Declawed games

[archiver]

Posted by Marc DeSchamp.

Other on team #125, someone who remembers Ramp N Roll, from Northeastern University and Textron Systems with the kids from Boston Latin School, Brookline High, and Milton Academy.

Posted on 1/12/2000 11:04 AM MST



Am I the only one out there who thinks the games have been getting increasingly wussy
as the years go by? What ever happened to the good old days of tipping, beating,
bashing, and scoring as many points as you could in two minutes?
I remember the time, during Rumble 2 (toroid terror), when Naval Undersea Warfare
picked up and dumped Johnson and Johnson. I believe that was one of the more
exciting moments in FIRST. Granted it was a bit of a shock to the Johnson and
Johnson team, but the rule (up to that point) had always been, 'go high, but be ready to
pay the price.' Well, I guess some people didn't agree, so the tipping policy was
changed to its current state, making it the first step toward a watered down version of
the game.
Then came last year, where alliances were introduced, an iteresting concept to say the
least. Then again, someone getting mangled by a peice of industrial machinery can be
interesting..... Not neccesarily *good*, but interesting..... I believe that last year's game
clearly demnstrated that there are some major kinks in the theory of alliances, the most
profound probably being disfunctional machines. There was a lot of justified griping
about people getting stiffed as far as partners go, and I don't think anyone can deny
that, while promoting the warm and fuzzy goals of unity and sportmanship, alliances
need (at least) a major overhaul. Thus making alliances step two in the journey from
robot football to robot golf.
Step three in the process (though taken out of order) is the bumpers. Who came up
with the idea of *bumpers*?! The rules have *always* stated that your machine should
be bult to withstand abuse, rugged play, and a fair amount of smaking around. Now the
rules state tha,t if you want to, you can build a rugged, solid machine, but if you don't,
you can pad your machine from abuse (heaven forbid you break a nail). What's going
to come next? No contact rules to protect the folks who don't want to wreck their paint
job? Ugh!
The final step came in this year's game, the ultimate in wussification. FIRST
succeeded in not only keeping the worst aspect of last year's game, but magnifying it!
Now, not only are you out of luck if you're teamed up with a lousy machine, you're out of
luck if you're playing *against* one too..... What on earth is the logic here? I'm all for
helping the competition, but sometimes it comes back to bite you in the (expletive).
Fine, let's be sportsmanlike, let's loan our tools in the pit, let's cheer for our opponents,
let's be all around nice guys, but let's not have to *score* for the other team! That's
preposterous! FIRST has taken the entire idea of 'let the best man/woman win,' and
flushed it down the toilet. There has always been a certain amount of luck involved in
the games, but now, it's just absurd. This year, the best machine is almost certain not
to win, I don't care who they are. We all know what they say (and I agree), that it's not
all about winning, but about the experience you have, but, all that taken into account,
noone wants to put all that hard work in, just to see their machine 'bad lucked' right out
of the game.
All in all, I think that, over the last few years, the competitions have been getting more
and more tame. This last act has simply served to completely 'declaw' the competition
as we know it. I have seen the game go from the rough and tough Ramp N Roll,
Hexagon Havoc, and Toroid Terror (note the exciting sounding names), to the softer
and cushier Ladder Logic, and Double Trouble (which soud more like events on the
Price is Right than anything else), and now this. Well, I don't know what kind of strategy
FIRST's design guys are employing, but I hope they realize soon that it stinks.

[archiver]

Posted by Kate.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Engineer on team #190, Gompei, from Mass Academy of Math and Science and Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

Posted on 1/12/2000 11:57 AM MST


In Reply to: Declawed games posted by Marc DeSchamp on 1/12/2000 11:04 AM MST:



These forums are used to share ideas with other people. While I agree that you are sharing an idea with the group, it wasn't exactly the happiest idea in the world to share. These forums are used for constructive purposes. Not once in your message did I see anything positive about anything related to this year's game. The FIRST Code of Ethics is 'Gracious Professionalism.' This consists of Respect, Courtesy, Good Sportsmanship, and Best Behavior at ALL Times. Not only does this mean that you should be respecting all the other teams, but FIRST as well. There is a very hard working group of people that work at FIRST. They do come here and read the messages as well. If I worked for FIRST, and I saw this message, I would be really offended. These people work their hardest at all times to make things work as smoothly as possible in the time that they have. It is not an easy job to do what they do.

While I do agree that the earlier games were a lot more exciting to watch and participate in, the aura of your message was not within the Gracious Professionalism that FIRST manifests so greatly. This concept of Gracious Professionalism is something that I live by at all times, not just when doing FIRST. Since I have been doing FIRST for the last 4 years, and I am so involved and devoted (just ask anyone), I am actually rather offended by your message. FIRST is my life. Sure, sometimes FIRST doesn't make the best decisions, but it's something that you learn to live with. Nothing is perfect. Nothing is supposed to be. Granted we would all like it to be perfect, but that's impossible. FIRST has it's ups and downs. If you're involved in FIRST for the reasons it was created, then you don't worry about the downs very much. You are involved in this competition not to win. You are here to inspire the students. You are here For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology. You are here to help the kids grow. Not only is this to get them into science and technology, but it's a learning experience for life. How many things were you involved in as a kid to get you ready for the 'real world?' Where else do you learn how to work on a team productively, how to meet deadlines, how to think quickly but productively, how to work with people, and in general, just how to deal with everything in your life once you hit the working world.

While I'm sure that everyone would love to win the competition, I'm sure that's not what everyone is really in it for. Everyone is given the same set of rules and restrictions. A lot of other people are going to have the same problems that you are with the competition. But everyone will need to figure out how to compensate for it and deal with the problems. Just because this year's competition might not be as great as competitions past, that doesn't mean that it isn't accomplishing the same things (with respect to the inspiration for the kids) as the older competitions.

Thank you for your time.

Kate Leach
Team 190
WPI / MAMS
Gompei

[archiver]

Posted by Greg Mills.

Engineer on team #16, Baxter Bomb Squad, from Mountain Home and Baxter Healthcare.

Posted on 1/12/2000 12:07 PM MST


In Reply to: Gracious Professionalism posted by Kate on 1/12/2000 11:57 AM MST:



:
:Thank you Kate!!

The only thing that I might disagree with is who's to say that this game will be any less exciting to watch? There will be action to the very end and alot of quick decisions to be made. I agree that I am in this not for the game and will play at whatever is given.

Thanks again,

Greg

[archiver]

Posted by Lora Knepper.

Student on team #69, HYPER, from Quincy Public Schools and The Gillette Company.

