The Not So-Secret Secret End-Game

[Racer26]

Originally Posted by aldaeron

With three robots playing zone defense and passing when the ball is in another zone - do you really think six 20 points cycles is reasonable? I foresee a lot of pinning to prevent that (what else are the other bots doing?). Or at least interfering with the super bot when it tosses over the truss. Keep in mind that three passes and a high score is 40 points per cycle so you would only need 3 to outscore the scenario you described. Now the 2 defenders may have to help the 20 point cycling super bot allowing more 40 point passing based cycles.

I do think that the super bots will be able to score quite a bit and probably still win matches by themselves - I just think it will be less of a runaway.

I believe the logistical complexity of passing the ball between three robots and three zones (which means it will take considerably longer to do than a team 'going solo' as I described earlier), with the relatively weak position of MOST teams at the regional level means that it will be Championship Elimination rounds (or MSC) before we see some really stellar 3 assist runs from both alliances in a match.

I'm not saying it won't happen. Certainly, you'll see teams (especially those that share a practice facility) that are well practiced at assist manoevres in regional eliminations. 1114 + 2056 come quickly to mind as a pair that will likely be very good at it. But in qualifications, when they'll be paired up with comparatively weaker and slower partners? I'm betting you'll see more solo scorer 2 defender alliances than not.

[yash101]

Originally Posted by aldaeron

Based on this from 3.1.4



I believe that IF (and it is a big if) there was a change it would be between the regular season and championships. I agree with the many previous posts that disrupting the regular season is unlikely, but since the folks headed to championships should be "the best teams" they could handle changes to scoring mentioned in 3.1.4 and possibly an endgame. All they would need to do is amend R18 " At an Event, Teams may have access to a static set of FABRICATED ITEMS that shall not exceed 30 lbs to be used to repair and/or upgrade their ROBOT. ..." to add an additional 30 lbs for a <new cool endgame>


I also agree that there is a shift in the emphasis of this game which I like. Less experienced teams can contribute considerable points by assisting and super-duper-awesome teams can't score 100 points by themselves.

There is also a change in the balance between robot design and actually playing the game. Referencing 2013 - you can't make a full court shooter that can also climb to the 3rd level of the pyramid and just win by yourself. You have to drive well and interact with teams you don't know in advance (maybe they're great at passing, maybe not). I feel this more closely mirrors real engineering tasks - you know some things in advance and can design to accommodate them (i.e. making a high goal scorer) and some things you have to be flexible with (i.e. counting on scoring a 3 ASSIST CYCLE every time depends heavily on your randomly assigned alliance partners). As a real world example - say you are drilling a long tunnel - you can only scan or core a small percentage of the mountain you want to tunnel through (i bet its expensive). You design a path and feed/speed rates for what you can see, but monitor and adjust based on how the tunneler is running, what rocks actually are coming out, etc.

(Note: I am not a tunnel engineer and am making an educated guess here about how it works)

Cool thread - The conspiracy theorists of CD continue to make me chuckle.

-matto-

I strongl diagree with how you mentioned how a full-court shooter could not have a 30 point climber. If we fitted our robot with a more powerful shooter, we would have been able to do both: climb to the third rung and shoot full court. It all is based off how the team designs and prototypes the robot

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by yash101

...There is not enough space because you need a ramp, the shooting mechanism and a really small area for ALL the electronics (including the battery)...

...Face it: The only valid possibilities are to either kick the ball around into the goal or to defend other goals!

This is completely and utterly false. I suggest you go look at some match videos from 2008, where the balls were quite a bit bigger than these.

[Caio]

Don't know if this has been mentioned, but we just started watching the kickoff video again.

It starts with:
"They thought X, they got Y" themes with previous inventions.

Game hint:
"Sorry, we made a mistake. These numbers give the same result but look different and are formatted differently"

Maybe, a completely different challenge, solvable by the same robot.

Food for thought.

[Justin Shelley]

Originally Posted by Caio

Don't know if this has been mentioned, but we just started watching the kickoff video again.

It starts with:
"They thought X, they got Y" themes with previous inventions.

Game hint:
"Sorry, we made a mistake. These numbers give the same result but look different and are formatted differently"

Maybe, a completely different challenge, solvable by the same robot.

Food for thought.

THIS!! I am more inclined to believe this then a change to the current game that would require new mechanisms.

[Peragore]

Originally Posted by Caio

Don't know if this has been mentioned, but we just started watching the kickoff video again.

It starts with:
"They thought X, they got Y" themes with previous inventions.

Game hint:
"Sorry, we made a mistake. These numbers give the same result but look different and are formatted differently"

Maybe, a completely different challenge, solvable by the same robot.

Food for thought.

Or they may not change the game up enough to actually require a large change of the robot. The game is so generic this year that you are almost required to build a robot that is a jack of all trades. That would allow GDC to change most game rules without severely punishing teams. That all ties back to the build for one thing, get another that ad talked about. We are building for one game, but are forced to build in such a generic way that it will work for the real game revealed later.

