In example 1 the field is totally fair, so that is fine.
In example 2 I think the blue alliance has an advantage in autonomous. The advantage I see is that a team could easily drive to the switch, place a cube, and then get a cube and place it on the scale without crossing the width of the field. For teams with very good programming I think that would give them enough time to place a second cube on the scale in autonomous, which would counter the cube red might have placed after having to cross the field (and having to cross the cable protector, possibly screwing up their autonomous) .
Does this unfair field bother anyone else? The GDC is usually so good about mirroring or rotating the field so that there is no built in advantage to one alliance.
What I would like to see is a change so that the randomizer picks between 4 options: RRR, LLL, RLR, LRL. Those assignments always give fair fields, and it would still give a lot of variation in the games. It might produce slightly different average scores when all the plates are on one side, but at least it would be fair for both teams on the field.
Another option would be in eliminations, check that the plate assignment isn’t the same or mirrored from the last time each pair of teams played, if it is then run the randomizer again. That way one alliance wouldn’t get 2 “good” assignments.
A04. Stay out of your opponent’s side of the FIELD. During AUTO, no part of a ROBOT’S BUMPERS may pass from the NULL TERRITORY to the opponent’s side of the FIELD.
Violation: FOUL. If contact is made with an opponent ROBOT in their side of the FIELD (either direct contact or transitive contact through a POWER CUBE), TECH FOUL. Violations of this rule are likely to escalate rapidly to YELLOW or RED CARDS.
I think it is all a matter of perspective/strategy. For example, say you coordinate with your alliance partner that one of you will prioritize scale while the other will prioritize the switch. In the case of example 2, red will have the advantage because it is possible that neither would have to cross the length of the field while at least one of the blue robots would with the same strategy. Or maybe both red robots will have to because of robot placement. We are obviously going to have a significant luck factor this year but I don’t think that it will be so much as to say one side will have a match-deciding advantage purely because of the assignments due to other variables that affect it.
Actually, I think that in example 2, the Red alliance has it easier. With two robots that can drop off cubes in switch or scale, the two robots can do both without interfering with each other (one does switch on the left, the other scale on the right).
Picking up a cube during auto is much harder though I agree that if you can do it, then you want both your platforms to be on the same side.
I agree. Red also has the advantage of knowing that their scale and switch will always be on opposite sides of the field. Whereas, blue has to plan for a scenario where they are on the same side or opposite sides.
R B (Always CROSS)
B R (Always CROSS)
B B (May cross or drive straight)
R R (May cross or drive straight)
So after 4 games you should be exposed to all combos (ignore the other switch in auto)
Only 1 in 4 do you likely have a straight shot for easier double auto.
So I don’t expect many doubles unless helped by another team on your alliance
Anyway, since it’s gotten a bit warmer around here these days I figured I’d hop on and check out this new game!
I gotta say I agree with you here on this Boltman. Seems like people are really overplaying this whole random thing! Life’s random sometimes guys you gotta be able to roll with the punches!
With the majority of playoff match-ups only lasting 2 matches. That means that there’s on a small chance (17 percent I believe if it hasn’t been too long) that your alliance could have the “bad” setup for both matches! That shouldn’t discourage you because that’s a real low number and auto never makes the difference from what I’ve seen. Remember that the other alliance could also have gotten that “bad” break!
As mentioned by my peer, it’ll all even out in the end so I think everyone should all just look at how to best work around when it happens to them!
I for one am going to try to track light patterns to see if truly near-random, for a long time I’ve suspected with a feeling game pairings (the schedule) in qualifications to not be random (doubt they are meant to be) and somehow oddly favor and create powerful alliances for certain teams more frequently in years than others, this will be easier to see and verify.
This will be a factor in teleop as well. Having your scale and switch plates on the same side makes one of your portal cycles easier and potentially shorter because you don’t have to worry about the opponent’s null zone. It will also let you choose where the power cube should be scored later in the cycle.
Though the randomness will even out over all, the random plate placements will, unfortunately, decide some matches for teams.
Regardless of which layout is better or worse for which side, there will definitely be some upset alliances due to pure randomness and the layout of the field.
If an alliance gets 2 matches in a row in which they have a less than optimal scale side, the other alliance could control the scale for the entire match from that advantage in auto.
If that happens twice in a row it could be devastating to alliances. I think autonomous is quite possibly the most important it has ever been in a FIRST game this year. Once the scale advantage is taken it is going to be difficult to gain it back; it is an uphill battle for the disadvantaged team.
Or maybe teams will just have to make sure their many autonomous routines are consistent and capable starting from any side.
Because of the number of different factors listed here, I think this year #1 seeds will win more events than just about any other year.
I think the chance of having two “bad” setups in both matches is 6.25%
There are 8 setups, 2 of which are “bad”* only for red, 2 are “bad” only for blue, and 4 are fair(2 are “bad” for both alliances, 2 are “good” for both alliances) . (underlined are unfair** and “bad”* setups from the perspective of red): RRR, RRL, RLR, RLL, LRR, LRL, LLR, LLL
So a 2/8 chance on the first match times 2/8 chance on the second match=4/64=1/16=6.25%.
I think that the imbalance is small, and I agree that it will probably not make a difference.
What is strange to me is that the GDC left this bit of random unfairness that could have easily been eliminated.
They (the GDC) generally try to eliminate random unfairness where possible. The qualification match scheduler does a ton of work to make the match schedule as fair as possible. In 2016 the audience selection was the same for both alliances. In 2008 the track ball positions were random, but the same for each alliance (your color on the right side of your overpass I think). In 2005 the position of vision tetras was random, but reflectively mirrored to make it fair.
“bad” means the alliances switch plate and scale plate are on opposite sides. this is subjective, some teams would prefer this setup.
** “unfair” means the field has neither rotational or reflective symmetry. this is not subjective, it is objectively unfair because of this difference.
Truly random means red and blue have equal probabilities of getting any given field configuration; some configurations may be more likely, but there is no bias towards red or blue. Yes some matches will seem to be easier for one alliance, but good teams will be able to score regardless.
Have you forgotten Aerial Assist auto? You had a 50/50 shot of being the robot with the bonus light. And if you have a 2ball auto and got the bonus, woohoo! The randomness forces the coding sub team to design autos that compensate for it. It’s not unfair, just more challenging.
Well, it is unfair since even if you have a 2 cube auto to do the opposite side switch/scale, your opponent can do their 2 cube auto faster and potentially a 3 cube auto. While you can coordinate with your partner to split the task, it now requires one side to have two robots that have a good auto vs one robot. It probably won’t be a big deal at that level anyways but at its core it is kind of unfair.
Your next post hits on this point. But, that’s a bad assumption. As it can be randomized to do the exact opposite, both alliances must plan for both cases.
The problem the OP is looking at takes place when only one robot on an alliance can handle autonomous. If each side has a single bot that can do this, one has a slight advantage 1/8 of the time. It’s an advantage that very few teams worldwide can exploit. The actual liability isn’t all that much of a concern.