Nerf Co-op and Litter

[ttldomination]

Nerf (v)
To weaken or make less dangerous.

Dear FIRST,

When you released the game this year, I was a little disappointed, but if my time in FRC has taught me anything, watch the game before you judge it. Watch 254 and 148 play the game. Watch the rookies play the game. And then, you may judge.

I have seen both, and FIRST, nerf co-op and litter in qualifications.

Nerfing the co-op points and unprocessed litter points would not only help balance out the rankings a little bit, but it would also greatly improve the quality of the game.

Currently, if your team can manage a co-op stack and you have a Noddle Jesus on your team, you can manage in the neighborhood of 60-80 points every match.

Now, co-op will normally shake up the rankings, but in week 1, this was particularly bad. Your robot can can stack two totes and your human player has the great divine on his side, and all of a sudden you can break into the top 8.

But to me, that's not even the worst part. The quality of the game drastically improves when you remove these components.

I recall in one qualifications match where the alliances messed up the co-op stack early and do you know what we saw? A close match with multiple stacks on the scoring zone. The match was insane and intense. And you know what? The crowd loved it; so much so that one person ran up to me yelling "This is how it's supposed to be played."

In the playoffs, the co-op totes are completely removed, and alliances can focus their strategic efforts towards getting the most points with totes and RCs, and what did we see? Everyone was getting in the game. The weakest alliances were posting some of the best scores, teams were daring to stack higher than ever, and the game really came into its own.

The crowd loved it. The teams loved it. I loved it.

- Sunny G.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by ttldomination

Dear FIRST,

When you released the game this year, I was a little disappointed, but if my time in FRC has taught me anything, watch the game before you judge it. Watch 254 and 148 play the game. Watch the rookies play the game. And then, you may judge.

I have seen both, and FIRST, nerf co-op and litter in qualifications.

Nerfing the co-op points and unprocessed litter points would not only help balance out the rankings a little bit, but it would also greatly improve the quality of the game.

Currently, if your team can manage a co-op stack and you have a Noddle Jesus on your team, you can manage in the neighborhood of 60-80 points every match.

Now, co-op will normally shake up the rankings, but in week 1, this was particularly bad. Your robot can can stack two totes and your human player has the great divine on his side, and all of a sudden you can break into the top 8.

But to me, that's not even the worst part. The quality of the game drastically improves when you remove these components.

I recall in one qualifications match where the alliances messed up the co-op stack early and do you know what we saw? A close match with multiple stacks on the scoring zone. The match was insane and intense. And you know what? The crowd loved it; so much so that one person ran up to me yelling "This is how it's supposed to be played."

In the playoffs, the co-op totes are completely removed, and alliances can focus their strategic efforts towards getting the most points with totes and RCs, and what did we see? Everyone was getting in the game. The weakest alliances were posting some of the best scores, teams were daring to stack higher than ever, and the game really came into its own.

The crowd loved it. The teams loved it. I loved it.

- Sunny G.

I'm going to disagree with you here.

From early on (right at kickoff) we noticed that the game was actually 3 different games (the seeding rounds, the elims, and the finals) and that each 'game' had different requirements. Because of that, a robot (or team) that will do well in one 'game' may not do well in the next.

Because of this those that are designing for the seeding rounds must also scout for the other 2 game types. and those designing for the elime or finals need to sell themselves as viable partners to those designed for the seeding rounds.

The nuances of this year are far deeper than most years, and I believe that that is a good thing.

[Boltman]

Play the game as is and see how you do.

I agree the noodles can effect the game so be it. That means our team has to have that capability if employed against our alliance...not my favorite part but it is what it is. I do see it as "cheap" HP points but they still count and you have a choice of 6 in RC -or- 4 thrown or 1 pushed to LF...we plan to use some for 6 throwing would waste 2 points per N.

As for Co-OP again its part of the game...so live with it. Your choice whether to co-op or not. Your pain or gain.

