Aerial Assist and Ill Will

[omalleyj]

Originally Posted by Blackphantom91

This thread is rather interesting! I feel that although plays would be very interesting to develop and plan. There is very little time for teams and drivers to have them fully memorized.

I agree, I am thinking more a 3 ring binder with laminated copies of useful plays. Before a match the alliance can get together and agree on a primary approach and maybe an option or two. So you are starting from a pre-thought-out place, not inventing on the fly. Each team has a laminated copy for at the drivers station for reference, if needed. But even as a discussion starter it could be useful.

For example, even if you get the teams at the tournament as soon as you show up to the regional or district event the information it is still not enough time with out practice unfortunately. Anyone remember orchestrating a triple at championships at 2012? Teams would have a hard time doing it without practicing with each other and getting the flow of working together.

The football analogy is really good comparison. The amount of coordination before hand in my opinion is going to be way crazier than other years past because you are no longer working by ones self. although at least you can talk to your teammate in match unlike sometimes in 2012. (qualification white bridge balancing)

I understand, but we are talking pick-up touch, not Bill Belichek film study. For instance the triple balances had to be specifically planned for the exact robots involved. This is much more open ended. Under what combinations of alliance partners and opponents will a long passing game be better? Which call for close passing? When is it best to skip that last assist and shoot from the center zone?

By thinking though the combinations that can work, and having noted them in advance, you can come up with a practical strategy more quickly. By having them diagrammed its easier to explain to partners. "OK we are 3 tall shooters on mecanums facing 3 short herders with 5' nets for defense. Lets play two up and one inbounding. The inbounder passes to whichever is more free the other backs it up for missed balls, and defends on caught balls. Shoot as quickly as you can before the defense can get to you."

You won't have every answer to every situation. But the excercise of systematically thinking about the problem, and recording and testing hypothetical answers can't hurt.

I ultimately think drivers will incoherently develop a sort of flow of offense and defense just as they always have due to certain game elements. I do think that the robots that are in the second tier of a regional will want to show off their capabilities. For example, climbing in 2013 even if it will take them longer than per say epic scorer would. This is all apart of the game by design in my opinion. It is going to take gracious professionalism to win and to lose due to partners. The Robot in 30th place may just want to show off what they want which is ok. This is the reality of what powerhouses will have to deal with.

Long story short TLDR The game is from what I can tell intended to be this way. Its unfortunate for powerhouses because they may come off as the bad team, but its the way the game is meant to be worked though. Teams that minimize this will have great success in my opinion

Agreed, and the ultimate arbiter is always what actually worked, in a real contest. But I like the DDE quote "Plans are nothing, planning is everything"

[indubitably]

This thread seems to be less about ill intent and more about how this year's game may create dissatisfaction with some teams. There seems to be some worry that all non-elite bots will be cast aside if they are on an alliance with an elite bot since there is only one game piece per alliance.

While I understand how this concern exists, I would be shocked if this became a common occurrence. Assist points are the first tiebreaker, so elite teams are going to, at very least, attempt to implement strategies that heavily favor assist scoring, especially if they feel the opposing alliance has a lower scoring capability.

Also, I have considered a great amount of robot combinations for this game and have yet to come up with one where even one bot would not have significant strategic impact. Even if a bot is playing defense, the zones they stay in, the bots they choose to defend, and the situations in which they may need to interact with the ball all affect what each alliance member needs to do to efficiently contribute.

I think the format of the game this year will allow for more teams to take the spotlight as people will be following the game pieces as opposed to particularly impressive bots. A strong defensive play will be more visible and a smooth assist will be highly regarded.

[Mastonevich]

Elite teams will not have as much control of their own destiny based on robot/driver ability alone. Given the point structure they may have to work with, not around, non elite alliance partners.

I expect to hear stories about teams working together DURING build this year.

[Blackphantom91]

Originally Posted by Mastonevich

Elite teams will not have as much control of their own destiny based on robot/driver ability alone. Given the point structure they may have to work with, not around, non elite alliance partners.

I expect to hear stories about teams working together DURING build this year.

I would be agree. but if you have two robots that "think they can" It's not the team that can place to tell them they can't. I would hope teams work together.

I guess the question is how does a team minimize this and everyone goes home happy!

[Blackphantom91]

Originally Posted by indubitably

While I understand how this concern exists, I would be shocked if this became a common occurrence. Assist points are the first tiebreaker, so elite teams are going to, at very least, attempt to implement strategies that heavily favor assist scoring, especially if they feel the opposing alliance has a lower scoring capability.

Also, I have considered a great amount of robot combinations for this game and have yet to come up with one where even one bot would not have significant strategic impact. Even if a bot is playing defense, the zones they stay in, the bots they choose to defend, and the situations in which they may need to interact with the ball all affect what each alliance member needs to do to efficiently contribute.

I think the format of the game this year will allow for more teams to take the spotlight as people will be following the game pieces as opposed to particularly impressive bots. A strong defensive play will be more visible and a smooth assist will be highly regarded.

Well the question isn't really about giving teams the "spotlight" I think every year has ways for teams to individually shine. People will from the get go know an impressive bot when they see one. The question is will a robot take an loss due to the fact of trying to give others the "spotlight"? Because there is only one game piece this year. I think it just enhances the chances of teams who build fantastic machines year in year out who may already have a not so great reputation to become the bad guy.