Posted on 1/12/2000 5:34 PM MST


In Reply to: Gracious Professionalism posted by Kate on 1/12/2000 11:57 AM MST:



I want to commend you Kate for expressing my feelings completely! As a student, I first thought the competition was about winning. Very quickly, however, I learned that FIRST is everything but winning. I have been inspired to follow a career in engineering (I'm would like to go to WPI =) and I hope to continue in FIRST through my college years, to share the lessons I have learned with others. FIRST is my life, it is where my heart is. For all it's ups and downs, I will forever be a part of FIRST. I find your comments to be offensive to the project I have dedicated my future to. If you truly feel this way about the game, perhaps you should step back and think about the changes in the students. Regardless of the game, it is the kids who benefit from this experience. The alliance system you hate so much, has allowed me to make friends I would have never met otherwise. You are truly missing the point of the competiton, sir, and I beg you to look in the eyes of the students on your team as they build and design in these weeks ahead. And then watch them at a competiton, watch how they cheer for their creation, the machine that they built. Is the game really that important?

Lora Knepper
Team 69 (HYPER)
(Helping Youth to Pursue Engineering and Robotics)

[archiver]

Posted by Joe Johnson.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 1/12/2000 6:42 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Gracious Professionalism posted by Lora Knepper on 1/12/2000 5:34 PM MST:



I raise my voice in support not of all the comments & opinions expressed in the openning message by Mr. DeSchamp but of the idea that they have a place on the forum.

The sign of a mature community is not that everyone is nice and happy but that differring opinions can be expressed.

If you re-read the comments, they were not always expressed in positive flowery words, but they were expressing a very important idea. He was concerned about the FUTURE of FIRST. Agree or dis-agree it was very forward looking. A trend that he would not like to see continue was worth commenting on. If he was not concerned about FIRST making it in the long run, he would not have bothered.

So... Don't everyone rush to deprive Mr. DeSchamp of his voice. I for one think that FIRST is strong enough to withstand the critics and perhaps even learn from some of them.

Joe J.

[archiver]

Posted by Kate.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Engineer on team #190, Gompei, from Mass Academy of Math and Science and Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

Posted on 1/12/2000 6:53 PM MST


In Reply to: multitude of opinions allowed... posted by Joe Johnson on 1/12/2000 6:42 PM MST:



In my original response (although it may not have sounded like it at the time), I didn't really have much of a problem with Mr. DeSchamp voicing his opinion. My main disliking of the post was in the way that he expressed his ideas. Yes, I always like it when people share their ideas and point out problems with things, but what I don't like is when it's a lot of bashing. Constructive criticsm would have been a lot better way of going about voicing the opinion. Maybe I'm thinking this mainly because of posts from JJ, Mr.B, or Daniel with them using wicked good english and being able to put the thoughts in their heads into words. And they make it sound pretty. *shrugs* Like I said, I don't always agree with what FIRST decides to do, but I deal with it because I love the game and helping kids learn so much.

Kate Leach
Team 190
WPI / MAMS
Gompei

[archiver]

Posted by Justin.

Other on team Blue Lightning Alum from RWU sponsored by FIRST-A-holics Anonymous.

Posted on 1/12/2000 7:48 PM MST


In Reply to: multitude of opinions allowed... posted by Joe Johnson on 1/12/2000 6:42 PM MST:



Joe,

Thanks for some sanity. You are 100% correct. We don't always like other people's opinions. However it is important that they are all heard. The ones we don't agree with are just as valid as our own...and sometimes they are the ones we need to consider with the most attention.

I think FIRST means many different things to many different people. For some, like Kate and Lora, it is a way of life and it is about finding ways to exmplify gracious professionalism both within FIRST and thier lives. For others like myself and Marc it is a competition it's about building the best machine and competing the best. There are really two camps I think, those who view the primary purpose of FIRST to educate and inspire kids, and those who view the education and inspiration as a by-product of the competition that FIRST is.

Thank you Joe for reminding us that everyone should have a right to be heard.

-Justin

[archiver]

Posted by Marc DeSchamp.

Other on team #125, someone who remembers Ramp N Roll, from Northeastern University and Textron Systems with the kids from Boston Latin School, Brookline High, and Milton Academy.

Posted on 1/13/2000 7:43 AM MST


In Reply to: multitude of opinions allowed... posted by Joe Johnson on 1/12/2000 6:42 PM MST:



I would like to thank you Joe, for your words, I appreciate them greatly. I would also like to take a minute to explain to the pepole who don't know me (and there are quite a few of them) that my writings on this page are not meant to imply that I do not like FIRST. I have been doing FIRST since my freshman year at Plymouth North High School, and in that time I have seen quite a bit of the competition. Perhaps I didn't phrase my words in the most constructive way, but that doesn't mean I dislike the program (if it did, I wouldn't be doing it). I am in my sixth year of FIRST participation, and I intend to continue participating indefinitely. In fact, this year I took a coop job in Austin, TX and I am directing my team's animation from there, helping out with our Chairman's Award entry, and giving advice where ever it is needed. I don't think my commitment to FIRST need be questioned, and I *do* understand the ideas behind FIRST (I used to be one of those kids with the light in their eyes, as I suspect all of us still are, whether engineer, student, or teacher).
I am not all about winning, in fact in the years I have been in the competition, I have never been on a team with a winning robot. In my statement, I merely meant to criticize the recent games, and the trend they seem to be following, not the hard work and dedication of the people behind them. Perhaps I said it a little more harshly than I should have, and for *that* I am sorry. However, I maintain my opinion, and respect the opinions that others have, be they about me (whether the people know me or are just making judgments) or my views.
Marc

[archiver]

Posted by Lora Knepper.

Student on team #69, HYPER, from Quincy Public Schools and The Gillette Company.

Posted on 1/13/2000 4:30 PM MST


In Reply to: Thank you posted by Marc DeSchamp on 1/13/2000 7:43 AM MST:



Marc,

I also want to apologize to you. You had just touched a nerve, and I had to respond. I value your opinion, and everyone elses, and Joe is right, this is a place where we all should have our ideas able to be heard. I am sorry if I came across as otherwise. Though I stand behind my ideas, I can also see where you are coming from. I wish you good luck this year in competiton.

Lora Knepper
Team 69 (HYPER)
(Helping Youth Pursue Engineering and Robotics)

[archiver]

Posted by Paul Donovan.

Coach on team #296, Northern Knights, from Loyola High School and Arial Systems and Nortel Networks.

