The Not So-Secret Secret End-Game

[MetalJacket]

Unfortunately right now the only mention of passing to human players is the fact that it is "within gameplay" I have no idea what exactly that means but would interpret it to mean that it is ok for me to drop a ball on the floor in front of my human player and have them pick it up (remember they can't touch a ball that is touching a robot)

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by MetalJacket

Unfortunately right now the only mention of passing to human players is the fact that it is "within gameplay" I have no idea what exactly that means but would interpret it to mean that it is ok for me to drop a ball on the floor in front of my human player and have them pick it up (remember they can't touch a ball that is touching a robot)

Rules:

G21
ROBOTS may not extend outside the FIELD.

Violation: FOUL. If continuous or repeated violations, TECHNICAL FOUL. If contact with anything outside the FIELD, RED CARD and the ROBOT will be DISABLED.
G40
TEAMS may not extend any body part into the FIELD during the MATCH.
Violation: TECHNICAL FOUL.

If not actively engaged with receiving or releasing a BALL, we strongly recommend that TEAMS stay fully behind the HUMAN PLAYER BARRIER during the MATCH.

G41
TEAMS may not contact any ROBOT or any BALL in contact with a ROBOT at any time during the MATCH.
Violation: TECHNICAL FOUL

I didn't find any exceptions anywhere. I'm pretty sure that combination means your only option is to launch the ball at your human player. Preferably lightly. There might be further rule changes to simplify this, but that's how I read the current rules.

[AWB]

endgame: win

[mrnoble]

As I see it, here are the arguments for and against. I hope I'm doing everyone's statements justice.

Arguments for a secret end game:

-Woodie's statement in the video that they would change things up
-The lack of changes in the game as presented (rather the opposite; recycled and repackaged strategies and game pieces)
-An over-built volleyball net
-An expensive light toy to hold the next ball
-Both the light and (especially) the truss featured prominently in the video as teasers, and in the manual
-A useless but highly described "defense" strategy that no team will choose to focus on, but might be an excuse for a hanging appendage
-The disruptive presence of Ri3D projects, potentially leading to vanilla robots
-No end game currently
-Shorter game play

Arguments against a secret end game:

-Perhaps hidden depths to game play strategy that, without deeper understanding and practice, are not yet discernible to most teams
-The possibility that the truss was donated, borrowed, rented, or already part of FIRST's stock and therefore an easy choice for a field element
-The possibility that FIRST made last-minute changes to the game, or put in place a backup game
-The furor that a major gameplay change would cause among many (most) teams, especially veterans and teams with a quick design/manufacturing process
-The fact that FRC is, after all, made up of humans. They can't always hit a home run; in fact, they might just have made a less-than-exciting game (at least on the surface; see above)


I am inclined toward there being a hidden game. I think it will be revealed soon after Ri3D is complete; certainly no later than next Saturday. I would not be surprised if "assist" were to extend toward helping other teams with a multi-robot hang, perhaps off of a yet-to-be-revealed attachment to the truss.

[dubiousSwain]

Originally Posted by mrnoble

As I see it, here are the arguments for and against. I hope I'm doing everyone's statements justice.

Arguments for a secret end game:

-Woodie's statement in the video that they would change things up
-The lack of changes in the game as presented (rather the opposite; recycled and repackaged strategies and game pieces)
-An over-built volleyball net
-An expensive light toy to hold the next ball
-Both the light and (especially) the truss featured prominently in the video as teasers, and in the manual
-A useless but highly described "defense" strategy that no team will choose to focus on, but might be an excuse for a hanging appendage
-The disruptive presence of Ri3D projects, potentially leading to vanilla robots
-No end game currently
-Shorter game play

Arguments against a secret end game:

-Perhaps hidden depths to game play strategy that, without deeper understanding and practice, are not yet discernible to most teams
-The possibility that the truss was donated, borrowed, rented, or already part of FIRST's stock and therefore an easy choice for a field element
-The possibility that FIRST made last-minute changes to the game, or put in place a backup game
-The furor that a major gameplay change would cause among many (most) teams, especially veterans and teams with a quick design/manufacturing process
-The fact that FRC is, after all, made up of humans. They can't always hit a home run; in fact, they might just have made a less-than-exciting game (at least on the surface; see above)


I am inclined toward there being a hidden game. I think it will be revealed soon after Ri3D is complete; certainly no later than next Saturday. I would not be surprised if "assist" were to extend toward helping other teams with a multi-robot hang, perhaps off of a yet-to-be-revealed attachment to the truss.

