What's so great about defense?

[archiver]

Posted by Kevin Sevcik at 04/20/2001 12:17 AM EST


College Student on team #57, Leopards, from BT Washington and the High School for Engineering Professions and Exxon, Kellog Brown & Root, Powell Electrical.



:ulls on Asbetos overalls::
There have been a lot of posts lately about the nature of this years game and some people have suggested bringing back 2v2 competition. One of the reasons usually trotted out is that defense should be a part of the game again. I want to know what's so great about defense.
From my point of view, defense doesn't really add a very large dimension to the design of the robot. Obviously, most defensive strategies center around preventing an opponent from scoring. Inevitably, many designs springing from these strategies emphasize just pushing opposing robots around. Frankly, i don't see what's so creative, impressive, or interesting about this. I'll admit that some defensive designs are interesting, but these are almost exclusively de-scoring systems. Obviously, a de-scoring system doesn't require running into another robot at full speed, so that's probably why I like them. But I digress. My main problem with defense and defensive strategies is that I think they tend to generate hard feelings between teams. I actually think this is a problem with a competitive competition in general, but that's not my topic here. Like I was saying, defensive strategies cause lots of hard feelings, especially the physical pushing and blocking strategies. If you lose against a nifty robot with a descoring system, you're disappointed but you can say, "Wow, that's pretty neat. I wish we'd thought of that." If you're beaten by a team that scores one point, then rushes across the field to ram your robot and pin it, you're more likely to say "All that stupid robot could do was pin us. That was a cheap win." Granted, it's in the rules and it probably should've been considered in the design process, but that doesn't make people feel any better.
Plus, physically defensive robots are more likely to break other robots. Having an opposing team break your robot and then be rewarded for it really upsets people. I know from personal experience that losing to a team because their robot can disab;e yours through pinning, flipping, etc. is a very upsetting experience. I know that there's probably a couple of people on this board who've had that happen to their team... ::cough:: Jon.. BEST ::cough::
Anyways, so that's my argument against defense and more or less against 2v2 competitions. I think it just tends to generate too many bad feelings. I don't know about you guys, but I kind of like not hating, or atleast holding a grudge against, other teams.

Now then... :^) Let the massive replies commence....

[archiver]

Posted by David Kelso at 04/20/2001 6:19 AM EST


Coach on team #131, C.H.A.O.S.-, from Central High School and OSRAM SYLVANIA/ Fleet .


In Reply to: What's so great about defense?
Posted by Kevin Sevcik on 04/20/2001 12:17 AM EST:



I totally agree with this post after losing matches over the years to teams that do little more than pin you. Even the 10 second rule did not really help. Backing away for 3 seconds after pushing a robot into a spot they could not get out of is not fair. Now those machines that can "descore" are a different subject....on with the Prive Directive.

[archiver]

Posted by Erin at 04/20/2001 8:08 AM EST


College Student on team #65, Huskie Brigade, from Pontiac Northern High School and GM Powertrain.


In Reply to: What's so great about defense?
Posted by Kevin Sevcik on 04/20/2001 12:17 AM EST:



Kevin-
Ok, I am not going to simply tackle or support this argument, but rather, rationalize within it and try to derive the answer that is best fitting of my opinion.