Just a thought

[mrnoble]

Originally Posted by yash101

To rookies: i do not wish to unmotivate you, but it will be a very hard game and you will need to spend good time making sure you actually get work done, especially with the possibility that they might change parts of the game to make the game actually practical.

Face it: The only valid possibilities are to either kick the ball around into the goal or to defend other goals!

I also disagree with this statement. There are a huge number of ways to make a robot that can extend up to 20" outside it's perimeter pick up, pass, catch, hold, and shoot a relatively small and light ball like the one we have. Video of past games (especially 2008, as was previously mentioned) will be extremely enlightening, and hopefully motivating.

[pilum40]

Originally Posted by mrnoble

I also disagree with this statement. There are a huge number of ways to make a robot that can extend up to 20" outside it's perimeter pick up, pass, catch, hold, and shoot a relatively small and light ball like the one we have. Video of past games (especially 2008, as was previously mentioned) will be extremely enlightening, and hopefully motivating.

I'm just a dumb teacher-coach but working with my team today, It seems as if the "truss" is like a destractor I would use in a multiple-guess question. Please bear with me if I completely illustrate the obvious, it is late and I'm an old guy. After re-reading the manual and watching the game animation over and over, the truss is not the focus of play regardless of the conspiracy comments above. The game is not focused (currently) upon just shooting the ball. What the game is focused on are several different ideas (in my opinion):
1. FIRST needs to keep growing. Rookie teams are the lifeblood of FRC. The autonomous +5 points for just getting from the starting zone to the end zone gives rookie teams a success. Your team and my team will find a way to move, shoot and score in the "hot zone" during auto. We kicked around camera, lazy susan turret and are working on several ideas for a shooter. Again, this part of the game buoys up the rookie teams giving them points for moving. Judging from our own team's experience, just getting the robot to move and do SOMETHING in auto. was a major accomplishment given the relative STEM inexperience and lack of longer term STEM systems in our school. One man's opinion only.

2. The multiple passing point system is an extension of the cooperative game from 2012. It is also something that FIRST has been gradually working on since we've been "in the game". The biggest obstacles for us are deciding how we will pass the ball and if we will get multiple points for 2-3 passing and concentrate on the lower versus upper shooting targets. Adding an elevator system is another system that has the potential of breaking down during the game and complicates both construction, and driver training. Our jury's still out but as of this afternoon, we want to be consistent enough to score and consistent enough to add to the team aspects of this game. Flame me if you want. I've got big shoulders and certainly can learn from all responses.

As posted above, the truss IS a destractor only unless FIRST changes the rules and offers points for doing more with it. 10 points for popping the ball over the bar is not something we want to be trying to do during the shortened game time. It would be cool, and we'll probably build a prototype to gather and shoot. Again, it is consistency of scoring points and team work that we want to sharpen up. For us it's about doing the picking in the finals rather than getting picked.

Fancy engineering is great if you've got the facilities and financial backing. Keeping it simple and to the goals of the game is how smaller, less funded teams operate. I'm thinking FIRST may have had this in mind too. This game is not as complicated as our first game in 2010. That's a good thing. As a teacher, I want my students to work the problem rather than having the problem work them. Great thread though....I'm quite interested to see how y'all work the problem, if you deal with the truss, or just stay the course, keep it real and score lots of points in partnership with others on the course.

Again...I am NOT an engineer but a mere AP Human Geo, AP Government, AP Economics instructor. I truly want to get your thoughts on this. Your thoughts can only make all of our teams better. See some of y'all at the Dallas Regional?

Steve Miller
Team 3355-Purple Vipers

[Jacob Bendicksen]

Perhaps the endgame is to have the human players get the balls balanced on top of the truss. This game seems to have several 'recycled' elements anyway (the balls from '08, the goals from '13, etc.), so maybe they'll strengthen the Overdrive throwback and have the endgame be to put the balls on top of the truss.

More generally though, I'm inclined to think they'll introduce something new. Ri3Ds are limiting the diversity of robots (especially with a game like this one where I imagine most robots will be able to do most things like capture balls, move with them, and get into a goal).

Climbing on the truss seems like too much of a '13 repeat, though.

[runneals]

If it's worth anything, my mentor (who's on JVN) instilled in me the only year I was a member in FRC (last year) was to build in modules/subsystems. I find this truly valuable if teams think there will be a "secret end game". If you build the thrower as a module(s)/subsystem(s), you can easily build another module(s)/subsystem(s) to accommodate the end game.

Robot design shouldn't be 100% around each of the mechanisms you build, but instead as a complete system.