Posted on 1/12/2000 6:56 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Gracious Professionalism posted by Lora Knepper on 1/12/2000 5:34 PM MST:



'If you truly feel this way about the game, perhaps you should step back and think about the changes in the students. Regardless of the game, it is the kids who benefit from this experience. The alliance system you hate so much, has allowed me to make friends I would have never met otherwise. You are truly missing the point of the competiton, sir, and I beg you to look in the eyes of the students on your team as they build and design in these weeks ahead. And then watch them at a competiton, watch how they cheer for their creation, the machine that they built. Is the game really that important?'

Lora, thank you for your comments, I think you have wonderful insight. This is only my second year with FIRST, and it is that ideal that keeps me involved. I coach the Senior Football team at our High School, and while I love the game, it's not the reason I coach. It's 'looking into the faces' of the players that keeps me coaching. I don't know a lot about engineering but I do know something about teams and competitions. The common goal, working toward something and overcoming hardship, discipline in the face of adversity, understanding and living within rules, personal sacrifice for the sake of others, these are the things that make a team strong, these are the things that inspire, these are the things that make FIRST a great experience - and I'm sorry for those teams that miss out on those experiences in favor of a few minutes of thrill.
Cheers, Lora and good luck in the competition!

[archiver]

Posted by Jason Leslie.

Other on team FIRST-AHOLIC from Formerly Assabet Valley RTHS (Looking for a new team in RI).

Posted on 1/12/2000 12:26 PM MST


In Reply to: Declawed games posted by Marc DeSchamp on 1/12/2000 11:04 AM MST:



All I have to say is that in a world where kis are becoming terrorist in there high schools, I belive that first made a great desision to tone down the violence in FIRST. Granted it is a robotics competition, but FIRST is to teach kids about engineering and how to apply math and science in a fun and practical way.

Now for you and all the other teams and idividuals out there in the game of FIRST that think that this should be an all out war go compete in something like 'The Robot Wars' and when and if you lose you'll becoming home with a 'bot that is in peices, one that have been cut in half by its opponent.

And as for flipping remember after torriod terror Navel Undersea said themselves NO FLIPPER.

[archiver]

Posted by Daniel.

Coach on team BORG (Berkeley Operational Robotics Group) from Berkeley High School sponsored by (working on the sponsor, too).

Posted on 1/12/2000 1:22 PM MST


In Reply to: Declawed games posted by Marc DeSchamp on 1/12/2000 11:04 AM MST:



In some ways I agree with you. It has come to a point where even if you're not specifically trying to tip someone over, but getting lost and excited you tap another robot while it's fully extended and are DQed on the spot. The more rules they have about violence, the more mistakes they're setting themselves up to make in their calls. You have to make a deliberate effort to back off most of the time.

BUT...

Taking this for granted, I really LOVE this year's game. Here's why: it's so hard to win! It's always about control, and with all that will be going on during these matches, it's near impossible to get out there with one robot and really control the match. I think a lot of the deciding factors will surface right at the beginning, with a few robots fighting for that bar. Remember, robot shoving is encouraged and should be expected to be quite common. This WILL be a battle. Also, FIRST got rid of most of the reasons to be fully extended for an extended (pardon the repetition) period of time, so most cases where robots tip over, it will be obvious that their CG was bad and it wont be called. You just can't go out and TRY to tip them.

Oh and about those bumpers, I'd like to see you try to get away with a wussy robot hiding away in that bumper. It's NOT going to protect you. You'll come home with a bucket of pieces like you would from robowars...

...but I guess that's what you want, anyway ;-)


-DL

[archiver]

Posted by Steve Goldberg.

Engineer on team #157, Aztechs, from Assabet Valley RTHS and EMC/Simplex/Intel MA/Others.

Posted on 1/12/2000 1:32 PM MST


In Reply to: Declawed games posted by Marc DeSchamp on 1/12/2000 11:04 AM MST:



Since everyone else seemed to be disagreeing here I thought I'd add that I mostly agree with you.
I think FIRST has been toning down the competitions over the years (I have been involved since 1993)
Although I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing I think there are a few rules that take away some 'reality' from the contest.
Part of FIRST's mission is to show students how real life engineering works. Well, in there real world there are no rules that say the competition can't do underhanded tricky things to you. FIRST has chosen to remove things such as tipping. Instead why didn't they make it a point that teams should design a robot that is capable of recovering from such an occurance or one that would not be able to be tipped over. I feel that FIRST took away some important engineering possiblities by instituting this rule.
As for bumpers, I agree... Again, instead of adding a rule for a predefined bumper why don't they just encourage proper design that would account for getting hit a bit in competition.
They have also added alliances, which in my humble opinion are a good thing, if they were to be reworked a bit. The problem I have with the way the competitions are run nowadays is that there is too much reliance on luck. By having alliances FIRST took away the ability to engineer a winning robot. Now you could have a fantastically designed and built robot but still lose a good deal of your matches simply by the luck of the draw. Again, I think the idea behind the alliances is admirable but the implementation leaves a bit to be desired.

As a final note, I'd like to bring up the point of easy scoring. Part of each FIRST competition is to gather more interest in FIRST. The problem is that if average people who are seeing the contest for the first time can't figure out who is winning easily then they won't be as interested in the competition.
Most of the games that FIRST has come up with have used what I will call a 'cumulative' scoring system. (People but objects in a specific place and each object has a point value associated with it)
Well, Dean keeps saying that he wants FIRST to be like the NFL. If we look at most major sports, none of them use a 'cumulative' scoring system. Instead most use what I will call an 'additive' scoring system. Score a touchdown, add 6 points. Touch home plate, score 1 run. In each case the audience knows exactly when the scoring has occured and it can not be reversed or removed. This is simplicity in scoring, not this ball is 1 point this one is 5, stop here get 5 more points, hang here get 10, lift the other robot get 10 but not your opponent because that is illegal. This is not simple, it is complex.

Anyway, I still think FIRST is a great competition, I just think that recently the competitions have been discouraging some of the engineering that it meant to foster.

[archiver]

Posted by Marc DeSchamp.

Other on team #125, someone who remembers Ramp N Roll, from Northeastern University and Textron Systems with the kids from Boston Latin School, Brookline High, and Milton Academy.

Posted on 1/12/2000 2:44 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Declawed games posted by Steve Goldberg on 1/12/2000 1:32 PM MST:



I have been saying the exact same thing about addative scoring for years. I'm glad to hear that other people feel the same way. In addition to making the scoring simpler, it also reduces the luck aspect somewhat by lowering the chances that a team will accidentaly take away thirty points from you in the last several seconds, or that you lose a doubler or two when your machine loses power at the end of a match.....