Well, here's my background: I belonged to a team for 2 years that brought the force with defensive machines. They weren't necessarily "de-scoring" machines (machines which actually peeved me much worse than a robot that could fight) but ours were strong, robust machines (just forget about the wheel thing for right now) that could handle a lot of pressure and still pull off some offense (Hence- 2 best offensive awards, GLR, MMW).
One of those machines helped us to the National Championship spot in 99, and the other brought us wins at the IRI, WMRC, Sweet Repeat, the BOMB, and second place at GLR and Kettering. This helps me argue the point for defensive machines.
However, I have to take into account that not all defensive machines were like Juggy. Yes, I remember the "BattleBot"-esque machines of the past two years; small, rugged machines that would just go out there to pin- and yes, to some these were annoyances (you, obviously, by speaking your point). However, you have to take into account that some people will always build that way. They will always want a little fight. This helps me argue the point against defensive machines.
I will cite from your paragraph that you think "physically" defensive robots are more likely to break other robots.. well, not necessarily: some robots that are offensive that have to play the defense can do just the same. I think any robot that is strong enough could break another one, and sometimes there are scenarios where it just happens. I mean, if anyone gets mad about another team breaking their robot- (remember back to 00) then they haven't really built it by Dean's cautions. I believe the phrase "Robust Robots" might ring a bell? Last year, esp. since we were hanging off of the ground, I believe building a strong robot should have been a main goal in the design process. This is an argument for defensive machines.
You have said that "many opponent's strategies involve just going out there and pushing another robot around"...well hey, in my opinion, if you can build a drive train strong enough to push around a 130 lb. robotic warrior, (and esp. if that was your mission), then you have completed your goal. Each robots most fascinating (and important) two aspects are the scoring system (gripper, conveyor, basket, etc.) and the drive train. If you decide to skip designing a strong scoring system and focus on building an extremely strong drive system, then that is your choice and you should be ready to get out there and get some low scores (and learn a lesson)! It is a creative and interesting thing because when a defensive machine is putting up defense, it puts you into suspense over who is going to triumph. It also involves strategy, and I believe if you can't get yourself out of the tight bind of being pinned, GO BACK TO THE BUILD ROOM! I think having offensive/defensive strategy adds whatever amount of dimension into the robot that the team can think up and put in. You also have to take into account that drive trains are all some teams can really do. This is an arguement for defensive robots.

You argument about defensive strategies does, however, have a point. I have noticed lots of animosity between teams over something one of them did. I have held some of my own, and then been EXTREMELY ashamed of myself for not realizing that: its just a game. If any student or engineer as an individual, or team for that matter holds a grudge against another team, SHAME ON YOU! I think that you should be learning from the 2 on 2 game rather than making enemies within FIRST- a place where two seconds later they could be your ally. With a 2v2 game it is hard to see past some things, and I know this is your main reason for not wanting to bring it back, however, I believe if we did, we could try to more strongly emphasize "congratulating a team on beating you" rather than looking down and walking away with a theoretical "tail between your legs and teeth gritted" attitude. Maybe it's time we turned the 2v2 game into a lesson- besides being a gracious professional, BE A GOOD SPORT!! FIRST could carry this over into the rest of life for some students- I know that where I come from, a LOT OF ANIMOSITY grows between two high schools when the other one wins the game. I have met students from both Pontiac Central and Northern who have nothing but bad feelings for each other simply because of a few measly sports games.(You know- crosstown rivals kind of stuff.) However, our two FIRST teams get along great- even though Chief Delphi went against the Huskie Brigade in 00 and took first, we still are very much bound to each other- and maybe someday we can use the FIRST experience to break animosity between people in outstanding ways. It just needs to be emphasized. This was an equal argument for and against the 2v2 game.
About your "all that stupid robot could do was pin us, that was a cheap win" quote, well, all I have to say is, if any student is saying that about any other team, they don't deserve to be on a team because they are not there personifying the mission of FIRST. We aren't here to fight, we are here to inspire or become inspired by Science, Technology, Engineering, Role Models, Robots, Friends, Teams, Competitions- we are here to have fun and do the best we can- win or no win. I think that no matter what the game or how the robot is, if we just keep in mind WHAT WE ARE HERE FOR- we can have defensive robots and not get upset about it, and we can have 2v2 matches where one breaks and we don't go talking about that team behind their back. Now that I've written this I'm even seeing many ways in which the competition has become corrupt- and I just hope that through this many of you are seeing that it matters what kindof robot we build only because through building that robot we should have learned as much as we possibly can. Building a robot (as well as a strategy) isn't just getting prepared for the game, it is getting kids prepared for life. Prepared for board rooms, conferences, interviews, work relationships, college, a career. Don't let the main objective get out of focus, no matter how mad you get at everything else, and you'll be ok.
Now that I have posted this argument (which, I apologize, does go off on quite a few tangents)
I have one thing to say: I still love defensive robots.


Peace, Love, And Gracious Professionalism...
-Erin

[archiver]

Posted by Jason Iannuzzi at 04/20/2001 8:59 AM EST


Engineer on team #11, Marauders, from Mt. Olive HS. and BASF, Rame Hart, CCM.


In Reply to: What's so great about defense?
Posted by Kevin Sevcik on 04/20/2001 12:17 AM EST:



Would you watch a Football game if there was no defense?

