Does Aerial Assist achieve the goal?

[Mr. Van]

For years and years, the GDC has tried to get teams to work together beyond simply being on the same alliance: Lifting other robots in 2007 & 2010, Minibot sharing in 2011, Balancing in 2012...

With three weeks done now, has Aerial Assist achieved the goal of really rewarding teams that work together, or do we still have a game where single powerhouse teams can win without much real "assistance"?

- Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox

[dodar]

Since my first year back in 2007, I would say that this year gives those who work together the biggest boost towards winning vs 1 team going solo in matches.

2007 you really needed the help of your alliance members to keep your tubes in a line to get the multiplier, but you could go solo more easily compared to this year in terms of the final score and winning/losing a match.

[Bob Steele]

i think this game certainly achieves the goal of inspiring students.
We worked with several teams during build and we talked about strategies and they built robots to perform different kinds of tasks. We got to work with them to help them achieve their ideas...

I got news back today that one of them, who we had talked to about building a defensive robot (a blocker actually) came back a winner from their last district. The first time they had ever won... we are excited for them...

I would call this a success.

I know you are asking about the "goal" of more cooperation on the field and that remains to be seen I think.... but I also wanted to put my 2 cents in regarding the Goal of the game and of FIRST

[kevin.li.rit]

Originally Posted by dodar

Since my first year back in 2007, I would say that this year gives those who work together the biggest boost towards winning vs 1 team going solo in matches.

2007 you really needed the help of your alliance members to keep your tubes in a line to get the multiplier, but you could go solo more easily compared to this year in terms of the final score and winning/losing a match.

In 2007 You also needed to stand on your partner robot for extra points.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by kevin.li.rit

In 2007 You also needed to stand on your partner robot for extra points.

I know, I was there.

[themccannman]

This game isn't a total flop, but as far as I can tell, great robots are doing better, and average robots are doing worse, it seems to me like the best teams at each regional are pretty dominant.

[AustinH]

I can probably count on one hand the number of matches we won without awesome teamwork over our last two competitions. Practice matches included.

[Monochron]

The game definitely encourages teamwork more than any before. The downside though, is that an alliance of one decent team and two sub-optimal teams are at a greater disadvantage than they were in the past.

For example, this year my team decided to ignore our shooter at the competition and focus on the other issues we were having. As a result we could reliably accept the ball, pick it up from the field, score in low goal, score in auto low goal, and pass very well. Without assists the MOST we can score in a match is 1 point goals, 1/10 of the points that an alliance with a shooter can score. We had quite a few matches with teams who were unable to pickup or even heard the ball and we didn't fair too well in those matches.

I understand this is a somewhat rare case, and that it makes sense that an under powered team should not do as well as a more solid team. I'm just saying that in the past if you had at least one decent bot on your alliance, you had a shot at not being embarrassed. This year, individually you can look good, but your score won't reflect it.

[nuggetsyl]

No this game failed. FIRST keeps forgetting kids want to play the game. They made a game where teams never get the opportunity to shoot the ball because they are not the fastest or most accurate.

[MaxMax161]

Does the game reward teamwork, well, sure.

Does this game reward teamwork the right way, not at all.

Does this game punish teamwork, definitely.

This game rewards teamwork the wrong way by forcing it with assists, everyone touching the ball is good but only because the rules say so. Good teamwork is not forced on teams by the rules but rather something teams will choose to do because it means they perform better. To be fair there are ways this game rewards teamwork the right way, for example 2 ball auton and a goalie. However for the vast majority of the game, and especially in qualification matches where you don't get to pick which robots you play with, teamwork is often punished.

Originally Posted by nuggetsyl

They made a game where teams never get the opportunity to shoot the ball because they are not the fastest or most accurate.

