Will first change the stage RP?

Pretty self explanatory, as far as I know no one has completed it in week 1. The game manual only accounts for increasing the amount needed, however if no one (not even 973 and 1678) can do in good matches can achieve it. What’s the point in having it. The biggest argument I’ve heard is that teams are still trying to figure out how to play this game. However, no one is getting even close. If teams were able to consistently getting to stage three, I’d maybe leave it be. However that’s not the case, so with that said here’s what I would change.

Stage one: 9 cells
Stage two: 10 cells
Stage three: 15 cells

This will still allow for a challenging RP, but will make it more feasible. What are your guys’ thoughts

Just wait till some of the better teams are at their second (or third) regional…you’ll see some RPs happen.

We designed our robot around the CP being useless, so it would be unfair to us (and many other teams) to change it now.

23 Likes

It’s week 1. How many teams got the 40 kPa RP in week 1 of 2017?

28 Likes

I dont think they should change it, my team in a good match scored 21 balls, including only 3 in auto, so when we will improve our auto and the drivers get better, I believe we can score at least 25 balls, with good scoring teams in the qualifications we should be able to get that RP, week 1 is too early to think about it.
I like that mission being so hard because it makes you think about strategy with good cooperation in order to finish it.

Looks like 3 during quals and 8 in playoffs, according to TBA.

4 Likes

I would argue that the main reason 40 kPa was never reached in week one of Steamworks was because it was a much lesser part of the game and team were preoccupied with getting the “easier” and more rewarding match point-wise RP of the 4 rotors.

This year teams are actively trying to get to the higher stages as it is directly tied to the main aspect of the game and even still no one is getting close.

1 Like

The thing is. Can they change it? The rules talk about the capacity increasing but say nothing about a decrease. It also says this will only occur between district play and championships, not between quals weeks. So should they change it? Idk. Can/will they? Probably not.

3 Likes

They should not change it, but I’m unhappy that lots of teams have annually misallocated their resources, this year towards the wheel of fortune. What’s the percentage of teams with wheel spinners that didn’t build a climber? How many of them have one event?

7 Likes

While they didn’t get the RP because no one used the control panel, red alliance of Match 26 at the PNW Glacier Peak district put in a combined 55 power cells, so 49 for the RP isn’t unattainable.

3 Likes

We built ours in about a half hour after everything else worked. It was an easy problem that we only used the solution to once. But those points were super easy.

If a team prioritized this over a climber it isn’t a reason for you to be unhappy. That team will learn something from it. In 2011 we thought that minibots were impossible/dumb… then in 2016 we thought that cycling could be better than climbing… lessons learned. Everytime we strategize wrong, we get better about finding what is truly important in the game before it starts. There’s always next year.

3 Likes

This is an interesting topic. As far as if they can, I think @BriFRC has an excellent point. The question of whether they should is a confounding conundrum. The lack of bag and relative ease of designing a system to work the control panel makes adding it after a change plausible. However, what about teams with low resources who were in a week 1 and 2 comp if this were to be changed in week 3?

One could argue they were on equal footing as the teams with whom they competed, but that is not actually true if they competed with a team week 1 (or 2), and that other team did not have their second district event until week 4 or later. That is to say nothing of a team that had more resources and was able to play week 1, 2, and much later. It could be argued that those other teams would have significant advantages over the first. Especially if you consider that normally when we get later in the season, the skill level of teams and robots increases so the game gets more difficult. Some may percive a late change as the skill level increasing but the game getting easier. This already has the potential to happen to some degree with the lack of a bag. There is nothing stopping a high resource team from redisigning their entire robot (or building a completely new one) after week 1 or 2 to be significantly more effective after playing the game. There is a good chunk of build season between the first and last district event.

Not that I personally want the bag back or am sorry it is gone. I feel not having a bag has increased the game play immensely. However, Changing the RP in addition could exacerbate the perceived divide between low resource and high resource teams.

They will not change it, except within the parameters specifically allowed in the rule book.

An awful lot of teams made design decisions based on the rules as presented. Our team, and a lot of other teams, looked at the resources we had available for building, and determined that the wheel spinner was the feature least likely to make a difference to us in the competition, specifically for the reasons laid out in the OP. We didn’t anticipate it would come into play at all except the very highest levels of competition, so we didn’t spend any effort on it.

If they were to suddenly say that they will make it easier, all those teams that made those engineering decisions based on the original requirements would end up being placed at a competitive disadvantage.

1 Like

In 2013 they drastically changed the climbing criteria and extension criteria during week 4 or 5 of build. We had spent a painfully long time making our climb work and gave up a lot of speed in doing so. Essentially they made climbing easier after it was too late to effectively change a design. But they also made all the designs that were in violation of extension rules legal.

It isn’t unusual for FIRST to change things after the fact, but I don’t believe they will adjust this one. I dont know that they should either. This is hard, and will make it more impressive if anyone gets it. Having the RP system be a 3 point scale for a while won’t ruin anyone’s season.

1 Like

I kind of like having one of the extra RPs a ‘bonus’ and not something you need to get to just keep pace in the rankings.

While it may not lead to a RP, there are still plenty of opportunities to spin the color wheel. I feel like 5172 did it most of their playoff matches.

5 Likes

By the time worlds rolls around there will be teams that are able to pull this off, it’s the fourth ranking point it’s not supposed to be easy.

Sure it was an elims match but Palmetto Semi 1-1 they get to capacity just don’t have time to get position control, this is with about 85% accuracy and a lot of wasted time. The RP will start to become more common as we go on.

In 2016 Capturing a tower occurred for only 1.3% of alliances week 1 but by champs they increased the amount of scores to do it and it still happened 31.9% of the time

In 2017 4 rotors occurred in 0.32% and 40kpa happened in 0.1% of week 1 alliance with no overlap this would balloon to 38% and 10.7% across both champs with 5% of alliance being both

In 2018 week 1 face the boss happened with 3% of alliances this number would become 28% at champs

In 2019 completing the rocket occurred for 0.73% of alliances this number would become 16% across the two champs

Point being right now everyone is still getting dialed in but as we get later and later and the field becomes more skilled the RPs will occur more often.

I don’t recall this, what changed? (I was on a team at the time who just hung for 10pts so it may not have been important to me)

3 Likes

They changed the extension requirements and made it so you could effectively reach outside your allowed dimensions. It solved a lot of problems for teams that swung or had items that reached out if their robot tipped at an angle. It also wasted two weeks of our build because we designed around always staying in the previously designed extension area.

Not really a huge deal, but I remember our design team being pretty unhappy when that change was released as it would have made our build a lot easier.

Could some of the increases in success rate be attributed to general overall quality of teams at champs?

To some extent, yes. But look at the Week 6/Week 7 numbers first.

In 2017, Week 1 had 31 extra RP (or equivalent) awarded across all matches. Week 7 had that many in playoff kPA alone, without factoring in the rotors. (Week 6 had similar stats to Week 7.)
In 2018, Week 1 had 102 “unicorn” matches total; week 7 had 252 in quals and another 81 in playoffs. (Week 6? 233 and 92, respectively)
In 2019, there were 21 unicorns Week 1. There were 211 in Week 7. (Week 6? 186.)

In other words, general quality of teams isn’t the ONLY reason that the scores go up.

By the way… This sentiment has been going on for as long as I’ve been in FRC. Week 1: “Nobody’s doing [hard objective]. Nobody’s doing [other objective].” By Week 6/7/CMPs: “If you aren’t at least going for [previous objectives] then you’re going to lose.”

I don’t see the reason that there is any point.

If nobody can get it then it’s just another reason to ignore the Magic Pizza