Aerial Assist and Ill Will

[Ian Curtis]

I am excited to see Aerial Assist played on the field this year. It's very cool that the GDC chose a new gameplay mechanic to try out.

At the same time, I am worried that only 1 ball per alliance has the real potential to breed ill will. FRC teams for the most part do not build robots that are good at scoring points. (2011 OPR distribution) Having watched many FRC matches, if I had a penny for every second I've seen a robot try to acquire a game piece and come up empty, I would be a rich man. Let's say you're on an alliance with two BLTs and one perennial powerhouse. If the BLTs can't POSSESS the ball well, chances are giving your powerhouse exclusive access to the ball will score the most points. But if the BLTs have mechanisms they want to try/show off, this game plan is obviously not going to fly with them. An additional factor is the damage done if a ball gets stuck in a faulty mechanism.

There are always some threads every year where people complain about coaching. Given that there is only one ball per alliance in teleop and scoring points actually requires coordination, the personalities and persuasive skills of the drive team will be critical. I can only imagine that these threads will be more frequent and more heated.

On top of this, there is a non-negligible portion of people involved with FRC that already hold ill will against high performing robots and their for a variety of reasons. This opinion is not held by many people active on CD, but you don't have to look far at an event to find people that feel this way. Might this get worse if they perceive a team as being ballhogs?

The GDC's solution was to make ASSISTS the secondary sort, which alleviates some of this problem. Is it enough? Am I worried about nothing?

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by Ian Curtis

The GDC's solution was to make ASSISTS the secondary sort, which alleviates some of this problem. Is it enough? Am I worried about nothing?

Assists are the secondary sort (after WLT), which makes them the first tiebreaker. That makes them extremely important.

I'm also worried about animosity this game is going to create between teams.

[BrendanB]

Ian I too share your feelings.

I think we all can see how the game will be played at the highest level but the reality is that at the lowest level the game will be extremely boring to watch and if you have one good robot on an alliance with two robots who can do very little issues will come up.

I'm really stuck as to how a/our team would carry out a match on both sides of the spectrum. All of our teams have the potential to be a high caliber scoring robot but looking over past years of FRC it is easy to see that most teams that compete will not perform to such a high level.

For me I don't want to go into a match steam rolling my partners (if we have a great robot) and I don't want to be the one getting steam rolled (if we have a not so great robot). Then again I know we have a match to win and its not right for an a good team (either us or a better robot on our alliance) to get screwed because we have to share the one ball we get with our partners. I'm not looking forward to any scenarios where "ball fights" occur.

This will be one of those games where at really good events the eliminations will be exciting to watch but at early/bad events I'm going to have to say it will be a miss for FIRST.

Its one of those "pie in the sky" games. It would be great if Aerial Assist is played at that level but the reality is it won't.

[Chi Meson]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't a robot "possess" a ball by simply herding it? The simplest robot has the potential to add 10-points to each scoring cycle just by bumping a ball from zone 1 to zone 2. A good team should know how to make the best of the situation if they are allied with 1 or even 2, um... let's say "learning teams."

As we go through the quals, there will be occasions of 3 weak teams on an alliance, it always happens, and we were once one of those weak teams, and I'll tell ya: we expected to be thrashed by the powerhouses, and it made us want to be like them.

Back then we were most impressed by those teams that took it is stride that our team was actually a liability to their alliance at a time when they were battling for top 8 placement. The best teams came to us and shared their knowledge of the game, they saw how our hack-bot could work best with them, and we did what we could to follow their strategy.

Ill will can and should be avoided by both the strong, weak and mediocre teams. I don't see why this year would cause any more than others.

[Bill_B]

We've pretty well recognized that what are called assists are actually possessions and unlike the usual sports understanding of an assist. That means the assisting in Aerial Assist should be taking place off the field. Starting NOW. Check your tournament rosters. Which teams would you guess to be in position to pick alliances? Contact those teams (NOW) and ask them what sort of robot will they be looking for. Build that robot. Ask for help if you think you need it.