Just some thoughts,
D

[AndrewPospeshil]

Judging by the broadcast this year, I can say with some certainty that there will be an added endgame this year. When will it be introduced? That remains to be seen. But the truth of the matter is that this is one of the "worst games" FIRST has come up with in years. Many people keep comparing it to Overdrive, and rightfully so. They're both devoid of endgame (OD only had a bonus at the end for leaving the ball on top), although OD's robots were at least fast and exciting, mimicking a race track. What does AA have... oh yeah, passing some balls with little to no action outside of the obvious bashing-and-crashing. Plus AA uses recycled game elements from '08 and goals from '13. I might believe there's no secret endgame were there a reason for there not to be. But let's face it. Every year FIRST gets better at what it does, and there's no reason for them to produce something this shallow. Sure it's a fun and interesting game but it really pales in comparison to Ultimate Ascent.

There were some balance issues mentioned relating to Ri3D and pro teams far outscoring rookie teams, which explains the heavy focus on alliance cooperation this year. But there's nothing new. Nothing to make you say "wow, I sure remembered that year!" unless you're talking about how disappointing it was.

We all saw the broadcast. So many hints. "He thought.... He GOT..." and Woodie's comments about

• how they're always making things new and exciting
• how they're trying to make things like the real world (engineers always have shortened deadlines, wrenches thrown into their plans, etc etc)
• how they would literally be changing things between competitions

There's a chance they could add some other element to the game, but at this point it's just not up to the high standards FIRST has set (and met) for itself. More things to consider:

• Trusses are way more expensive than necessary; a simple flat barrier would do the job just fine
• What do the human players do again? Pick balls off the podium, pop 'em back into the field?
• Speaking of pedestals, why are they so unnecessarily fancy? A simple yes/no doesn't need lights, just waiting for the ball to hit the floor behind the drivers would also suffice

I understand if and why you believe there's "more depth to this game than you care to fathom" or some educated-sounding stuff like that, but the evidence is right there. This game is missing something, and has a lot of extra fluff. Something's coming.

(pardon me if I sound incredibly rude, it's 1:30 and I'm exhausted lol. good luck to all of the teams out there, we're gonna need it!)

[M.O'Reilly]

To fuel the fire,

I'd be more interested in a placement challenge for the end game, using the pedestals (which light up green like towers in 2011 and bridges in 2012 and are short enough that a sub 5' bot can reach them). The pedestals can be placed in each alliances scoring zone and double as a "safe spot" to shoot the ball from during the match (like the key or pyramid in years past).

I can also see no changes being made at all.

But I think there's a difference between changing existing challenges and adding new ones. Additions are fair, so long as a ball launcher still works for the game.

[DohertyBilly]

Originally Posted by BigJ

I suggest the posters saying that the game feels "incomplete" really sit down with their teams and imagine how the game will be played. There is a lot of underlying depth to this game that I feel some of the posters in this thread aren't really grasping.

I really doubt that an entire new challenge would be added to the game mid-season. Such a move would only tell teams not to trust the game rules in the future.

I think that this game is not so much about the technical challenge as it is about the strategy that will going into maximizing your efficiency. Personally, I see the 3 zones breaking down into 'jobs' that the robots are essentially assigned by virtue of position. I highly doubt that every robot will be able to do everything, so planning out the match in advance will be key. Of course, there are many different ways this could play out. FIRST only makes the rules, it's really us who decide how to play the game. I don't think Aerial Assist lacks challenge, it's just a different kind. Last year it was simpler as to what we had to do, the challenge was doing it. This year strikes me as the opposite.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by BigJ

I suggest the posters saying that the game feels "incomplete" really sit down with their teams and imagine how the game will be played. There is a lot of underlying depth to this game that I feel some of the posters in this thread aren't really grasping.

I really doubt that an entire new challenge would be added to the game mid-season. Such a move would only tell teams not to trust the game rules in the future.

Quoted for truth. If you think this year's game is simple or boring, you clearly haven't thought it through very well. Playing this game well is going to take flexible strategies and rapid tactics changes.

I'm guessing the people who think it's simple figure they'll grab a ball, pass a ball, ???, ???, their allies score, and start the cycle over. As with basketball, movement away from the ball is going to be critical for success here.

Also, given the outrage and ruckus that's come from MINOR ruling changes late in the season, does anyone really think the GDC is going to drop an entirely new endgame challenge on teams in the middle of build? Please give them a little more credit than that.

Finally, I think you guys are misinterpreting that statement. Try understanding it like this: "launch this year's madness. We're always trying to come up with new ways to keep things fresh and push the boundaries, so we're doing things a bit differently this year, making changes to all parts of the season from kickoff to championship". That sense of the statement has the dual advantages of being true and also not insane.

[kellymc]

To add to the conspiracy, look at the bolts holding the "guides" onto the top of the truss in the video, there is 1-2" of thread exposed, very sloppy for a field element, seems like the guides were a last minute addition.

Having that much thread exposed is generally considered a safety hazard and the field elements are usually very refined