[archiver]

Posted by Daniel.

Coach on team BORG (Berkeley Operational Robotics Group) from Berkeley High School sponsored by (working on the sponsor, too).

Posted on 1/12/2000 2:53 PM MST


In Reply to: Addative scoring posted by Marc DeSchamp on 1/12/2000 2:44 PM MST:



I kind of like the way it can all come crashing down at the end. It really maintains the intensity for the full 2 minutes. Have you ever watched a sports game where you just had to turn off the TV because your favorite team was getting beaten so bad?

Say you’re a driver. You spend the first 30 seconds of the match getting far behind and the next 1:30 wishing you could just disappear. I like the way there's always that fleeting chance. Maybe it's just me?

-DL

____________
PS - that doesn't mean I like how hard this game is to tell who's winning. I think there's a happy middle ground somewhere here.

[archiver]

Posted by Marc DeSchamp.

Other on team #125, someone who remembers Ramp N Roll, from Northeastern University and Textron Systems with the kids from Boston Latin School, Brookline High, and Milton Academy.

Posted on 1/12/2000 3:06 PM MST


In Reply to: true, but I dunno... posted by Daniel on 1/12/2000 2:53 PM MST:



I agree with you on some points, but at the same time I keep remembering the days of Ramp N Roll where the Tide robot would come out of the game with a score of 130+ points in a game where the scoring went by twos and threes. The excitement level was there for the whole time. But not all of the teams scored that high..... Some teams scored only twice in the game and played defense (much like what happens in alot of professional sports, either by accident or by design).
There weren't all that many slaughters that I remeber from that game, and it was always fun to see a team come back from being down by 30 points to even it up in the last few seconds. The upsets still occured, but they were achieved through skillfull driving, as opposed to luck (not to say that people don't work hard now). And even in a game where you can lose it all at the last minute, there are still matches that it hurts to watch (some 540 point victories by Clinton/Nypro spring to mind :-).
I think you're right about there being a 'happy medium.' Maybe an additively scoring game with lower scores (like hockey or baseball). Who knows? Maybe that's what's on the plate for next year.....

[archiver]

Posted by Fran .

Other on team #166, Team Merrimack, from Merrimack High School and Unitrode/R.S. Machines.

Posted on 1/12/2000 9:34 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: true, but I dunno... posted by Marc DeSchamp on 1/12/2000 3:06 PM MST:



what about the good/bad luck of the old days...lets face it , if u got seeded with weak teams it was a hollow victory or slaughtered by getting put with the top team and don't forget the placebo...you were lucky to only face 1 robot....alliances at least minimize the luck in my eyes...there's 2 to battle the big tough guy ..

I always thought everyone was supposed to only work on there robot from scratch during the 6 weeks...not tweak all year or use the same drive trains......but that must be for those who like to solve problems not just win win win!

Fran
Team 166




: I agree with you on some points, but at the same time I keep remembering the days of Ramp N Roll where the Tide robot would come out of the game with a score of 130+ points in a game where the scoring went by twos and threes. The excitement level was there for the whole time. But not all of the teams scored that high..... Some teams scored only twice in the game and played defense (much like what happens in alot of professional sports, either by accident or by design).
: There weren't all that many slaughters that I remeber from that game, and it was always fun to see a team come back from being down by 30 points to even it up in the last few seconds. The upsets still occured, but they were achieved through skillfull driving, as opposed to luck (not to say that people don't work hard now). And even in a game where you can lose it all at the last minute, there are still matches that it hurts to watch (some 540 point victories by Clinton/Nypro spring to mind :-).
: I think you're right about there being a 'happy medium.' Maybe an additively scoring game with lower scores (like hockey or baseball). Who knows? Maybe that's what's on the plate for next year.....

[archiver]

Posted by Justin.

Other on team Blue Lightning Alum from RWU sponsored by FIRST-A-holics Anonymous.

Posted on 1/12/2000 2:39 PM MST


In Reply to: Declawed games posted by Marc DeSchamp on 1/12/2000 11:04 AM MST:



Hello All,

Marc, I do have to say that you hit a lot of how I've been viewing FIRST recently right on the head. However the reference to people getting mangled in industrial machinery was a bit much...your message would have garnered more respect if you had maintained some in it.

That being said let me explain why I agree with Marc. In recent times there has been a great deal of talk about gracious professionalism. It is evident that many believe this is the core principle upon which FIRST was founded. However as I recall FIRST was about creating an _competive_ sports-like event that exposed high school kids to engineering. As I recall the concept of gracious professionalism was added later. Now I'm not bashing gracious professionalism I think it's a good philosophy. However like everything I think that it has a place and I believe that place is off the field. Now this doesn't mean I want to turn FIRST into a Robot Wars either, I happen to feel there is a lot more fun in competeting in a game rather then just beating up on the other guy.

FIRST is a competition, a competition is meant to be competative. Life is not fair we all know this. My point is that when the arm breaks on a machine the team should not blame that on FIRST or the game and say that the game wasn't fair because their arm broke. There is a legal concept called assumption of risk. This clause protects for example the NBA from being sued when a player is hurt playing basketball. By steping on to the court the player acknowledged that there was risk involved in playing the game and accepted the liablity for themselves. Yes it inhales audibly when a robot gets broken but we can't blame that on FIRST or the game. There is a certian assumption of risk taken when fielding a robot.

For the record I do think that the days of Hexagon Havoc were much more intense, but I'm not going to bash FIRST for lessening the intenseness. Perhaps a lot of it has to do with rookie and verteran teams. Veteran teams know how to build a strong robot that can take a lickin' and keep on tickin' (not that there aren't rookies capable of this). Rookie teams may not be as prepared and may not have the resources to build that kind of machine. I realize this is a second issue all together but I was talking to on of my former teachers and we were debating the concept of having a class structure within FIRST. Class L FIRST so to speak where the veterans would compete and a different class for the rookies??

Good Luck to all this year,

Justin

[archiver]

Posted by Paul Donovan.

Coach on team #296, Northern Knights, from Loyola High School and Arial Systems and Nortel Networks.

Posted on 1/12/2000 9:38 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Declawed games posted by Justin on 1/12/2000 2:39 PM MST:





I think you have touched upon a significant issue here. I can understand why some of the vetran teams may feel somewhat frustrated, but I think if you put it in perspective it may be easier to swallow. We have a similar debate every year in our football league. Some teams have greater resources than others - more practice time, more money for coaches, more experience etc. They naturally become stronger teams, and those who don't have the capacity to match resources want to do one of two things:
1- Regulate what resources are allowable to make it a fair, competitative league OR
2- Force the stronger teams into a league of their own.
Neither is acceptable to the STRONGER teams because they feel they would be scaling down in the first case and in the second case the fewer number of teams would make the league less fun.