It would be different if at launch they did not tell us the rules but alas THEY DID! Only major change was eliminating the loophole "Noodle Agreement".

So either you designed a robot as a team to compete effectively in 2015 or you did not.

Its like life , not perfect. You do your best with what you have as a team.

Perhaps feedback will help after RR or this could be the best game ever... guess we'll see.

[JeffersonMartin]

Originally Posted by Boltman

Lots of whining here on Delphi ... play the game as is and see how you do.

I agree the noodles can effect the game so be it. That means our team has to have that capability if employed against our alliance...not my favorite part but it is what is.

As for Co-OP again its part of the game...so live with it. Your choice whether to co-op or not. Your pain or gain.

It would be different if at launch they did not tell us the rules but alas THEY DID! Only major change was eliminating the loophole "Noodle Agreement".

So either you designed a robot as a team to compete effectively in 2015 or you did not.

No use whaling to FRC about the game until its over..they aren't changing it.
Perhaps feedback will help or this could be the best game ever... guess we'll see.

I don't see this as whining at all. He is pointing out his observations of the game, and how it could be improved. I agree with him, there was a team at our event that could really only coop and had a very good human player. It is very dissapointing to see a robot that is better seed worse just because they couldn't throw noodles as wel . Human players having too much effect was a legitimate complaint in 2009, and I think it is just as legitimate here.
Edit* Another problem with the noodles is that they can be off putting to outside people. Over the weekend, I had several team parents ask me why teams whose robots were playing much better were scoring lower than people who were throwing noodles. To outside people, the noodles take away some of the legitimacy of this being a " robotics" competition. Just something to think about

[Nathan Rossi]

I was personally a bit concerned about the value of litter when I first saw the game at kickoff. I thought it was worth way too many points. Though, after getting some hands on experience with the noodles, I was fairly certain most human player would be unable to throw the noodles far enough, diminishing my concerns of human players scoring way too many points.

As build season moved along, our human player (as well as other human players) were starting to show signs that they could consistently throw litter onto the opponents field. After watching week 1 events, it's clear most human players can throw litter and it's a very good strategy. Why? Two main reasons, one, it's worth four points if it's unprocessed, and two, it clogs up your opponent's field, creating annoying obstacles.

The problem I have with litter is that human players can directly score many points, a lot of times more than the robot themselves, this can swing matches. What I don't have a problem with is pool noodles getting in the way of robots. It's part of the engineering challenge. How are you going to be able to push pool noodles and still get over the scoring platform? There are several simple solutions, but I hope you get my point.

I think the penalty of pool noodles getting in the way of opponent robots is reason alone to throw them. My suggestion to FIRST, make unprocessed litter worth 1 or 2 points, preferably 1.

[Doug Frisk]

Originally Posted by JeffersonMartin

I don't see this as whining at all. He is pointing out his observations of the game, and how it could be improved. I agree with him, there was a team at our event that could really only coop and had a very good human player. It is very dissapointing to see a robot that is better seed worse just because they couldn't throw noodles as wel . Human players having too much effect was a legitimate complaint in 2009, and I think it is just as legitimate here.

I'm going to say no, there wasn't a team that could only do coop. Any team that can coop can place a bin or two at a time on the scoring platform.

The litter throwing is also a good thing because you could design a robot to deal with litter if you wanted, people didn't so they want the litter removed.

What's unbalanced in this game is probably the recycling containers. They are worth too much because they are the item that is the most difficult to place. They should be worth more points than the totes because they are harder to manipulate, but their value of 2 times the stack height is out of line.

The game would be better if the scoring were 2 points per bin and 4 points per recycling container with a bonus of 1 point per level.

With that, a capped stack would be 12 points plus 10 for the container instead of 36. That would give high stacking/capping teams a competitive advantage without being the overwhelming advantage it currently is.

