Don't Ban Can Battles in Offseasons

[Ty Tremblay]

I'll admit it. Recycle Rush is not an exciting game to watch. It was a fun puzzle to try and solve, but not a fun game to play. There just aren't that many exciting moments. The one exciting moment Recycle Rush does have, however, is the can battle. And removing can battles turns an already boring game into a snooze fest.

Now before you hit the reply button and say that can battles ruined the game, I agree with you. But as we've seen before, games with no interaction with the opponents (or no opponents, a la 2001) are boring. They simply dissolve into a race against the clock. There's no change in strategy between matches unless an alliance member breaks, no affecting the other alliance, no off-field chess matches like 2014 Einstein. It's just robots doing a task until time runs out.

Why take the only interaction between alliances out of the game? The answer is balance. Canburglars are overpowered. If you have a the fastest one, you have a huge advantage over your opponent. Losing all 4 cans in auto is a devastating blow for your alliance, making it almost impossible to win the match. It's unfortunate that FIRST didn't manage to balance canburglars, but that doesn't mean they should be eliminated from the game.

There are two ways to help bring balance to a game with an overpowered element. You can remove (ban) the element or you can reduce its effectiveness (nerf it). As I said earlier, removing canburglars from takes an already boring game and turns it into a set of drills. Why not nerf canburglars instead?

IRI and Chezy Champs have already taken steps toward nerfing can battles (if you ignore the fact that they're also explicitly banned), by adding 2 and 3 cans to each side of the field, respectively. They've reduced the advantage an alliance can gain by winning all 4 cans in auto, nerfing the can battle. If an alliance loses all 4 cans in auto at IRI, they still have 5 cans to work with. If an alliance loses all 4 cans in auto at Chezy Champs, they still have 6 cans to work with. Remember, this is a game where the highest score in the world was achieved with 6 cans.

Don't ban can battles from your offseason, nerf them. Bring them to a point where winning the battle is an advantage, not a necessity.

Braces for impact.

[Michael Corsetto]

Safety is my number one reason for removing the can battles. I'm glad their gone, it means my kids are more likely to live into their 20's.

-Mike

[logank013]

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

Safety is my number one reason for removing the can battles. I'm glad their gone, it means my kids are more likely to live into their 20's.

-Mike

Has a can launching into the stands ever been a concern? (This is a sincere question. I can't be at every event so I'm just curious.

[T^2]

Originally Posted by logank013

Has a can launching into the stands ever been a concern? (This is a sincere question. I can't be at every event so I'm just curious.

I'd be more worried about a carbon fiber rod splintering into many pieces and flying everywhere.

[logank013]

Originally Posted by T^2

I'd be more worried about a carbon fiber rod splintering into many pieces and flying everywhere.

Didn't think about that... lol... but obviously first didnt think that was an issue and, I don't know of any matches where flying parts have been an issue. I definitely could see that as a concern though.

[orangelight]

Originally Posted by T^2

I'd be more worried about a carbon fiber rod splintering into many pieces and flying everywhere.

I believe we only broke one rod during the season. Broken carbon fiber hurts.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by logank013

Has a can launching into the stands ever been a concern? (This is a sincere question. I can't be at every event so I'm just curious.

The danger that Mike alludes to is setting up two hyperfast can grabbers with hair triggers.

[themccannman]

Originally Posted by logank013

Has a can launching into the stands ever been a concern? (This is a sincere question. I can't be at every event so I'm just curious.

The danger he's referring to is the stored energy in most canburglars. If something breaks, that 200mph aluminum spear has no qualms about going straight through you. Even with multiple failsafes there are still opportunities for things to go wrong, particularly when teams are tensioning their mechanisms or when they remove the safeties after lining up the robot on the field.

It's especially dangerous when you're testing the mechanism. Making an error in the autonomous code could mean your robot spinning around before firing it's mechanism. I don't think any team has, or will ever go an entire season without making a mistake in auto. A mistake during auto this year could cost you more than just points.

[logank013]

Originally Posted by Ty Tremblay

I'll admit it. Recycle Rush is not an exciting game to watch. It was a fun puzzle to try and solve, but not a fun game to play. There just aren't that many exciting moments. The one exciting moment Recycle Rush does have, however, is the can battle. And removing can battles turns an already boring game into a snooze fest.