The problem is, you can't have it both ways. If expansion is desired then regulation is required.(How's that for poetry) It gives all teams a more competative league. If the 'level' of play is the concern, then the elite teams need to accept a much smaller competition and less expansion. FIRST desires expansion - the huge numbers are a big part of the fun and excitement. The massive effort to organize the events makes much more sense when more kids and companies are reached by it. I think FIRST does a great job thinking up contests that produce exciting matches for ALL teams without taking too much away from the stronger teams and robots. (the weak & mediocre teams also get paired with weak robots and no-shows)
As for the 'violence' regulations, to me that's a bit like football helmets and clipping penalties. They exist BECAUSE CONTACT IS DESIRED without destruction. (Were leather helmets and high-low blocks more exiting?) As the abilty to create 'super robots' increases, the need to 'protect' robots also increases.(Especially for the newer teams which gets us back to the previous argument)
Sorry for being so long winded - just thought I'd throw in my two cents.
Good luck to all!

[archiver]

Posted by Andy Grady.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Coach on team #42, P.A.R.T.S, from Alvirne High School and Daniel Webster College.

Posted on 1/12/2000 7:18 PM MST


In Reply to: Declawed games posted by Marc DeSchamp on 1/12/2000 11:04 AM MST:



Wow, that is all I have to say. Im sorry but anyone who considers last years game 'wussy' must not have been watching the same game I was. Our robot came away from that competition with more dents and breaks from robot contact than any other of the robots that I have ever been a part of. I cant even count how many matches I saw last year, where the contact between robots was far greater than all the other years put together. And this year I am expecting it to be just as high contact as ever, why do you think FIRST added the ramp and pole. Sure the new point system may call for teams to score for each other now and then, but this game isn't Battlebots or Robot Wars, there is more to it than just beating the hell out of each other. Skill in using your mind in the heat of competition is a must, and yes there will be alot of brute force. As for alliances, sure I moaned about them a bit in the past, and my team was on the short end of a few small quirks in the system, but overall im glad they are back. It was a great pleasure to be able to meet different personalities from different teams all over, it really exemplified what this program is really about. Gracious Professionalism, teamwork, and creating enthusiasm about science and technology. But of course thats just my opinion :)
Good Luck All,
Andy Grady, DWC/Alvirne

[archiver]

Posted by Andy Baker.

Engineer on team #45, TechnoKats, from Kokomo High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 1/12/2000 8:44 PM MST


In Reply to: HUH?!?!?!? posted by Andy Grady on 1/12/2000 7:18 PM MST:



: Our robot came away from that competition with more
:dents and breaks from robot contact than any other of
:the robots that I have ever been a part of. I cant
:even count how many matches I saw last year, where
:the contact between robots was far greater than all
:the other years put together.

Exactly what I was thinkin', Andy. Team 42 could both dish out and take loads of punishment last year... that made the game more exciting, in my opinion.

For all of you who thinks that this year's game is tame... maybe you haven't noticed the bigger field. Bigger field = more room for acceleration = more speed. I have a few predictions due to this increase in space:
....1. Robots will get to over 10 mph.
....2. Robots will go airborne.
....3. Robots will break into two separate pieces:
.........a. one part hanging
.........b. one part lying on the floor, 15 ft. away

Maybe some will call it a 'wussy' game, but I don't think so. This will be a game of velocity, momentum, and robust design.

Andy B.

[archiver]

Posted by Daniel.

Coach on team BORG (Berkeley Operational Robotics Group) from Berkeley High School sponsored by (working on the sponsor, too).

Posted on 1/13/2000 2:23 AM MST


In Reply to: Right on... & Predictions posted by Andy Baker on 1/12/2000 8:44 PM MST:



I agree with Andy very much. Here's the kicker:

In year's past, balls or tubes (or whatever) were the only 'points' on the playing field. Starting last year, FIRST introduced a new concept -- robots ARE points. A robot on the puck, or a robot on the bar is a large (in fact the largest) addition to a team's score. Now lets translate this: you pretty much have a bounty on your head. Now we all know this caused havoc in old westerns, and I have seen and expect that it will cause havoc in competition as well. Last year was by no means a 'tame' competition. I saw no bunnies hopping through fields of grass. These rules are just to teach us when shoving is appropriate and when it's not. Expect king of the hill this year.

It's gonna be brutal.

-DL

[archiver]

Posted by Andy Grady.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Coach on team #42, P.A.R.T.S, from Alvirne High School and Daniel Webster College.

Posted on 1/13/2000 9:24 AM MST


In Reply to: Right on... & Predictions posted by Andy Baker on 1/12/2000 8:44 PM MST:



Andy Baker will be one of the first to tell you that agressive is not just in the game, its in the strategy. I will use the technocats robot as an example. Their design last year was built for agressive play and in almost all their matches that is what you got, (my team knows this because we had some great agressive matches against them). It was a rugged machine and their arm was used for many very tough purposes, including stiffarming other robots and jamming towers. There are many teams who decide not to be agressive, but instead passivly go for points...that is a choice of strategy and is not the game's fault. Maybe the reason why the game appears wussy is because teams are being more careful how they approach the game. If you want to see a more agressive game in the future, don't ask FIRST to change their games, ask the other teams to be more agressive on the field.

[archiver]

Posted by Tom Wible.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Coach on team #131, chaos, from central high school manchester and osram-sylvania.

Posted on 1/13/2000 9:52 AM MST


In Reply to: Agressive is a strategy posted by Andy Grady on 1/13/2000 9:24 AM MST:



Suppose a robot which composed of nothing more than a battering ram on wheels was used to clear the ramp, would that be considered intentionally damaging other robots? Or would it be considered part of gaining control of the ramp? I think FIRST has made it CLEAR that this would be acceptable by stating that robots need to be made robust enough to withstand vigorous interaction, and recommending bumpers for avoiding damage. DAMAGE DAMAGE DAMAGE !!! Can you say ROBOT WARS?

Tom Wible
Team #131

[archiver]

Posted by Samuel Lindhorst.

Engineer on team #240, Mach Vee, from Jefferson High School and Visteon.