I'm already tired of hearing how "top tier" teams will be starved for alliance partners due to some perception of lesser competence among the general FRC team population. If you have any aspiration to be a top tier team this year, you must consider what sort of talent will be available to help you get there THIS YEAR. Get busy making sure it will be around. There is not a lot of time left.

You do know how to find out which teams will be at your tournament(s), don't you?

[cadandcookies]

I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, it seems like a really good way to create some animosity if even one party isn't being cooperative, but on the other hand, it also forces higher-capability teams to think more about their alliance partners. It's important to remember that highly competitively successful teams make up a tiny percentage of FIRST teams-- does it competitively suck to know that your success in a match may be tied to your luck in match assignment? Yes, of course! But also remember that this is how 90% of FIRST teams experience a regional.

That being said, I do think that, from the perspective of "I want to see the best matches possible," it's kind of annoying that a little bit of pure dumb misfortune could land some otherwise potentially successful teams playing sub-optimal strategies because they remembered the key to working in a team: compromise.

Ultimately though, at the end of the day, I don't really (shocker) care all that much whether there's a highly focused robotics competition happening at every regional. If other people are still walking away inspired, it's all fine with me. Personally, I would find it incredibly inspiring if a highly-capable team helped a less capable one both show off their mechanisms and still scrape by with a win.

As to whether our theoretical low capability team should just accept the strategy of the elite team, I don't think it's that cut and dry. Just like there's more to FRC than showing off your robot, there's also more to FRC than winning matches. Some teams have priorities other than winning matches. They aren't less or more right than a team has the goal of winning the tournament.

[Joseph Smith]

It is a little sad to me that it comes to this. I know that if my team was a rookie team, or if we lacked the resources to build a highly effective robot, I would be disappointed if we were asked to stay away from the ball and play defense. I wish that the powerhouse teams would try to help the less competitive teams by showing them how to improve their robots and strategies rather then insisting they can't test their systems. Yeah, this is a competition, but it's about inspiring and helping others.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by Joseph Smith

It is a little sad to me that it comes to this. I know that if my team was a rookie team, or if we lacked the resources to build a highly effective robot, I would be disappointed if we were asked to stay away from the ball and play defense. I wish that the powerhouse teams would try to help the less competitive teams by showing them how to improve their robots and strategies rather then insisting they can't test their systems. Yeah, this is a competition, but it's about inspiring and helping others.

Teams do, but there is only so much teams can do during competition to raise the level of competition of other teams.

Also, if you were a team that didnt build a highly effective robot, with there being only 1 ball per alliance and robot ability/time really decides the score of the match even 1 robot on an alliance that is out of tune or uncapable of keeping up with the others would be detrimental to winning a match if playing offense; therefore, it would be better for all 3 teams if it played defense. I would hope teams, rookies or veterans, would be able to see that.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by dodar

Also, if you were a team that didnt build a highly effective robot, with there being only 1 ball per alliance and robot ability/time really decides the score of the match even 1 robot on an alliance that is out of tune or uncapable of keeping up with the others would be detrimental to winning a match if playing offense; therefore, it would be better for all 3 teams if it played defense. I would hope teams, rookies or veterans, would be able to see that.

There is more than one way to tip the score differential in your favor. Some prefer all-out offense, scoring lots of points. Others prefer all-out defense, preventing points from being scored. The best strategy, of course, is a mixture of offense and defense.

If you can't play offense because of X, then I HIGHLY encourage spending lots of time practicing and playing shutdown defense. I could see picking a team that could consistently and legally prevent the ball from going to the scoring side of the truss, particularly as a 2nd pick, regardless of offensive capability (though opponents might be pretty offended ).

[dodar]

Originally Posted by EricH

There is more than one way to tip the score differential in your favor. Some prefer all-out offense, scoring lots of points. Others prefer all-out defense, preventing points from being scored. The best strategy, of course, is a mixture of offense and defense.

If you can't play offense because of X, then I HIGHLY encourage spending lots of time practicing and playing shutdown defense. I could see picking a team that could consistently and legally prevent the ball from going to the scoring side of the truss, particularly as a 2nd pick, regardless of offensive capability (though opponents might be pretty offended ).

Exactly.