Now before you hit the reply button and say that can battles ruined the game, I agree with you. But as we've seen before, games with no interaction with the opponents (or no opponents, a la 2001) are boring. They simply dissolve into a race against the clock. There's no change in strategy between matches unless an alliance member breaks, no affecting the other alliance, no off-field chess matches like 2014 Einstein. It's just robots doing a task until time runs out.

Why take the only interaction between alliances out of the game? The answer is balance. Canburglars are overpowered. If you have a the fastest one, you have a huge advantage over your opponent. Losing all 4 cans in auto is a devastating blow for your alliance, making it almost impossible to win the match. It's unfortunate that FIRST didn't manage to balance canburglars, but that doesn't mean they should be eliminated from the game.

There are two ways to help bring balance to a game with an overpowered element. You can remove (ban) the element or you can reduce its effectiveness (nerf it). As I said earlier, removing canburglars from takes an already boring game and turns it into a set of drills. Why not nerf canburglars instead?

IRI and Chezy Champs have already taken steps toward nerfing can battles (if you ignore the fact that they're also explicitly banned), by adding 2 and 3 cans to each side of the field, respectively. They've reduced the advantage an alliance can gain by winning all 4 cans in auto, nerfing the can battle. If an alliance loses all 4 cans in auto at IRI, they still have 5 cans to work with. If an alliance loses all 4 cans in auto at Chezy Champs, they still have 6 cans to work with. Remember, this is a game where the highest score in the world was achieved with 6 cans.

Don't ban can battles from your offseason, nerf them. Bring them to a point where winning the battle is an advantage, not a necessity.

Braces for impact.

I do have to say I agree. Now having 5 cans at IRI guaranteed is a great advantage. Can battles are not as important but are still important. Therefore, teams would still like to make their can burglars faster if the can battles are still like the battles at worlds. When you take the rule at IRI, you basically are guaranteed 7 cans. It now won't matter if it takes 2 seconds to get the cans in auto or the full 15 seconds. Going out on a limb here, I would guess that most teams with a can burglar has an auto for the can burglar. Basically, what IRI is doing is trying to prevent powerhouse teams from spending another couple thousand dollars on making their can burglars a split second faster. They also want to make it so teams aren't mad if their burglar get destroyed mid competition and again, preventing that extra cost. I believe the ultimate goal is to have teams save money on the off season. that's what a lot of events are doing.

A rule change that would be cool is if they did something like this: You have to wait 5 seconds into auto to touch the cans on the left side. Then, teams that have fast burglars still have the advantage but don't have to worry about speeding the can burglars up. A team that has a 4 second can burglar doesn't have to be concerned about a team with a 3 second auto. So then, you can line up 4 robots at the step (like at worlds) but have the robots on the left side on a 4.9 second delay so they still get the cans in auto. Then, it would be more like worlds where having a good auto truly does matter.

Tell me what you think, I hope all of what I said made sense. Thanks for reading

[Nathan Streeter]

I agree that banning the can battles is silly (if the concern is 'game-breaking')... particularly because even at the highest levels at CMP, they weren't game-breaking at all! It almost always came down to 'who scored the most totes, made the most of their RCs, and/or just consistently avoided mistakes.'

The winning alliance of 118-1678-1671 won or tied on the cans against the alliance of 987-2826-2512, but I think the real reason why 118-1678-1671 won was because they avoided mistakes and kept scoring totes in the finals, whereas 987-2826-2512 had their worst two Einstein matches in the finals. They scored 232 (5 RCs), 256 (4 RCs), 271 (5 RCs), and 283 (6 RCs) in the QF and SF matches with video on TBA... If they had scored at the levels they scored in the QFs and SFs with only the 4 or 5 RCs they got in the Finals, they could've won.

This isn't to dig up difficult memories for 987, 2826, and 2512... (although I know how hard it is to lose on Einstein; they honestly have a ton to be proud of with their machines, their performance at CMP, and their 270pt average in the SF of Einstein), but is a case-study in the fact that even at the highest levels, consistent performance was still more important than Canburgling... Granted, if both alliances perform 'perfectly' canburglars are still the tie-breaker, but if an alliance could score 250pts every single time with only 4 RCs (particularly if they sometimes capped a 5th stack), I think they would've won on Einstein.

[logank013]

Originally Posted by Nathan Streeter

I agree that banning the can battles is silly (if the concern is 'game-breaking')... particularly because even at the highest levels at CMP, they weren't game-breaking at all! It almost always came down to 'who scored the most totes, made the most of their RCs, and/or just consistently avoided mistakes.'

