Problem's with 2015…

[Loose Screw]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

I completely disagree. We just removed some factors from it. A match where you are playing with two toasters is a hard one not to have drop your ranking.

Playing with two "toasters" is always hard to carry. However, unless they are directly interfering with your robot, they should not affect how many points your robot can put out. For example, look at 1114 and other "powerhouse" teams, and compare that to last year.

Last year if you were placed with two "toasters", the other alliance could focus your robot and easily outscore you, resulting in the same amount of QP as the two "toasters".

With this year though, if your two alliance partners can't score, their average scores will show that. Likewise, if you can consistantly put out X amount of points, your average will show for it. For example, two "toasters" get placed with 1114. Sure their average score will get a boost, but because it's only for one match it won't matter in the long term. For 1114 though, even though they didn't score as many points as they could have, they still scored what their robot could put out, so their average won't be dropped that much.

The only robots that are affected by alliance partners are the robots that focus primarily on the RC. They could steal all 4 RC in auto and be able to cap 7 6-stacks, but that doesn't matter if their partners can't make them. That is a risk that I can imagine they took into account when they were designing their robot. Those robots, however, will do very well in high levels of play when their partners can easily spit out 6-stacks.

TL;DR
Average score > Win/Loss
RC bots struggle with Quals, but will kill in Finals.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Loose Screw

Playing with two "toasters" is always hard to carry. However, unless they are directly interfering with your robot, they should not affect how many points your robot can put out. For example, look at 1114 and other "powerhouse" teams, and compare that to last year.

Last year if you were placed with two "toasters", the other alliance could focus your robot and easily outscore you, resulting in the same amount of QP as the two "toasters".

With this year though, if your two alliance partners can't score, their average scores will show that. Likewise, if you can consistantly put out X amount of points, your average will show for it. For example, two "toasters" get placed with 1114. Sure their average score will get a boost, but because it's only for one match it won't matter in the long term. For 1114 though, even though they didn't score as many points as they could have, they still scored what their robot could put out, so their average won't be dropped that much.

The only robots that are affected by alliance partners are the robots that focus primarily on the RC. They could steal all 4 RC in auto and be able to cap 7 6-stacks, but that doesn't matter if their partners can't make them. That is a risk that I can imagine they took into account when they were designing their robot. Those robots, however, will do very well in high levels of play when their partners can easily spit out 6-stacks.

TL;DR
Average score > Win/Loss
RC bots struggle with Quals, but will kill in Finals.

While I agree with you in theory [1] in practice it doesn't quite work out. I watched a robot actively play defense on their partner in a few matches last weekend and it definitely hurt their average score. This robot was a toaster in the biggest sense of the word (incapable of scoring a point) and was simply getting in the way. It didn't help that they were ~4' long and had almost 0 control of their robot.

As for why my simulations didn't see it? Because I didn't want to deal with the flak for saying that, on average, probably 15-20% of teams are actually worth NEGATIVE points in that they do little more than get in the way of scoring robots.

[1] http://beyondinspection.org/post/108...-visualization

[nuclearnerd]

Originally Posted by Loose Screw

Last year if you were placed with two "toasters", the other alliance could focus your robot and easily outscore you, resulting in the same amount of QP as the two "toasters". ...

TL;DR
Average score > Win/Loss
RC bots struggle with Quals, but will kill in Finals.

Which is why 2014 was amazing for alliance play! Top tier teams couldn't take their QPs for granted. They had to get into the pits before matches and really work on their partners to get them up to snuff. Instead of 6 teams doing their independent thing, alliances had to develop new strategies to eek out assists (our playbook was changing well into the post-season!). Matches, even ones featuring big-budget teams, were nail-biting. It was a fun, dynamic game.

I really hope the assist mechanic (or something like it) returns in future.

[dtengineering]

Originally Posted by Briansmithtown

Throughout the NYC regional day one, I have noticed a few problems with the game.

1) it's kinda boring. Your really just watching an aggressive factory line. Kinda a let down after last years robot on robot action.

Does anyone else notice any other problems with this year game?

You're welcome to your opinion on boring vs exciting, but it is one that I don't share. This is actually quite an interesting game, and I find it fascinating to see how teams have taken advantage of the new rules.

i like it when the GDC shakes things up a bit.

Jason

[brandon.cottrell]

The only thing I don't like about this year is the ranking system, but it's still not really bad. Everything else is great.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by dtengineering

You're welcome to your opinion on boring vs exciting, but it is one that I don't share. This is actually quite an interesting game, and I find it fascinating to see how teams have taken advantage of the new rules.

i like it when the GDC shakes things up a bit.

Jason

This game could have had potential, but it is boring in a particular way. Once I've seen a good robot run a couple of matches, what they do is so repetitive that I have little interest in watching them much until the elim rounds. And then in the elim rounds, I have yet to see a truly "on the edge of your seat" competition. I've watched at least a dozen regionals/districts on webcasts along with attending ours, and unlike last year when I was jumping around a lot, I don't feel like I'm missing much if I skip matches.

[The other Gabe]

Originally Posted by Briansmithtown

Your really just watching an aggressive factory line.

may the most aggressive factory win!

In all seriousness, I feel like the game is what you make of it. if you like it and enjoy its strategic moments, it's fun to watch. I will admit though that I miss scouting out teams for weaknesses when they faced us in the next match... taking advantage of those won us matches we could have lost (and now there's no way to do that unless you have a heck of a noodler).

To address your concern about allies. yeah, that's why they made the game this way. you have to coordinate. Sometimes it really sucks (especially since we always seem to have more games with sub-par teams than some of the other teams do. yet and again, maybe we just think that when we aren't performing up to standard, but I digress), but in the end it is somewhat more fair this year than it has been in previous years.