[bEdhEd]

When I coached last year, I let teams know that I knew what I was doing, and that all I wanted to do was to help them during the match, and to help them win. I calmly talked to the students about strategy and made them understand what had to be done, so they were more enthusiastic about what will be done to win the match, rather than what they really wanted to do. If a team wants to test out a system, they can certainly do so if our scouting data predicts a high chance of winning the match in the first place. If not, there is a reason for practice fields.

It takes some communication skills and good body language to let others understand that you're not being dominant, but being a leader. If a team has to give up something they want to do, they need to understand that every decision in strategy is done for the good of the alliance. I just ask them "do you want all of us to get these seeding points?" and they usually agree to a strategy that wins the match, whatever it may be. Using strategy mats or boards to make strategies and plans visible and clear and can also help quell any disagreements. See my post on strategy mats if you want one. IT'S FREE!!!!!

Once students and mentors see the plan laid out, and how it will work, there is generally no rejection, and breaking of the original plan while on the field. But this has happened in the past, where teams say they agree to a strategy pre-match, but do something else for no good reason, and ruin the match. I never had problems with alliance members challenging what the plans should be, because everyone participates in making the strategy, and coaches will make compromises if they see a reason to trust me (I rely on my drive team experience), and that my role is to be a leader, not a boss.

This is something that I need to teach to the coach for our drive team this year, since I will not be coaching for this season.

[efoote868]

Looking at the title of this thread, I started thinking about a different (and unthinkable?) scenario being discussed, similar to the co-op bridge in 2012. Glad we're not discussing it, and I hope the discussion is never needed.


Back in 2008 there weren't enough game pieces to go around. There were certain teams (like mine ) that picked a wrong strategy for the game and ended up building a sub-par robot. During regional competitions, it was a rare occurrence to be paired with two robots that were significantly better than average. This meant that the best robot got a ball, and the other two shared.

During the championship event, it was a rare enough occurrence to have two below average robots on an alliance. Ultimately, teams like mine tended to be deferential to the other two - which is to say that we didn't go after a game piece until we were told we should by another team.

From experience, I can say that there will be plenty of opportunities to demonstrate your abilities. My team catapulted the trackball several times that season. If you don't think your robot is good enough to pick or be picked in the first round, your offensive abilities likely won't be the only reason you would get picked for elimination. One thing that is guaranteed is those picking will remember uncooperative teams and bad attitudes. If you do your best to be a team player, you will do better than you would otherwise do.

[Bill_B]

Originally Posted by dodar

Teams do, but there is only so much teams can do during competition to raise the level of competition of other teams.

...

This is the main reason I suggested that teams aspiring to win tournaments need to start now to raise the level of competition at their upcoming tournaments. Teams that have lower estimates of their abilities need to seek help, AKA offer the opportunity for other teams to help.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by Bill_B

This is the main reason I suggested that teams aspiring to win tournaments need to start now to raise the level of competition at their upcoming tournaments. Teams that have lower estimates of their abilities need to seek help, AKA offer the opportunity for other teams to help.

Dude, at some point teams just need to step it up themselves. You see "top tier" teams building the robots they do at the levels they do because they are able to put their heart and souls into them. If you see them having to gout out to 2, 3, 4, etc.. teams to help them actually get a half competitive robot, then you will drop the total competitiveness of everyone.

[Whippet]

Originally Posted by dodar

Dude, at some point teams just need to step it up themselves. You see "top tier" teams building the robots they do at the levels they do because they are able to put their heart and souls into them. If you see them having to gout out to 2, 3, 4, etc.. teams to help them actually get a half competitive robot, then you will drop the total competitiveness of everyone.

The problem there is that some teams are simply incapable of building a half-competitive robot without help. Our team consists of fifteen people, two hand drills, two bladeless hacksaws, a ratchet set, a cutoff saw, and a virtually nonexistent budget. I challenge any "competitive" team to try to build even their most simple mechanism with those tools, and 80-90% of the students building it having never picked up a screwdriver in their lives, and then tell us that those teams are capable of lifting themselves up without outside intervention. Without help from another team, it's not going to happen in many cases.