Is watching a person walk by himself a particularly exciting event to watch? What if he was walking with 3 other people, does the event get more exciting? What if they were walking because they were trying to get in shape together? Now, what if you gave them wiffle ball bats and said the first person to cross this line wins, more exciting?

I'm sorry, but if FIRST wants to compete with sports, we have to have a good game to watch. Less hugs. In the real world, everyone doesn't win.

[archiver]

Posted by Kevin Sevcik at 04/20/2001 9:43 AM EST


College Student on team #57, Leopards, from BT Washington and the High School for Engineering Professions and Exxon, Kellog Brown & Root, Powell Electrical.


In Reply to: Re: What's so great about defense?
Posted by Jason Iannuzzi on 04/20/2001 8:59 AM EST:



This is the attitude that I'm really arguing against. Let me try to address the two points that you've just brought up.
Obviously football wouldn't be an interesting game without defense. This is probably because just about every single rule would have to be changed to make the game without defense. I'm sorry, but you can't argue against my point by making up a non-defensive version of a game that already has defense. Also, the only reason your imaginary sport isn't fun to watch is because the people are walking. Try running. There's a little event called the Olympics that seems to have made it very popular. There are, in fact, lots of sports that are exciting and don't involve defense or direct competition. Track & field, golf, bowling, drag racing, Monster truck racing, slam dunk contests, home run derbies, etc.

Second, I quite realize that everybody doesn't win in the real world. That's probably why there's only one national champion team (or alliance) every year. As long as there's a champion, I don't don't see how this is pertinent. What I was arguing against was a game that causes bad feelings between teams. I think that kind of game really runs counter to the spirit of FIRST. While I agree with Erin in her earlier reply that FIRSTers should be above this kind of thing, I don't think everyone is, and I don't think you can fairly expect everyone to be. While most veteran teams would shrug the loss off or congratulate the other team, the would also know from previous experience that they need to build a robot that can fight off defensive robots. Most rookie teams don't have the benefit of this knowledge, and they haven't been in FIRST long enough to shrug off the competition and robot as unimportant. So A rookie team that gets beaten like this probably WILL hold a grudge and will be a little soured towards the competition. And as they say, you never get a second chance to make a first impression.

Also, as a note, I'm not really expecting to change peoples minds about any of this. I know I'm not that eloquent of a speaker. I just feel like expressing my opinion about this.

[archiver]

Posted by Jason Iannuzzi at 04/20/2001 3:47 PM EST


Engineer on team #11, Marauders, from Mt. Olive HS. and BASF, Rame Hart, CCM.


In Reply to: Re: What's so great about defense?
Posted by Kevin Sevcik on 04/20/2001 9:43 AM EST:



At any point this year, did you feel bad after a match? Our team did on several occasions, I know of plenty of others who did also, so what did this years event accomplish? It certainly didn't take the bad feelings out of the event, but it did take a lot of the excitement away.

How much coverage does walking or running or bowling or gold receive when you compare it to more action-oriented competitive sports? If you had never went bowling or golfed, would you find watching the activity particulary enjoyable? I golf a lot, and even with that, I can say watching a game of golf is probably the second most boring thing to watch on TV next to track and field. Most of the people I know who do watch golf or track and field end up sleeping half the time. Maybe I just have lazy friends.

I just want FIRST to be exciting for EVERYONE, not just those intimately involved.

[archiver]

Posted by Kevin Sevcik at 04/22/2001 3:32 AM EST


College Student on team #57, Leopards, from BT Washington and the High School for Engineering Professions and Exxon, Kellog Brown & Root, Powell Electrical.


In Reply to: Re: What's so great about defense?
Posted by Jason Iannuzzi on 04/20/2001 3:47 PM EST:



Just as a brief comment, I don't think "action-oriented" sports are more popular or exciting simply because they're "action-oriented." If that were the case, rugby or soccer would also be immensely popular here. And football, baseball, and basketball would be popular in europe. No, I think those kinds of sports are popular because they're easier to promote and market, because you have large teams from one city or area. Whereas in the sports I mentioned, only individuals compete.

