2014, I didn't see cheesecaking define the game or the strategy the way I've seen it happen in 2015. I don't think modifying robots to make them more competitive, either in quals or elims, was the major issue this year. I believe (from what I've heard) that it was that those teams were basically just their cheesecake, so being an easy platter was more desirable than trying to contribute individually. Then again, it could have just simply been that I had nothing else to compare 2014 to until this year.

It seems that we needed Recycle Rush to really figure out just how large a role cheesecaking can play.
It seems that we needed the modified response to Q461 to figure out that maybe the original response had its advantages.

I still believe that if we replayed Recycle Rush with the original Q461 response (or something similar), teams would find a way around it because cheesecaking would still be necessary. There would be some other debate about this. I also believe that if we replayed another game where it wasn't as necessary, we would see it, but it wouldn't be as defining a factor.


This has been an interesting discussion, and one I've definitely learned from. If I was to rewrite my first post, it'd probably be:

Design a game that requires cheesecaking to win, put some rules in to try and prevent it, and it will still happen.
Design a game that doesn't require cheesecaking to win, put some rules in to try and prevent it, and it won't happen much.
Cheesecaking here used to refer to the need to put an entire mechanism on to win or something to that extent, not to smaller modifications

Rules define how far a strategy can be taken, but the game defines what strategy is needed.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by Rachel Lim

Rules define how far a strategy can be taken, but the game defines what strategy is needed.

Well put.

[GreyingJay]

Great, so we'll see you all at regionals next year with our 2016 robot, "Tabula Rasa". Here's to the shortest build season ever!

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by GreyingJay

Great, so we'll see you all at regionals next year with our 2016 robot, "Tabula Rasa". Here's to the shortest build season ever!

So long as the GDC doesn't make the same fundamental mistake that they made this year, we shouldn't see anything like what occurred this year.

Originally Posted by Qbot2640

In my opinion, this is a big part of it...but the bigger part is when a team makes some kind of deal with an "alliance captaining team" that removes other, arguably more qualified teams, from consideration. Alliance selection should be based upon the performance of a team throughout qualification rounds...not upon what kind of "backroom" deal can be made. In this "now infamous" case, no one has mentioned the other 44 teams on Curie who all started packing up after alliance selection ended. One of them lost an opportunity.

In general alliance captains do not choose teams in order of their qualification rankings, or even with regard to the rankings at all. The alliances are put to together through a combination of strategic (which team is a bigger threat?) and functional (which team has best kiss passer or trusser?) assessment. Please don't expect that your qualification ranking will be rewarded with a high alliance pick unless you're an alliance captain.

[Qbot2640]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

In general alliance captains do not choose teams in order of their qualification rankings....

I know how it works.

I'm saying choose the best available team for your strategy from what they can do...not for what they will do.

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by Qbot2640

I'm saying choose the best available team for your strategy from what they can do...not for what they will do.

Under the current FRC rules teams should absolutely not be doing that. Pick the team that provides you the best chance at winning, however that may be.