Very interesting thread, with great, thought out, points from both parties. i am personally thinking that they will add something new with the human players, as they aren't doing much during the game right now. or perhaps i'm not "appreciating the depth of the game"

[Marc S.]

Originally Posted by mrnoble

Arguments for a secret end game:
...
-The disruptive presence of Ri3D projects, potentially leading to vanilla robots
-No end game currently
...

This is probably the biggest thing that gives me hope for this theory. With all the awesome vex versa gear and the multiple Ri3D teams I am kinda... disappointed.

There isn't a whole lot of incentive anymore to design your own system when something (better) is readily available and good to go. Even if a team came up with a design themselves the Ri3D teams are holding a precedent that is hard to ignore and hard not to follow (or at least use as a starting point).

Either way I'm excited to see how Aerial Assist plays out.

[Caio]

Fuel to the flames of conspiracy:

Code to unlock the rules was:
3 zones, 2 goals, 1 alliance

Might be looking to deep into things, but they suuure emphasized "collaboration" a lot.

[Kevin Sevcik]

I'm hearing lots of complaints that Ri3Ds reduced the "diversity" of robots last year, which I find unfathomable. At our regional we had the full gamut of tall shooters, small shooters, 10-30 point hangs, ground pickups, 30-point exclusive hangs, 30-pt hang and dumps, and defense only chassis bots. Only there were a lot less of the latter and more attempts at shooters that could probably work with a little more polish.

This is compared to 2012 where a rather lot our teams didn't even attempt shooters or ground pickups or anything. And many didn't even manage bridge flippers.

So if Ri3D means reducing "diversity" by reducing the number of teams that fail at everything but driving and increasing the number of teams that at least attempt an advanced subsystem like a shooter or manipulator... Well don't you think that might do a slightly better job of Inspiring students about Science and Technology? And you think the GDC is against this somehow?

[zacube]

My regional actually had mostly shooters, with a total of about 4 or 5 full climbers. Of the rest (which were mostly shooters with one or two defense bots) the majority used the same sort of shooter as Ri3D, leading to a large number of very similar robots. We still had a few of the tall shooters, and shooters with other designs, but they were few and far between. While I do not think that Ri3D is entirely a bad thing, as it can be useful for inspiration and some ideas, I do think that a few teams relied on Ri3D for ideas too much. Because of that, I can see FIRST deciding to retaliate with a random major change to the game after Ri3D finished. That said, I am still not completely sold on the idea that they will have some sort of trick up their sleeve to counteract Ri3D.

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

I'm hearing lots of complaints that Ri3Ds reduced the "diversity" of robots last year, which I find unfathomable. At our regional we had the full gamut of tall shooters, small shooters, 10-30 point hangs, ground pickups, 30-point exclusive hangs, 30-pt hang and dumps, and defense only chassis bots. Only there were a lot less of the latter and more attempts at shooters that could probably work with a little more polish.

This is compared to 2012 where a rather lot our teams didn't even attempt shooters or ground pickups or anything. And many didn't even manage bridge flippers.

So if Ri3D means reducing "diversity" by reducing the number of teams that fail at everything but driving and increasing the number of teams that at least attempt an advanced subsystem like a shooter or manipulator... Well don't you think that might do a slightly better job of Inspiring students about Science and Technology? And you think the GDC is against this somehow?

[AndrewPospeshil]

Originally Posted by zacube

My regional actually had mostly shooters, with a total of about 4 or 5 full climbers. Of the rest (which were mostly shooters with one or two defense bots) the majority used the same sort of shooter as Ri3D, leading to a large number of very similar robots. We still had a few of the tall shooters, and shooters with other designs, but they were few and far between. While I do not think that Ri3D is entirely a bad thing, as it can be useful for inspiration and some ideas, I do think that a few teams relied on Ri3D for ideas too much. Because of that, I can see FIRST deciding to retaliate with a random major change to the game after Ri3D finished. That said, I am still not completely sold on the idea that they will have some sort of trick up their sleeve to counteract Ri3D.