But anyways, I'm gonna state my final opinion on defense and let things go at that. I'm going to agree with some of these posts that defense does add excitement to the competition and adds interesting design elements... Up to a point. The point where it becomes boring, uninteresting, and distasteful, is when it centers on tipping, pinning, or otherwise completely disabling an opposing robot. Watching a match where one robot is running back and forth, attempting to move around another robot can be exciting. Watching a match where a robot tips another over and probably breaks it, or pins it for 10 seconds, backs off, and then pins it again isn't interesting. Now as soon as you figure out how to bring back 2v2 competition and stop this kind of defense, I'll listen.

[archiver]

Posted by Jason Iannuzzi at 04/23/2001 8:56 AM EST


Engineer on team #11, Marauders, from Mt. Olive HS. and BASF, Rame Hart, CCM.


In Reply to: My final position
Posted by Kevin Sevcik on 04/22/2001 3:32 AM EST:



>The point where it becomes boring, uninteresting, and distasteful, is when it centers on tipping, pinning, or otherwise completely disabling an opposing robot. >

I whole-heartedly agree. We're on the same page, we're just coming at it from different sides. I would rather put up with the pinning and tipping to get defense in the game, you'd rather see no defense until we can eliminate the "seedier" aspects. Both ways have pro's and con's.

I think when most people cry for defense, they are thinking of the fights for the ramp at the end of the match and the good pushing and shoving to prevent scoring. Nobody likes the pinning or tipping, at least not in the world of FIRST.

[archiver]

Posted by Libby Ritchie at 04/20/2001 11:39 AM EST


Coach on team #393, Full Metal Jackets, from Morristown Jr/Sr High School and NASA/KIPT, Inc..


In Reply to: What's so great about defense?
Posted by Kevin Sevcik on 04/20/2001 12:17 AM EST:



Most GAMES require a defense, or a strategy to "stop" other teams/participants. I think that it adds to the thinking process. This year's game had only one dimension to it...how to score. There was no ability to stop others from scoring high. We didn't have to think about the flip side of things. To me, it adds more possibilities to how to play a FIRST game. And, I would have to agree with some of the other replies, life is FULL of competition. I'm not saying that we need to tear up other robots, but a little defense wouldn't be bad. And if a person/team is such a sore loser that they can't take getting beaten by someone's defense or a bump or bruise, then they need some help!!

[archiver]

Posted by Libby Ritchie at 04/20/2001 11:39 AM EST


Coach on team #393, Full Metal Jackets, from Morristown Jr/Sr High School and NASA/KIPT, Inc..


In Reply to: What's so great about defense?
Posted by Kevin Sevcik on 04/20/2001 12:17 AM EST:



Most GAMES require a defense, or a strategy to "stop" other teams/participants. I think that it adds to the thinking process. This year's game had only one dimension to it...how to score. There was no ability to stop others from scoring high. We didn't have to think about the flip side of things. To me, it adds more possibilities to how to play a FIRST game. And, I would have to agree with some of the other replies, life is FULL of competition. I'm not saying that we need to tear up other robots, but a little defense wouldn't be bad. And if a person/team is such a sore loser that they can't take getting beaten by someone's defense or a bump or bruise, then they need some help!!

[archiver]

Posted by colleen - T190 at 04/20/2001 12:23 PM EST


Engineer on team #190, Gompei, from Massachusetts Academy of Math and Science and WPI.


In Reply to: What's so great about defense?
Posted by Kevin Sevcik on 04/20/2001 12:17 AM EST:



For so many years in high school, that was our focus.. we never tried to build a 'defensive' robot.. because what good is it.. because no matter how much blocking of the opposition and tipping/flipping/hitting you can do, if you can't score a point, you're never gonna win...

It just so happened that every year, the robot came out robust enough to both give and take the hits..

But I digress... I am a HUGE fan of returning to 2v2.. I think it was the BEST thing FIRST could have done to the game.. Back in the days of 1-on-1-on-1.. it allowed for teams to be 'teamed up' against.. or teams who couldn't score to just ruin some team's chance to score high.. I agree, it caused hard feelings..

But, it's kinda like the difference between your defensive line playing the game and simple unnecessary roughness.. Defensive play has just as much finesse in it as scoring a perfect game..

Defensive play is simply the ability to control the match outcome.. it's about out strategizing your opponent.. out manuvering.. out thinking and out smarting.. it's not really tipping, flipping, hitting and roughing them up..