[SoMe_DuDe904]

Originally Posted by DareDad

What's unbalanced in this game is probably the recycling containers. They are worth too much because they are the item that is the most difficult to place. They should be worth more points than the totes because they are harder to manipulate, but their value of 2 times the stack height is out of line.

The game would be better if the scoring were 2 points per bin and 4 points per recycling container with a bonus of 1 point per level.

With that, a capped stack would be 12 points plus 10 for the container instead of 36. That would give high stacking/capping teams a competitive advantage without being the overwhelming advantage it currently is.

Although I agree with you that the containers boost the score too much I think the multiplication values need to be easy. Something like 2 points per level versus 4. You have to keep the scoring simple because the audience already has a hard time following this complex scoring system.

[118418]

Does anyone see it that allowing points for thrown litters is disadvantaging girl players? Same with Frisbies in 2013.

[Kevin Leonard]

Originally Posted by 118418

Does anyone see it that allowing points for thrown litters is disadvantaging girl players? Same with Frisbies in 2013.

Both litter and frisbees require significantly more finesse than physical ability to throw effectively.
I see no difference between male or female human players at either task.

[118418]

Originally Posted by Kevin Leonard

Both litter and frisbees require significantly more finesse than physical ability to throw effectively.
I see no difference between male or female human players at either task.

That maybe true. But from the matches I've watched, I haven't seen a girl player in that role. I wonder if what you said is also FIRST's rationale.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by Kevin Leonard

Both litter and frisbees require significantly more finesse than physical ability to throw effectively.
I see no difference between male or female human players at either task.

I suspect the point is less "girls can't throw" and more "girls tend to be shorter". There is a common argument for taller being better when throwing over the alliance wall. Anecdotally this past weekend (at Horsham), this observation appeared to have some merit for noodles. That said, I'm not arguing to change the practice(s) at all. Heck, my Einstein HP in 2013 was like 5'4"? (I don't know how tall he is, but he's not tall.) Granted, 2015 is a lot closer to 2009 than 2013 in this regard. As for not seeing girls as HPs; given our ratio on most Drive Teams and teams in general, it's not so surprising regardless of the HP task.

[Caleb Sykes]

525's human player was so short that he had to jump to make 6-tote stacks behind the wall, but he was one of the best throwers I have seen. I don't think hardly any HPs in FRC are at the point where physical limitations are the reason why they can't throw well, I think insufficient practice is almost exclusively the limiting factor.

[asid61]

As long as all teams can score both noodle and co-op points, the field stays leveled, especially with the average-score system this year. I agree co-op is worth too much, but it just makes the little guys closer to the top teams this year. Scouts are going to need to be good.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Siri

I suspect the point is less "girls can't throw" and more "girls tend to be shorter". There is a common argument for taller being better when throwing over the alliance wall. Anecdotally this past weekend (at Horsham), this observation appeared to have some merit for noodles.

Except that at Inland Empire, one of the best HPs in the game for throwing was also one of the shortest. I strongly suspect (opinion, nothing to back it up) that one of the reasons his team was picked was his ability to rack up the 4s, match after match after match.

[Mark Sheridan]

Originally Posted by EricH

Except that at Inland Empire, one of the best HPs in the game for throwing was also one of the shortest. I strongly suspect (opinion, nothing to back it up) that one of the reasons his team was picked was his ability to rack up the 4s, match after match after match.

Indeed, the funny thing 3476's human player trained a fair number of the best human players at IE, even though he never has time to throw litter himself because of all the tote loading he has to do. 3250's human player was nervous cause she never thrown litter in competition but we never doubted her. she practiced with our human player in the hallways between the matches, and she is really good at it.

No one on our alliance at IE liked the litter throwing, but once the throws started going, we felt compelled to throw too to keep up with the pace of scores. I think canning litter was much harder (3250 was good at that too). I kinda wish the game got stopped throwing until the last 20 seconds. You don't need more than 20 seconds to empty the litter bin.