[Alyssa]

The main issue with this game is that they have completely excluded the outside world from understanding or enjoying it. Yea, we all can get excited b/c the robots are so complex and so technically awesome, however, to the average spectator, coming to a venue to watch robots stack boxes and put trash cans on top? It's not very exciting.

[Knufire]

Originally Posted by alyssa2485

The main issue with this game is that they have completely excluded the outside world from understanding or enjoying it. Yea, we all can get excited b/c the robots are so complex and so technically awesome, however, to the average spectator, coming to a venue to watch robots stack boxes and put trash cans on top? It's not very exciting.

Exactly this. This game is essentially a glorified skills challenge, save for the minibot race at high levels of play.

[Peter Johnson]

I'd like to turn this discussion on its head a bit--rather than focusing on the things we dislike in the game, let's suggest ways in which the game design could have been improved (either via major changes in overall construction, point value changes, or even just a minor rule change) and how such changes might have affected robot designs and/or gameplay in a positive fashion. Note: I'm obviously not suggesting changes to the game this late in the season, just talking about how the game might have been designed differently from the start. To kick it off, here are two ideas I've kicked around with a couple of people.

1) Make cooperative building of stacks worth more points (e.g. mix in a bit of the 2014 game concept of "handoffs"). If one robot stacks the totes and a different robot puts the RC on top, add a point bonus. If a third robot is responsible for getting the noodle in the RC, add another point bonus. The main downside of this is scoring is a lot more complex to keep track of, but there's some interesting possible upsides in terms of gameplay strategy. Right now the gameplay at the higher levels seems to consist of near-independent 2-robot operation (two robots each building their own stacks by holding a RC and stacking underneath), with the 3rd robot being often completely neglected (or not even put on the field!); only with lower level alliances do you see actual cooperative play with different robots doing different things to complete their stacks in parallel. I find the latter to be much more interesting to watch, but they simply can't compete with the #1/#2 paired dominant alliances (at least right now; maybe such strategies will evolve sufficiently to catch up in future weeks).

2) Have only a single human loader station. I know the reason for having two was due to the rate limit of tote loading and the number of totes behind the wall, which is the main problem with this idea, but it would have the benefit of making alliance partner selection and elimination play a lot more interesting; in the current game there's not really any reason why #1 and #2 can't pair up regardless of their individual capabilities, but if there was only one human load station that would make the decision much more challenging.

Comments? Other ideas?

[James1902]

Originally Posted by Peter Johnson

I'd like to turn this discussion on its head a bit--rather than focusing on the things we dislike in the game, let's suggest ways in which the game design could have been improved (either via major changes in overall construction, point value changes, or even just a minor rule change) and how such changes might have affected robot designs and/or gameplay in a positive fashion.

My initial opinion of this game hasn't changed much (if you're curious) so I'll take your prompt.

1.) The step bisecting the field that eliminates robot interaction should go, but keep the landfill set up as is, an initial barrier with a small path to the other side that can be removed by stacking or moving totes out of the way.
2.) Establish platforms on either side of the field and punish teams for knocking down opposing alliances stacks. (Alternatively establish one scoring platform that teams will have to jockey for space on, but that might get difficult.)
3.) Reduce the number of totes available behind the drivers station.
4.) Go back to Win/Loss/Tie structure.

These changes would allow teams to play active defense without having the stack knockdown problem of 2003 and at the higher levels could turn the game into a struggle for scoring resources as teams try to gather totes and bins before the other alliance can steal them.

It keeps the interesting engineering challenge but doesn't diminish the feeling that each match is a direct competition.

[Riverdance]

I guess the big problem that I have with the game is the way that the rankings work along with coopertition points. Teams that may take an entire match to do coopertition points and never do anything else end up ranked extremely high seeing as co-op factors into your ranking at multiple levels. Then during playoffs, these robots who end up as alliance captains have almost nothing to do during the match and struggle to complete other aspects of the game, because all they needed to do throughout quals to get a reasonably high ranking was co-op. On the other hand, versatile robots that perform a lot of functions often get short-changed on the ranking.

[Loose Screw]

Originally Posted by Riverdance

I guess the big problem that I have with the game is the way that the rankings work along with coopertition points. Teams that may take an entire match to do coopertition points and never do anything else end up ranked extremely high seeing as co-op factors into your ranking at multiple levels. Then during playoffs, these robots who end up as alliance captains have almost nothing to do during the match and struggle to complete other aspects of the game, because all they needed to do throughout quals to get a reasonably high ranking was co-op. On the other hand, versatile robots that perform a lot of functions often get short-changed on the ranking.

Most of the FRC games are like this. In 2012, if a robot focused only on co-op they would usually seed higher than a robot that focused on winning. Then in finals, they wouldn't be able to score much outside of a double.

In 2011 robots that had a working mini bot (in competitions that didn't have that many) would rank high, but lose because the other top teams had faster mini bots and could score tubes.

I could go on, but my point is that as competitions go on, most quals will have co-op points and power house teams will be able to outscore teams that rely on them.

[Lil' Lavery]

Different perspectives will lead to different conclusions on the match schedules and ranking systems. For teams with legitimate aspirations of the #1 spot, this ranking system is an improvement. You can't be completely "sunk" by alliance partners or opponents the way you could in some other games. However, this is not the vantage point of the vast majority of FRC.

For the middle of the pack teams, these rankings are just as random as always. Your average can be considerably buoyed by great partners, opponents willing/able to co-op, and some good luck. 708 vaulted from the middle of the pack to 9th at Chestnut Hill after scoring 165 points with 225 and 1218 in the last qualification match. Your average can plummet when paired with teams incapable of scoring (or worse, teams that knock over stacks) or working opposite of teams that fail to get their yellow totes on the step. There are still "easy" and "hard" matches this year, they just look different than in years past.