Example: 2000 NJ Regional.. Match #84.. Team 246 (last seed.. zero average QPs) w/ Team 121.. vs Team #47 (#1 seed.. 60-70 average QPs) w/ Team 88... were it not for 'defense' we would have continued our zero QP average.. but we went out.. and strategically parked parallel under Delphi/TJ's goal.. #47 tried scoring.. they couldn't translate around us, and they couldn't reach the goal.. they drove around, we ducked under the bar and caught them on the other side.. Meanwhile, 121 was doing the same to keep TJ off the ramp.. at the last minute 121 blew a fuse and TJ got on.. 47/88 ended up winning the match 5-2...

No robots were harmed.. no scratches even given.. it was simply we thought about the game, how to beat a high scoring robot... and we came very very close to doing it.. I still was awed by the engineering marvel that the Delphi robot was.. The crowd still gave a standing O.. It gave our alliance the opportunity to cheer like we had won the superbowl.. and earn some congrats from some on the opposing teams..

And that match.. not any robot tipping, hard-hitting match won the "Best Defensive Round Award"

So keep the no tipping, 10-second-pinning rules, etc.. but make it a game where just because you can't outscore your opponent you have a chance of winning..

Beatty had an amazing robot this year.. and you'll be VERY hard pressed to find an alliance that can beat 710 that DOESN'T have them in it... but imagine the game where you had the chance to actually play on the field with Beatty.. against their alliance.. instead of sitting by and watching.. knowing it is engineeringly and physically impossible to beat their alliance.. you could go out there and have even a little say in your own ability to continue on in the competition...

I never made more friends, admired more teams, or was more in awe than in '99 and '00.. this year, I definitely went back to the 'disliking' of teams.. cause when you go out, and someone falls over on the ramp.. and you can only rack up a mere 20pts.. what kind of game is that?? you can do everything possible and someone else messes up... or you mess up and do that to others? I think it cause more adverse feelings than back in the day of 1-on-1-on-1..

So I think..

Build a robot that can beat the opponent.. It's very simple.. and works wonder in a 2v2 game.. cause there was nothing to 'beat' this year.. either robots could handle it or not.. and when you couldn't, you had no choice in the matter.. and it definitely wasn't a good feeling...

[archiver]

Posted by Joe Taylor at 04/20/2001 12:34 PM EST


Engineer on team #461, West Side Boiler Invasion, from West Lafayette High School and Purdue University / Schlomberger.


In Reply to: What's so great about defense?
Posted by Kevin Sevcik on 04/20/2001 12:17 AM EST:



It's foolish to think that this years game eliminated the complaints you spoke of earlier. Obviously there were situations in prior years competitions where "pinning" and "pushing" were the only methods employed in stopping an opponent. But the purpose of this competition is to get kids excited about engineering, and i think little shove matches spice up the competiton, especially in situations like last year with opposing teams fighting for position on the ramp and bar. Perhaps I would see this years competition in a better light if it resolved any of the issues of "sore feelings" and wrestlingesque brutality, but they're still there. I'm sure everyone saw at least one round where a robot fell down in front of the ramp and for the remainder of the round that robots "allies" proceeded bash the robot in an attempt to move it out of the way. Now FIRST isn't about robot shove matches (thats why i do battlebots), but i don't see how three robots beating one incapacitated one is better than 2 robots shoving 2 others.

[archiver]

Posted by Brian Beatty at 04/20/2001 5:49 PM EST


Coach on team #71, Team Hammond, from Hammond Schools.


In Reply to: What's so great about defense?
Posted by Kevin Sevcik on 04/20/2001 12:17 AM EST:



From my perspective, most teams do not go about building strictly a defensive machine; They attempt to design an offensive machine, fail at it, can't compete, and turn their machine into a beater. Yes, by bringing back defense into the competition, it will allow any team to compete to some extent, even if it is just by getting in someone else's way. True, there are some strategy variations with defense, but they are extremely simple, unimaginative, and uncreative. I think FIRST has tried to imitate real life by trying to accomplish goals through teamwork. Bashing someone is not rewarded in the real world.

