I completely disagree.
This is a game of precision. A fast efficient machine that is not precise in it’s placement and movement will be more of a hindrance to an alliance than a slower one that can precisely build stacks.
That being said, a fast efficient, and precise robot (with a skilled drive team) will be in the running for regional champs this year.
135 seconds… an efficient robot (that scores points and improves stacks or top RCs) trumps a more precise one that takes longer to do same scoring task IMO
You only have to be “so precise”… more precision is a waste of time with only 135 seconds to build stacks and top them.
That being said I am encouraging our driver to pause a second or two to make sure his move is solid. Because every mistake wastes time and 135 seconds is very limited.
You watch the championships will have efficient robots as the main trait. Sure they will be precise enough.
Agreed, but for week 1 precision will be key IM(NS)HO.
The GDC will improve the overall game by allowing ONLY 1 team from each alliance to touch the step cans
(restriction only in the autonomous period)
The design fundamentals are still similar with only 1 robot pulling Cans in Autonomous. The only real design difference is the ability to pick up 2 or 4 cans.
However, teams don’t have to spend the entire season up to champs trying to get 0.1 second faster. Instead, teams might spend more time trying to get all 4 cans. It keeps the competition from turning into a throwback mini-bot race.
No limiting it to one team makes it worse. The arms race to 2 cans is manageable by far more teams than the arms race to 4 cans. If they dramatically change the rules like that they would have needed to do so at the beginning of the seaosn. A rule change like that changes the value of a lot of designs. Limiting to 1 team would put the most crucial part of the game in the hands of just a few capable team. The 2 can race as it stands should be doable by a far greater number of teams. Also remember that the GDC has given the placement advantage to the lower seeded team in eliminations. In my view their goal is for most matches to be a 5 RC vs 5 RC battle and everything may be decided by the upside down totes, totes on the step, and the noodles.
I think something along the lines of “any robot may touch no more than one can that is in contact with the step at any given time during autonomous mode” would have been a better rule. It would have GREATLY increased the strategic aspects of robot placement, autonomous strategy, design (you could still build a robot to get multiple cans, but it must do them serially rather than in parallel), and still rewarded teams for iterating on the fastest can grabber.
Yes I agree that would have made a more interesting game. Allowing alliances to choose to have 3 robots grab cans instead of just 2. I think this would have led to very hard calls by the referee when a robot hit two RCs in quick succession and just knocks them instead of grabbing them it hard be hard to tell if they were ever touching both at the same time.
Yeah, I was just spitballing. I think there would be ways to fix that (perhaps even as simple as “you can only touch one of the center 4 cans during auto mode”).
This rule sounds more reasonable.
The GDC probably won’t make the change, but here’s hoping for offseason rule changes !
Agreed, the Recycle Rush skills challenge is a huge swing away from Aerial Assist teamwork centric game.
The GDC will be disappointed to find that the Rich will get Richer and the underdogs won’t even make the elimination rounds.
I disagree on both counts. While Aerial Assist was presented as a teamwork-centric game, at the regional seeding and even much of our regional elimination level, there were few assist points scored compared to the number of points prevented by defense, because it was so much easier to get in the way than to gain possession of the ball.
On the other hand, in Recycle Rush moderate-power teams that can work as a team can score more points together than they can separately, especially if they have complementary capabilities; there’s no requirement that each stack be built by exactly one robot. I think that one noodling canner and two tote stackers that can execute their tasks well can score much more together than three robots that can do both fairly. I believe this will be a game of specialization and teamwork at both low and high levels.
Further, smart alliance selection for elims/playoffs will be based more on teamwork capability than seeding rank or OPR.I loved 2011 too!!! :rolleyes:
At least this year the quarter of a second is at the beginning of the match, not the end. Saves you about two minutes that you can spend going to the concessions stand or something.
That will be so disheartening: making it to that level of play, and it coming down to the less than the first second of the match to know if you won or not. I don’t know of any other sport/activity that is similar to this.
And to be on the other side, if we get those 4 bins from the middle, it comes down to how well have you practiced as a driver. There is literally nothing the other team can do to prevent you from scoring, they can only attempt to outscore you, which won’t happen at the top level of play.
Elite teams pick strategies that allow them to win regardless of who is on their alliance. Therefore elite teams this year will be able to do just about everything by themselves. A well formed alliance can counter that but elite teams will seed higher, for theost part, and will use their scouting to pick an alliance that will be very difficult to beat.
The rich will get richer in this game.
You were not playing competitive Aerial Assist at a high level of play then. The entire fame was teamwork and coordinated defence without detracting from your own score.
This game has almost no match strategy.
I agree and will add that this game sort of levels the “skill” you need to compete and a high level. Its a very “blue collar” type game. So teams that take a mentality of building a workman like robot will do well especially if versatile enough to do any task.
This does not require an advanced mechanism. I think you will be surprised that some “dark horse” teams make it to Einstein along with the Powerhouses. Because they have shown to be valuable in ever changing game conditions this year…sort of like a Wes Welker or Danny Woodhead like robot.
This year is so unique that I think some Powerhouse teams who have not adapted to this mentality and use previous winning precision formulas will fail. There are many teams that if things aren’t PERFECT they will be useless.
We plan to compete and I for one LOVE this bringing everyone to a certain level this year. So many variables its going to be a constantly changing leader board.
As for match strategy it will change with the other two you have…I find it fascinating.
You’ve never heard of drag racing?
I’ll build a Julian Edelman robot. That robot doesn’t drop Super bowl winning touchdown passes.
I think every game has had some level of strategy. At lower levels of play and earlier competitions, where teams are struggling to figure out how control and move game pieces, there won’t be much of it. But the same was true last year–many matches (even when we competed during week 4) had very little strategy. We spent at least one match not moving, and then had to figure out how to control the yoga balls. It wasn’t until much later that we figured out which roles we could play well.
This year, for very strong alliances, strategy will be key to them winning. They can’t just tell their third bot to just inbound a ball and then play defense. Every robot will either contribute or be essentially useless. Robots may play very different, separate roles, but I’d still consider it a strategic game.
Like always, the range of matches will be huge, from little to no strategy in week 1 or less competitive to incredible alliances on Einstein. In the first set, matches will be difficult to watch and strategy won’t play as huge a role, since just being able to control game pieces is usually enough. In the second, with many capable robots, how they divide up tasks will be crucial.
But only time can show what this game will bring.
Derp. You’re right. An interesting aspect with the game being decided within the first second is that it involves zero human interaction when the game starts.