The winning alliance of 118-1678-1671 won or tied on the cans against the alliance of 987-2826-2512, but I think the real reason why 118-1678-1671 won was because they avoided mistakes and kept scoring totes in the finals, whereas 987-2826-2512 had their worst two Einstein matches in the finals. They scored 232 (5 RCs), 256 (4 RCs), 271 (5 RCs), and 283 (6 RCs) in the QF and SF matches with video on TBA... If they had scored at the levels they scored in the QFs and SFs with only the 4 or 5 RCs they got in the Finals, they could've won.

This isn't to dig up difficult memories for 987, 2826, and 2512... (although I know how hard it is to lose on Einstein; they honestly have a ton to be proud of with their machines, their performance at CMP, and their 270pt average in the SF of Einstein), but is a case-study in the fact that even at the highest levels, consistent performance was still more important than Canburgling... Granted, if both alliances perform 'perfectly' canburglars are still the tie-breaker, but if an alliance could score 250pts every single time with only 4 RCs (particularly if they sometimes capped a 5th stack), I think they would've won on Einstein.

I'm not sure that I agree. 148 and 1114 were putting up 6 or 7 stacks each match. If they have only 4 bins. that's a 72 point difference between no bins or bins on 3 stacks. Most of the alliances on Einstein were putting up 5-7 stacks a time. The difference between 3 or 7 bins was massive. this is just my opinion but, I'd like to see what others say too

[AllenGregoryIV]

We are compromising at TRI.

The furthest left RC is off limits for each alliance. This means the two center cans are still up for grabs by both sides. The thought process being that most alliances at an average to weak off-season won't put up more then 4 capped stacks so protecting a single RC is enough and it allows the robots that are built to grab the center cans (610, 2587, etc) to continue to do that. We aren't adding RCs to the field.

[IronicDeadBird]

Originally Posted by AllenGregoryIV

We are compromising at TRI.

The furthest left RC is off limits for each alliance. This means the two center cans are still up for grabs by both sides. The thought process being that most alliances at an average to weak off-season won't put up more then 4 capped stacks so protecting a single RC is enough and it allows the robots that are built to grab the center cans (610, 2587, etc) to continue to do that. We aren't adding RCs to the field.

Wow that is a really interesting compromise, shifts the game balance. Might have to steal this as an example of how subtle shifts in game rules can change a lot.

[AllenGregoryIV]

Originally Posted by IronicDeadBird

Wow that is a really interesting compromise, shifts the game balance. Might have to steal this as an example of how subtle shifts in game rules can change a lot.

One of the main thoughts was we didn't want a really high level team (cough 118 cough) to be able to intentionally race another team on the left side, win, and then immediately go get the other two cans during teleop. Their alliance wouldn't be able to put up the 7 RCs but they wouldn't need to and would almost be guaranteed a win.

The single restricted RC seemed to do it's job well this weekend at an event with a very wide range of robot skill levels. The entire rule set for TRI played out very nicely in my opinion, it drastically reduced penalties, and allowed the game play to come through. We ended up not having chute doors, not by choice, but because the field we were using just didn't have them and it wasn't to big of a problem for most teams.

[Nathan Streeter]

Originally Posted by logank013

I'm not sure that I agree. 148 and 1114 were putting up 6 or 7 stacks each match. If they have only 4 bins. that's a 72 point difference between no bins or bins on 3 stacks. Most of the alliances on Einstein were putting up 5-7 stacks a time. The difference between 3 or 7 bins was massive. this is just my opinion but, I'd like to see what others say too

148 and 1114 (particularly 1114) struggled mightily in their last two matches; SF 3 and 6. They scored 190 in SF3, possessing 4 RCs but only using 3... then scored 210 in SF6, with 4 RCs possessed and scored. By my argument, if they'd just scored that 4th RC in SF3 or if 1114 had just scored more totes, they could've gotten the 6 points they needed to make it to the finals. By your argument, if they'd stolen another RC from 118-1678-1671 in SF6 and scored it, they would've made it to the Finals.

Either way, 1114 had some of their worst matches of the season in the SF on Einstein... even if they and 1923 stole only 1 can collectively in both of those matches, and 1114 had just cleared the landfill and scored 1 RC, they would've moved onto the Finals.