Posted on 1/13/2000 10:53 AM MST


In Reply to: HUH?!?!?!? posted by Andy Grady on 1/12/2000 7:18 PM MST:



We were rookies last year, but we understood enough reading the rules to understand we had to build the thing tough. At the nationals, we lifted with a competor trying to tear our lift system apart, and he came pretty close, but we had enough to withstand it. We had far more powerful robots throw us around, kick us off the puck, try to tip us over by grabing our top mast and pulling for all it was worth (see kids what a low CG gets you!), and basically just tried to survive out there some rounds. More than once I was thankful we built it low and heavy, with welded steel angle.

We did get a few licks in too, but really taking the punishment is more important in getting a score than being the junkyard dog, especially one that only dishes it out and can't take it. More so this year, as Daniel says below the post, it's going to be brutal, and I agree. Around that hill, you better be ready to hang there and get hit incredibly hard.

Your comments puzzle me, all the older teams I talked to commented on how physical last year's game had become.

Maybe you need to get out of New England and come on over to Ypsilanti for the little love-fest we have there. The teams are great, all the usual tool-borrowing and techinical advising, excited kids and screaming parents are there, but when Woodie steps out of the ring things get pretty rude, pretty fast and you had better come prepared. We'll kiss and make up afterwards, and lend you tools to fix the damage. :o)

Sam

[archiver]

Posted by Andy Grady.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Coach on team #42, P.A.R.T.S, from Alvirne High School and Daniel Webster College.

Posted on 1/13/2000 4:07 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: HUH?!?!?!? posted by Samuel Lindhorst on 1/13/2000 10:53 AM MST:




Sam Wrote:
'Maybe you need to get out of New England and come on over to Ypsilanti for the little love-fest we have there. The teams are great, all the usual tool-borrowing and techinical advising, excited kids and screaming parents are there, but when Woodie steps out of the ring things get pretty rude, pretty fast and you had better come prepared. We'll kiss and make up afterwards, and lend you tools to fix the damage. :o)'

Not to down play all the Michagan teams, i know you can get pretty rough, but we practically invented the idea of agressive play here in New England :)
Good Luck,
Andy Grady, DWC/Alvirne

[archiver]

Posted by Samuel Lindhorst.

Engineer on team #240, Mach Vee, from Jefferson High School and Visteon.

Posted on 1/14/2000 3:59 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: HUH?!?!?!? posted by Andy Grady on 1/13/2000 4:07 PM MST:



: Not to down play all the Michagan teams, i know you can get pretty rough, but we practically invented the idea of agressive play here in New England :)

Oooooohhhhhh. :) I see. I guess I can understand why if play is that tough in New England why you might want to stay home. :O)

We have a few inventions of our own here in the Midwest. For example, when we were bored on Sundays, we invented the NFL.

: Good Luck,
: Andy Grady, DWC/Alvirne

You too, and have a great year... :o)

Sam Lindhorst, JHS & Visteon

[archiver]

Posted by Justin Ridley.

Engineer on team #221, MI Roboworks, from Michigan Technological University.

Posted on 1/12/2000 7:29 PM MST


In Reply to: Declawed games posted by Marc DeSchamp on 1/12/2000 11:04 AM MST:



I agree with you that they have been in a sence 'declawing' the games a bit. Some of it
is bad, but some of it is very very good. I think it's absolutely wonderful that someone
can't just run up to my robot while I'm just sitting there raised up 8 feet and tip me over
maliciously. I agree your robot should be robust, but robust or not if you take a tumble
while extended 8 feet something is gonna break. And to see something you've put
your heart and soul into for 6 weeks break is a bit different than 'breaking a nail'. Now I
will admit, I don't like the bumper idea either, nor do I like the scoring system at all, and
I agree with many of your points concerning those. But it'll make this years game pretty
interesting and adds a new level of strategy. While there's stuff that we don't like,
somethings FIRST has changed has made the game much better and I don't think it's
any less exciting. I'd like the fact that full contact is legal and robots can do things to
stop others from scoring points, but certain things such as intentionally flipping a robot
in open field does just not belong in the FIRST competition. And one other thing. .
.seeing someone's robot 'getting mangled' is not interesting, it's down right horrible.

[archiver]

Posted by Isaac Onigman.

Student from Rochester Institute of Technology sponsored by Blue Lightning and First-a-holics Anonymous.

Posted on 1/12/2000 7:53 PM MST


In Reply to: Declawed games posted by Marc DeSchamp on 1/12/2000 11:04 AM MST:



: Am I the only one out there who thinks the games have been getting increasingly wussy
: as the years go by? What ever happened to the good old days of tipping, beating,
: bashing, and scoring as many points as you could in two minutes? ( SNIP! )
: All in all, I think that, over the last few years, the competitions have been getting more
: and more tame. This last act has simply served to completely 'declaw' the competition
: as we know it. I have seen the game go from the rough and tough Ramp N Roll,
: Hexagon Havoc, and Toroid Terror (note the exciting sounding names), to the softer
: and cushier Ladder Logic, and Double Trouble (which soud more like events on the
: Price is Right than anything else), and now this. Well, I don't know what kind of strategy
: FIRST's design guys are employing, but I hope they realize soon that it stinks.

(Dons asbestos bodysuit)
While I can't agree with everything that you've said in your remarks, I can agree with you that somehow, I feel that the games over the past few years have gotten 'cushier and cushier' The game with the floppies, well... that was just floppy :-S Seriously. The variety has been good, but the points of the games and the scoring methods have been decreasing in pleasentness for me. I always thought that the additive scoring was great, just like soccer, football, baseball, basketball, you name it. Instead, we have to determine the score of the entire two minutes, literally, in some cases in the last 5 seconds of the match, which I don't think is really fair. It takes the element of speed and skill out of the game, and leaves it almost entirely to luck. But that's Me.

[archiver]

Posted by colleen.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Other on team #246, a FIRST-aholic, from John D. O'Byrant High School/Boston Latin Academy/Madison HS and NSTAR/Boston University/Wentworth Institute of Technology/MassPEP.

Posted on 1/12/2000 9:00 PM MST


In Reply to: Declawed games posted by Marc DeSchamp on 1/12/2000 11:04 AM MST:



I haven't gotten the chance to read all the posts.. but really skimmed all of them and get the jist.

Basically, consider something-

FIRST has brought in gracious professional as a way to serparate the competition from, persay, RobotWars..

It's not a game of destruction.

But I must agree with Andy from DWC.. last year's 'wussy' game saw our robot take harder shots, lose more chunks of wood, and feel more pain..

However, contrary to past years, it was the only year our robot didn't have parts fall off because of those hits or be immobilized in any matches by other robots..