Truth be told, I don't know if there is a true and sure counter to Ri3D. People are going to use that regardless, ranging from using it as a blueprint to inspiration. I think this is unavoidable. However, I do think switching it up could prevent teams from all looking the same. Assuming they add an endgame, and assuming it requires only additions as opposed to changes, then we can see some more variety. But I definitely believe there will be repeats, clones, etc, and that's pretty much unavoidable.

[runneals]

I was just looking at the field diagrams (yes, at 12:45 am) to see if they had any thing that stood out in it's design and I found something that made NO SENSE whatsoever at all...

In doing the math, for a human player to retrieve a ball and put it in play, they would need to walk 50 feet to the 'trash can', then another 50 feet back to the field. I can't imagine this being done in a safe manner (watch out for those refs, photographers/media, cables, etc.)...

Likewise, this means that the field reset crew has to have several balls, as the distance between the goals and the balls is all across the field (I couldn't imagine them running back & forth in front of the crowd to deliver the balls to the other side.

Thoughts?

[dubiousSwain]

2 AM here and i am loving the conspiracy theories. keep 'em coming, FIRSTers!

[AndrewPospeshil]

Originally Posted by runneals

I was just looking at the field diagrams (yes, at 12:45 am) to see if they had any thing that stood out in it's design and I found something that made NO SENSE whatsoever at all...

In doing the math, for a human player to retrieve a ball and put it in play, they would need to walk 50 feet to the 'trash can', then another 50 feet back to the field. I can't imagine this being done in a safe manner (watch out for those refs, photographers/media, cables, etc.)...

Likewise, this means that the field reset crew has to have several balls, as the distance between the goals and the balls is all across the field (I couldn't imagine them running back & forth in front of the crowd to deliver the balls to the other side.

Thoughts?

That's another thing that one of my teammates noticed but I didn't put much thought into. I assumed it was just an error or a misprint, but what if it's not? I mean, that's a pretty big error to make, placing the wrong color ball in both slots. At this point I feel like I'm grasping at thin air, but this is just another reason for me to be super suspicious.

I need sleep.

[Incognito]

Originally Posted by AndrewPospeshil

That's another thing that one of my teammates noticed but I didn't put much thought into. I assumed it was just an error or a misprint, but what if it's not? I mean, that's a pretty big error to make, placing the wrong color ball in both slots. At this point I feel like I'm grasping at thin air, but this is just another reason for me to be super suspicious.

I need sleep.

I almost just agreed, but I realized three things that will make sense of this: 1) alliances are scoring at the opposite end of the field that the drivers are driving from; 2) If the ball that was just scored goes to the pedestal behind the alliance wall that it was just scored through, putting the ball back in play here would be putting the ball back in play in the same zone to be able to score instantly again; and 3) There WILL be more than one ball outside of the field, so nobody will need to run back and forth. There would always be a ball ready to be picked up from the pedestal (I believe), and field staff would take the scored ball and return it to the opposite side in an orderly fashion. Taking these things into account, it makes sense that the balls are at the ends that they are: they are correct.

While I'm posting, I have a question to be raised that I haven't seen answered in the manual or anywhere else: When does the pedestal light up? Any references to that are obscure and nothing specific about when it actually lights up is said.

[Wildcats1378]

I think this has some merit to it. I don't really understand why they would put a a huge truss in the middle if all you are doing is lobbing things over it. Why not just a bar? Or a net? why a huge big piece?

I'm hoping it's right, anyway, since this game seems pretty boring to me. basically no obstacles, 2 balls in play at a time, no end game, and a huge reliance on your team mates being able to do something. I feel like it isn't NEARLY as interesting nor exciting to build for as Ultimate Ascent or Rebound Rumble... Maybe they thought that the pyramid endgame was too difficult for rookie teams (which it was!) so they decided to dumb it down a bit to give everyone more of an equal chance?