I would love for every robot to contribute to a match but after 6 seasons I know that there will be some that struggle. It would be different if there were more game pieces but there is not. This game even though others have said everyone can play this game may have people playing "Roles" more like in 2008. I think even Alliances with roles can be formidable this year more so than any other year (kinda like 2012 robot feeding triple auto.) (don't remember if MAR or somewhere else)

So my question is does the team who is in the running for a ranking cooperate or do they go rouge like Sarah Palin ? I think we will see both. I do not personally want this to happen but I feel its unavoidable. Gracious Professionalism is going to be pretty interesting to see this year because it comes into play more than other years due to the one game piece per alliance.

[WaterClaw]

Originally Posted by indubitably

This thread seems to be less about ill intent and more about how this year's game may create dissatisfaction with some teams. There seems to be some worry that all non-elite bots will be cast aside if they are on an alliance with an elite bot since there is only one game piece per alliance.

While I understand how this concern exists, I would be shocked if this became a common occurrence.

Be shocked. Be very shocked if you're saying this mentality is even somewhat unheard of.

Assist points are the first tiebreaker, so elite teams are going to, at very least, attempt to implement strategies that heavily favor assist scoring, especially if they feel the opposing alliance has a lower scoring capability.

Also, I have considered a great amount of robot combinations for this game and have yet to come up with one where even one bot would not have significant strategic impact. Even if a bot is playing defense, the zones they stay in, the bots they choose to defend, and the situations in which they may need to interact with the ball all affect what each alliance member needs to do to efficiently contribute.

As much as "elite bots" will not have as much actual advantage, the mentality will be most unfortunately prevalent. The lasting myth-turned-self-fulfilling-prophecy that veterans will have more of an advantage with more sponsors and better parts and designs. Naturally veteran teams will be affected by overall alliance performance; however when scouting, scouts will have to record subtleties in driver technique and experience.

I think the format of the game this year will allow for more teams to take the spotlight as people will be following the game pieces as opposed to particularly impressive bots. A strong defensive play will be more visible and a smooth assist will be highly regarded.

I would disagree only because failures will be even more obvious with the center of attention on only two elements. Spotlights will be more negative in nature unfortunately than anything. Exceptional performance will be considered the norm and time will be critical.

[Jared Russell]

Football teams have a designated running back. Not everyone carries the ball for touchdowns. The same thing applies in other sports (soccer, basketball, etc.), and in Aerial Assault.

What I find very interesting is that the last time the NFL regular season rushing leader won the Superbowl was 15 years ago. Football is a team sport, and line play and special teams that never make it to SportsCenter decide more games than running backs.

This is the most team-oriented game FIRST has given us in the three-robot alliance era. Each robot must contribute to maximize the score. And the scoring system spells this out explicitly.

Assists are worth more than goals. Goals involve acquiring and depositing a ball into one of several very large, stationary openings. Assists require acquiring and relinquishing a ball to/from another teammate that is moving and may have vastly different ball possession capabilities than your own machine.

Which is a more difficult task to perform quickly and reliably?

How many scorers will make the playoffs? How many assisters?

What is the first tiebreaker?

If you are partnered with a robot that has an amazing scoring function, recognize that just because you don't get to use a mechanism in a given match doesn't mean that you aren't contributing to the alliance. The smart alliance captains will see you and reward your play. (And having a backup shooter for passing or in case of an emergency is never a bad thing).

And lastly, a prediction. I think some top-level teams will recognize that the math doesn't add up the same way it does in other shooting games. I predict that in 2014, you will see teams who have captained alliances on Einstein in the past forgo 10-point shooters in order to excel at other roles.

[ChrisH]

I remember from years ago a very capable team who would start strategy discussions with a simple question....

"What do you want to do to help our alliance?"

The question and tone were sincere and a serious effort was made to accommodate the "needs" of all teams on the alliance, including a shot at "showing off".

At the time I was impressed by the simple courtesy of their actions in encouraging the other teams to get what they wanted out of a match out on the table first thing.

They had a really weird name


The Cheesy Poofs

[Blackphantom91]

Originally Posted by Jared341

I predict that in 2014, you will see teams who have captained alliances on Einstein in the past forgo 10-point shooters in order to excel at other roles.

I don't understand, an all assisting alliance or picking nitches instead?

[WaterClaw]

Originally Posted by Ian Curtis

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.

I would argue other wise considering 2008 (Overdrive) provides us with a lot of methods for piece acquisition this year. Though the ball sizes are not really the same, they're close enough to use the same methods.

Originally Posted by Ian Curtis

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.

I know. However another mentality that can be taken is that the other alliance robots are goals. If you don't think of the target as an indefinite and unpredictable, but a definite target, then passing becomes much less of communication and more instinctual. Instincts and patterns are reliable, communication that can be garbled by the tension of the moment is not.

Originally Posted by Ian Curtis

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?

Teams will always have personalities. Some are more aggressive while others are more submissive. You'll always encounter this problem but especially in this game, I agree. In order for teams to succeed in this heavily alliance based game, it will require teams to be willing to follow as a pose to lead. Every team will think they know best, and each is right. Any good strategy can be made to work so long as the alliance members will cooperate and play their position to the letter. If there is objection, resentment, or timidity as to success, you're hosed ESPECIALLY in this kind of game.

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?

Nope. Unfortunately, your worries are well founded. With FIRST Competitions, deciding factors are sometimes the only things that matter to teams in dire situations of ranking when adrenaline is running high. Ultimately, the one thing teams can do is tolerate the situations as they come, regardless of how unfair or blatantly incorrect the verdicts may be. This as well is applicable to every year, however especially this year when teams are so much more dependent on one another's performance.