Reason-being? Many teams didn't concentrate on building a robot that was defensive but rather one that could win (a mainly offensive robot, even some changed perspective during competition, e.g. removing baskets or scoring devices)..

The best defense is an unbeatable offense

The game's rules may have got 'wussy', but the quality of the game and it's difficulty lies in strategy.. it's how your team plays the game that determine's it's *wussy-ness*.. it can be made hard or it can be easy.. it's all about how you play the game..

Remember.. FIRST makes certain rules and can choose to what high and detailed extent to which they enforce them.. gracious professionalism is presented to us as a way for FIRST to not have to make the tough decisions on rules..

bumpers i think are to help the rookies.. not everyone knows how to play rough, or has the resources and experience to fix on the fly.. it'll help ease the learning process..

don't forget.. bumpers aren't required.. if you think their wussy.. don't have them..

good luck
colleen

(i don't mean to be short and maybe sound mean but it's late.. i'm tired..)

[archiver]

Posted by Jon.

Engineer on team #190, Gompei, from Mass Academy of Math and Science and Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

Posted on 1/12/2000 9:27 PM MST


In Reply to: Declawed games posted by Marc DeSchamp on 1/12/2000 11:04 AM MST:




(Kate, please don't hurt me ;)
Well... i kinda agree with the declawing thought... the games have seemed a little weaker. SEEMED. But once in competition, they were SOO much fun!

This game seems weird with the neutral strategy possibilities and all, but i see it as more of an extreme challenge for the mind than a classic NFL style game. This isn't Robot Wars... if you wanted to just blow things up, you could do that or become a Fire Protection Engineer. FIRST is more than that... i think i'm in the gracious professionalism camp... maybe that tweaks my pov.

The idea of bumpers seems totally silly to me, having seen that you can build a robot to take damage without them, but they may be of help to a team's structural plan. The rules have stated that you have to build robust robots because stuff is gonna happen, in my opinion this is just another tool towards that goal. I don't think bumpers will help if you go flying off that bar... but they might :)
jon abad
Team 190
wpi/mass academy of math and science

[archiver]

Posted by Kevin Sevcik.

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

Posted on 1/13/2000 12:58 AM MST


In Reply to: Declawed games posted by Marc DeSchamp on 1/12/2000 11:04 AM MST:



Well. Far be it from me to beat an issue into the ground, but as long as everyone else is doing it, I thought I'd voice my opinion. :^) First, I think that while the games may be getting 'wussy' they've been developing in other ways. They have been becoming more complex with more scoring options and strategies to consider than just scoring as many times as possible. True, 'additive' scoring may be simpler, but cumulative scoring makes games richer and more varied. They allow for more strategies. While multipliers may have brought some luck into the equation, they also brought in a whole lot more strategy. My team tried to capitalize on this in Ladder Logic when we started sucking opponents multipliers away. When our opponents started knocking balls off the rails, we realized we didn't choose the best strategy in the world.
The new scoring system is the same. Instead of seeing teams being beaten horribly, we'll see many more close games and yes, maybe even teams scoring for each other. We could even see teams lowering their own score if they were feeling particularly malicious. All of this means more strategy. More planning. More thinking.
Yes, FIRST is moving away from a football kind of game and towards something else. But these teams are sponsored by the likes of Compaq, not the New York Jets. Compaq isn't looking for someone who knows how to push other people around and knock them over. They're looking for someone who can look at a problem and come up with an effective strategy to win. In my mind, gracious professionalism doesn't even come into play. It's the simple fact that it's far better to solve a problem with careful planning and thought than with a large mass of brute force.

[archiver]

Posted by Chris.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.

Posted on 1/13/2000 12:16 PM MST


In Reply to: Declawed games posted by Marc DeSchamp on 1/12/2000 11:04 AM MST:



The games getting 'kinder and gentler' is fine by me. What really bothers me is the concept of scoring for the other team. I HATE this. It's feels like I'm point shaving for the Mafia or something. The engineering world is about competition and having the best design / product / service/ etc. win. Where in the world does one company help another out? Never, except for certain synergy type agreements, but never between two companies in direct competition. If we want to teach kids about industry and the real world, intense competition should be one of the lessons.

Going to a competition and losing stinks. I've been there and it's not nearly as much fun as winning. Getting blown out stinks too. But I would rather lose a hockey game 7-2 than have the other team dump a few goals in at the end to make the final score 7-6. It would make me feel bad thinking that the other team thought so lowly of us that they would score for us. That's more emarrassing than getting blown out.

I've read a lot in this thread about the competition not being about winning or losing but about the lessons learned. I still say that winning and losing hold lessons. Winning teaches you how to handle the pressure of everyone shooting for you. It also teaches you that you can be knocked from the top with just a shread of complacency. Losing teaches you how to handle adversity and how to regroup, work hard, and come back.

Without winning and losing, there is no drive to be the best. Without the drive to be the best, most of the good lessons (like hard work and perserverence) get lost through complacency in the teams. Trying to be the best makes people work harder, learn more, get more involved, and be more creative. It is within one's competitive nature that cause this to happen.

In summary, go ahead and take away the tipping and the banging. But please keep the games so that the best team wins and that we are all motivated to try to be the best. All of the truly good lessons of this project are attained, directly or indirectly, through the pursuit to be the best.

[archiver]

Posted by Daniel.

Coach on team BORG (Berkeley Operational Robotics Group) from Berkeley High School sponsored by (working on the sponsor, too).

Posted on 1/13/2000 1:41 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Declawed games posted by Chris on 1/13/2000 12:16 PM MST:



The NUMMI Analogy
= = = = = = = = =

You say that companies never team up with their direct competitors? Think again.

GM, a company we all know well (if only from FIRST), realized that their factories had a skill. GM really knew how to run a business with workers. They had people as workers and hence great quality control. Let's call this a 'defensive' strategy.

Now lets travel around the world to Toyota. Toyota realized that their factories had a skill: robotics. The Japanese were way ahead of GM in this department, with some of the most advanced machines of any car manufacturer. They had no union ensuring that human workers kept their jobs. Let's call this an 'offensive' strategy.

These two competitors got together, had a little handshake, and built a plant (NUMMI) over in the San Francisco Bay Area. Together, they were unbeatable. Perfect offense merged with perfect defense had created the most successful plant either of the companies had ever known. Bonus for teamwork!

So. You may be offense, you may be defense, or you may already be NUMMI...but working together is the only way to be the BEST. Think about it.

-DL

PS - if you want another example I'll find you another. there are millions.

[archiver]

Posted by Austin Martus.

Other on team #47 from son of pchs coach.