Giving robots who are anything but perfectly reliable the ball is a huge liability and that hurts teamwork. This game punishes an alliance for giving the little guy a chance because that little guy might get pinned, or not be able to eject the ball and the alliance is dead in the water. This game punishes teams for trying to play the game because if they fail they don't just hurt themselves but their entire alliance. Auton is a perfect example, sometimes it's very necessary to ask an alliance partner not to start with a ball in auton because they might miss, and missed auton hurts the entire alliance.

tl;dr Teamwork that is only a good idea because the rules explicitly say so is mediocre at best. A game where it's better for the alliance for a team to do nothing rather than try and play the game punishes, not rewards, teamwork.

[nuggetsyl]

Also because of how the game works. If one robot breaks in the playoffs your done. You can not win this game with 2 robots. The penalty of being the number one seed is dam near death in district events. They should allow the top seeded team pick where they pick from. Example number one seed could pick to be the 4th seed.

[Brandon_L]

Originally Posted by MaxMax161

Giving robots who are anything but perfectly reliable the ball is a huge liability and that hurts teamwork. This game punishes an alliance for giving the little guy a chance because that little guy might get pinned, or not be able to eject the ball and the alliance is dead in the water.

This.

We had an alliance partner in a Quals match at Chesnut hill that said "We can inbound from the human player, but if we get tapped we lose comms for about 30 seconds."

We had to flat out tell them they shouldn't have the ball inside of their robot. We felt horrible, but what else would we be able to do? Of course, they went ahead and did it anyway. And I'll leave the rest of that match up to your imagination.

I think the GDC missed a huge point when designing this game: 65% of robots at your everyday regional or district event don't actually work as intended if at all. And the GDC just put an entire alliance including my team in trouble because one of those robots are on it. Sure, this game will be a killer come champs. But what about all those teams that don't make it? >5k down the drain.

Originally Posted by nuggetsyl

No this game failed. FIRST keeps forgetting kids want to play the game. They made a game where teams never get the opportunity to shoot the ball because they are not the fastest or most accurate.

As compared to previous games where the weak robots on an alliance are made to play defense, feed their teammates, and are given the minimal amount of scoring objects possible.

Regardless of the game, bad robots aren't going to be asked to be performing integral scoring roles in winning a match. When the common goal of the alliance is winning a match, each team on an alliance must play their part to maximize the chances of winning the match, and for the bad robots this often means playing a non-integral role. This is a characteristic of coopertition, and cannot (and in my opinion should not) be avoided. Is it nice to let the little guy have a swing at doing something? Sure. But when it is risky enough to lose the match for the entire alliance, I believe anyone would agree it's not a safe bet.

[MaxMax161]

Originally Posted by Andrew Lawrence

As compared to previous games where the weak robots on an alliance are made to play defense, feed their teammates, and are given the minimal amount of scoring objects possible.

Regardless of the game, bad robots aren't going to be asked to be performing integral scoring roles in winning a match....

I think it's fair to say teams go into competitions wanting to see their robots play the game by doing offensive things. It's inspiring to see the catapult you worked hard on fling a ball, not so much to watch it remain idle. Think of quals specifically, previous years it was okay if less effective teams on an alliance tried offense and failed, it wasn't good and most of the time it's not the optimal match strategy, but it was okay. Less effective robots failing didn't break the alliance and more effective robots could win matches without having to ask teams to give up the chance to see their robot do offense. This year less effective robots failing no longer results in just not getting points it actively punishes the entire alliance. There are many more matches where the alliance has to ask a specific team to give up the opportunity to see their robot in action for the sake of the match. I'm not saying those didn't exist before but it happens a lot more in this game than in others and that's not a good thing.

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by nuggetsyl

No this game failed. FIRST keeps forgetting kids want to play the game. They made a game where teams never get the opportunity to shoot the ball because they are not the fastest or most accurate.

I agree with Sean to an extent.
The fact that no safe zone was created for this game, makes it nearly impossible for the majority of teams who cant make a shot if a defender(s) are whacking them constantly.

I feel we built a robot around defense and have experienced drivers. But with that, we feel its very tough to score regardless.