In conclusion, we will play the game any way it is presented. But if defense is reintoduced, I hope it is more in the spirit of creativity and teamwork

Sincerely,
Brian Beatty

[archiver]

Posted by Chris Orimoto at 04/20/2001 8:55 PM EST


Student on team #368, Kika Mana, from McKinley High School and Nasa Ames/Hawaiian Electric/Weinberg Foundation.


In Reply to: What's so great about defense?
Posted by Kevin Sevcik on 04/20/2001 12:17 AM EST:



A quote I once heard:
"Offense wins games...defense wins championships"
Although that is some sort of sport-cliche, I believe that defense is a GREAT aspect to any competitive game. It adds a dimension of variability that you may or may not be ready for. That is one of the big differences between 2000 and 2001. In 2000, we had to strategize with the assumption that another robot would NOT employ a defensive tactic on us. We were mainly concerned with scoring points...any defensive strategies were employed at spur-of-the-moment situations during the heat of the action.

In 2001, it was much easier to prepare for the types of matches you'd encounter...because most robots, though uniquely individual, can be classified into categories after a while. This removes the exciting quick-decisions of drivers during matches, which is what people "pay to watch for".

For example, our 2000 robot was 2-wheel-drive and did not have very much traction. We played one qualifying match against 255 (future national champions) and 463. Our entire strategy was to "park" in front of them while they loaded from the alliance station. Our alliance partner loaded 11 ponits (1 black ball and 6 yellow balls from alliance station) points into our goal, and their alliance partner loaded 2 black balls (10 points from the field) into their goal. Our alliance partner drove on the ramp and prevented their partner from getting on. We won that match 16-10 (giving us 30 QP's YAY!). Through a quick addition of the possibilities and a lucky assumption on the other alliance's strategy, this match was strategically set up to be primarilly defensive. No robots were harmed...and it was definitely a sight to see.

All in all, bring back scoring like 2000 and defense will be perfectly fine. When you get three times your opponent's score, you'll think twice about HAMMERING them into a wall.

Just my personal thoughts...

Chris, #368

[archiver]

Posted by Brandon Heller at 04/22/2001 1:29 AM EST


Student on team #449, Blair Blazers, from Montgomery Blair High School and NASA Goddard, Sigma Space.


In Reply to: What's so great about defense?
Posted by Kevin Sevcik on 04/20/2001 12:17 AM EST:



I can see where both sides on this issue are coming from. Cases in point:

AGAINST defense-
I remember one match in '00 on the Einstein field where an alliance of two decent ball-depositing bots was up against a wedge and a bar-grabbing robot. At the start of the match, the wedge immediately set its sights upon a tall robot in the process of depositing balls. The wedge robot just drove into the other one, and knocked it over, full of balls. The other robot on the decent alliance had gone over the ramp to the end of the field to get balls. Wedge-bot went straight for it, and the same thing happened. With a minute remaining, two robots were lying on the field disabled, while the other two simply stayed on the ramp for the remainder of it. Bor-ing! What happened in the end? The wedge-bot alliance was disqualified, netting both teams a score of zero. That kind of match is DEFINITELY not in the spirit of FIRST. It was these cheap tactics that hurt everyone in last year's game. Robots that were built during a regional would sometimes disable robots with vastly more engineering time put into them.

FOR defense-
The element of defense to last year's game added a level of excitement to each match that was unequalled by this year's game. Near the end of most matches, the ramp would be occupied by three teams, and one would struggle to get on. When they did, at the last second, the crowd cheered wildly, and the entire match outcome could have changed. A match like this earned my team the Play of the Day award at last year's VCU regional.
Defense forces a robot to be built with durability in mind. Last year, 100lbs of my team's robot was in the base, with each wheel tipping the scales at 10lbs. In a few matches, we actually broke other robots by driving over them, unintentionally of course! ;-)

my position:
Bring back the defense. If FIRST wants to be on national television, and truly expand, the excitement level of the game must match that of current sports. The rules from last year worked out pretty well with the defense, and wedges (or annoy-bots as we used to call them) were the exceptions. One could make the argument that if your robot was knocked over and couldn't get up, it was the result of a design flaw. Team 67's '00 robot, Hotbot, had linkages that would let it get up from nearly any position, and this ability helped it greatly in competition. Defense added more excitement than it lost in cheesy matches.

Bring defense back!

Brandon, team 449

p.s. My vote would actually be for 3v3 next year. Would be soooo much more fun....