Posted on 1/13/2000 2:24 PM MST


In Reply to: Are you so sure?? posted by Daniel on 1/13/2000 1:41 PM MST:



good point but if you remember doing group projects in school and you end up having one person do all the work for some reason.

austin

[archiver]

Posted by Daniel.

Coach on team BORG (Berkeley Operational Robotics Group) from Berkeley High School sponsored by (working on the sponsor, too).

Posted on 1/13/2000 2:37 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Are you so sure?? posted by Austin Martus on 1/13/2000 2:24 PM MST:



It's a certain type of person that ends up doing all the work. The kind of person who doesn't think anyone else is up to par. Now I'm not saying anything about you, personally... =)

The alliance process is supposed to teach us how to do just the opposit of what you're suggesting. And it's a good thing to know how to do, because life is all about teamwork.

Besides, if your robot is capable of doing all the work, then you did everything right. #1 seed right there. Thoughts bring me back to Baxter...

-DL

[archiver]

Posted by Chris.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.

Posted on 1/14/2000 6:31 AM MST


In Reply to: Are you so sure?? posted by Daniel on 1/13/2000 1:41 PM MST:



You don't need to tell me about NUMMI - I work with them (I do crash sensors for Toyota vehicles). However, that is one of those synergy type agreements that I mentioned. They happen in industry but it's a small percentage. The general rule is that you need to keep ahead of your competition.

Also, your point seems to imply that I don't like alliances. That's not exactly true. I'm all for two teams teaming up to go against two other teams (in which a defensive team pairs up with an offensive team in your analogy). What I don't like is to have to doctor the other team's score to help my own. The only situation that I can think of that this occurs (outside of FIRST) is in gambling scandels where one team tries to win close so they can win gambling money by betting on the other team.

The other thing this game reminds me of is the classic story of the group of people looking for some buried treasure. Every person is needed in the team to find the treasure. Without any part of the team, the whole team loses. Then when they finally find the treasure, everyone starts stabbing each other in the back until only one is left with the whole treasure. That is what I think of this game. The alliances help each other to score, then start stabbing each other in the back in the last 10 seconds. Doesn't that seem kind of goofy to anyone?

I love the game during the elimination matches. I would love the game if we used the qualification system from last year or the years before that. I am really opposed to doctoring the score. Sure it adds a different dimension to the game - I just think it's a bad dimension.

I can also see how my comments about winning and losing may not have gotten my meaning across very well. I should have put that in another post. I never meant that this game doesn't have winners and losers. What I meant is that every time someone complains about the game, someone else always has to come back with, 'well it isn't about winning and losing, it's about the lessons. Therefore, the game itself doesn't matter.' It also seems that there is a push within FIRST to eliminate winning and losing. I just wanted to make a case that winning and losing is important and that we shouldn't go away from that since part of the inspiration will be lost.


: The NUMMI Analogy
: = = = = = = = = =

: You say that companies never team up with their direct competitors? Think again.

: GM, a company we all know well (if only from FIRST), realized that their factories had a skill. GM really knew how to run a business with workers. They had people as workers and hence great quality control. Let's call this a 'defensive' strategy.

: Now lets travel around the world to Toyota. Toyota realized that their factories had a skill: robotics. The Japanese were way ahead of GM in this department, with some of the most advanced machines of any car manufacturer. They had no union ensuring that human workers kept their jobs. Let's call this an 'offensive' strategy.

: These two competitors got together, had a little handshake, and built a plant (NUMMI) over in the San Francisco Bay Area. Together, they were unbeatable. Perfect offense merged with perfect defense had created the most successful plant either of the companies had ever known. Bonus for teamwork!

: So. You may be offense, you may be defense, or you may already be NUMMI...but working together is the only way to be the BEST. Think about it.

: -DL

: PS - if you want another example I'll find you another. there are millions.

[archiver]

Posted by Daniel.

Coach on team BORG (Berkeley Operational Robotics Group) from Berkeley High School sponsored by (working on the sponsor, too).

Posted on 1/14/2000 9:39 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: Are you so sure?? posted by Chris on 1/14/2000 6:31 AM MST:



The FIRST robotics competition is based on the fact that kids get excited about winning and losing. Without winning and losing, how could this be that exciting sports-like game that everyone's supposed to be inspired by? I try hard to never use that pseudo-argument; so if I ever do, gimme a slap on the wrist. I agree, that's merely a way out of giving a good reason.

Now, as for the alliances. The one thing I loved immensely about the alliance process is that it makes everything so much harder to predict. Strategically, it makes the game a giant puzzle. Depending on the shape of the pieces, you need to figure out how they fit in to the game. Now you seem to like that part of this year's game so I'm sure you agree with me so far.

Here's where you'll probably disagree, but bear with me. I think this year's game is a game of control. What adds a twist, is you not only have to control your own score, but you need to control the other side as well. In fact, if you're not in perfect control, you end up getting stabbed in the back. You can protect yourself against this though, through your robot design and strategy.

I take all the things FIRST throws at me as a challenge. In particular: the greater the challenge, the more fun it is to solve. This is the greatest challenge yet. We need to build robots that control the ENTIRE game. We need to build robots that become the chess player among the three pawns it’s playing with. How can you control the match that well? Maybe I already know, or maybe I'll find out in Florida. In any case, I’m excited.

Good luck!!
-DL

[archiver]

Posted by Daniel.

Coach on team BORG (Berkeley Operational Robotics Group) from Berkeley High School sponsored by (working on the sponsor, too).

Posted on 1/14/2000 10:27 AM MST


In Reply to: of course it's about winning or losing. posted by Daniel on 1/14/2000 9:39 AM MST:



By the way, I just wanted to let you know that I read your original message again. I must have been tired when I read it first, cuz I totally missed your point. Hopefully I did a better job this time... ;-)

-DL

PS - does everything need a real-world example? in the end, all it matters is that the game is fun to play. I think this year's gonna be one of the most exciting yet!

[archiver]

Posted by Paul Donovan.

Coach on team #296, Northern Knights, from Loyola High School and Arial Systems and Nortel Networks.

Posted on 1/13/2000 6:21 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Declawed games posted by Chris on 1/13/2000 12:16 PM MST:



Hmm., that assumes that the object is to gather as many points as possible. Consider that the object of the game is to be in control, and it's a different story. There are still winners and losers - the losers are those who A) Can't control BOTH side or B) Think they can control the other side better than they really can. You aren't really scoring for the other team, you aren't helping them, you're trying to win which puts you in a very dangerous position. I think that's pretty 'real world.' If you bite off more than you can chew, you might choke - I like it!