View Full Version : Why does everyone hate this game so much?
Anthony Galea
22-03-2014, 22:47
I keep reading these threads, and people seem to think this game is terrible.
People are saying this game is 'worse than 2003', 'fouls decide too many matches', 'if you have one really bad alliance member, you will lose'. This negativity is just terrible for FIRST. I feel like most people never gave this game a fair chance, just because it is a little different.
1) 'Worse than 2003': I wasn't around in 2003 for the game so I may be incorrect, but from what I've heard, what was bad was that it was nearly impossible to score after autonomous, and robot parts were on the field after almost each match from poor field setup. In this game, scoring is possible after autonomous. This is clearly evidenced by the scores that are being put up after autonomous. Also, the field is well set up, with no field elements causing damage without the fault of a team.
2) 'fouls decide too many matches': While in Week 1, teams may have drawn fouls which decided some matches, that has been fixed. If teams are drawing fouls, they should be more careful, and READ THE MANUAL. Also, if you notice that your future alliance partners are getting fouls, tell them what they are doing and how to stop. When you are scouting for eliminations, a good thing to rank on MIGHT BE to make sure they don't get many fouls. There is a reason Technical Fouls are 50 points. THEY DONT WANT THOSE THINGS HAPPENING. Don't do those things. Also, fouls decide games every year.
3) 'if you have one really bad alliance member, you will lose': No. This is how most team sports work, so why should it be different here? It should be a team effort. In football, you cannot have just a good quarterback who carries the team. You have to have receivers who catch the ball. In baseball, you cannot have a good pitcher who holds the tem to one run, if your hitters cannot score.
Honestly, I think this game is one of the best. For once, you can be a 6, 7, or 8 captain, and not abandon all hope once you are set there. Upsets happen more often, defense is a viable strategy, and spectators are entertained. I would like to hear a legitimate reason that this game is bad.
Sorry if this seems ranty
Andrew Lawrence
22-03-2014, 22:49
I love this game.
Point disproved.
Abhishek R
22-03-2014, 22:50
On the subject of fouls, I would check out the elims at Waterloo. I'm certain they have all read the rules, but the fouls were out of the teams' control.
Personally, I enjoy the concept and the idea of the game, but it is also quite frustrating as to how subjective this game can be.
I love this game on the game side but the fouls and inconsistent reffing are driving me crazy. The "new Thursday rules" were reffed seemingly completely opposite on Friday and Saturday at the Wisconsin regional from my estimation, giving teams an incorrect idea of how they would be called in eliminations.
On the subject of fouls, I would check out the elims at Waterloo. I'm certain they have all read the rules, but the fouls were out of the teams' control.
Personally, I enjoy the concept and the idea of the game, but it is also quite frustrating as to how subjective this game can be.
I agree. The game itself is great and is a lot of fun to play and watch; the issue is the rules, which give a ludicrous amount of penelty points and put far too much pressure on the referees with its subjectivity.
I am not sure that everyone would call the game horrible, but it is important to contrast it with previous games which did not have many of the issues faced in Aerial Assist.
3) 'if you have one really bad alliance member, you will lose': No. This is how most team sports work, so why should it be different here? It should be a team effort. In football, you cannot have just a good quarterback who carries the team. You have to have receivers who catch the ball. In baseball, you cannot have a good pitcher who holds the tem to one run, if your hitters cannot score.
But in football, your team has control of those factors. A top level football team can ensure they have the best quarterback AND receivers. With the alliances of First, you bring the quarterback and someone else brings a receiver, and they play together. This ties into your second point as well. Sure I may know all the rules, but maybe my partner doesn't. Their fouls are mine because they are on my alliance.
I was chatting with one of our Alumni on the way back from our event today and we agreed this game is a lot like watching college basketball. Watch a good match up and its an elegant display of coordination and strategies that adapt and flow over the course of the math. Alternatively it can be a jumbled mess of that doesn't appear to be accomplishing much at all.
After watching the progression of our regional event this weekend the more I look forward to district play and the ability to give my students more time behind the glass in a competition environment.
Not my thought but one of our team member's parent likened some matches to small children playing soccer, all the robots in a herd around the ball with no real coordination or play calling.
DanBrowne
22-03-2014, 23:14
This game is fun to play. Watching it is pretty boring if you don't a lot about the game. Also, if there aren't good teams playing a match, I could fall asleep. If good teams are playing (like Waterloo Regional elims), it's edge of your seat excitement.
I would agree with the statement that fouls decide matches. Every event I have watched so far, fouls TOTALLY swing matches.
I also don't like how much you have to rely on your alliance partners to win. I get FIRST's love of working together but if one robot loses comm. or breaks, the match is basically over. This happened in Finals match 2 at Waterloo. Don't get me wrong. I do like the coopertition idea.
I'm really enjoying it too. And if anyone has a right to complain, it might be me. I think the game is fun to watch and challenging to play, and that there are lots of different paths to victory.
Calvin Hartley
22-03-2014, 23:17
I won't deny that fouls are still frequent, but I believe most of our matches (especially in Elims) have been foul-free.
At Kickoff I was hesitant to embrace this game, it was a different game, that would require more reliance on our partners. I wasn't sure I would like it.
I love this game.
Brandon_L
22-03-2014, 23:29
If teams are drawing fouls, they should be more careful, and READ THE MANUAL.
While that's fine and dandy, my human player's super rule reading abilities can't stop our alliance partner who did not read the rules from drawing fouls. One bad seed on your alliance in the form of no show, dead robot, nonfunctioning robot, brick on wheels, non rule believers, ect is a shot in your alliance's foot. Thus, qualifications are basically meaningless this season. Your top few will most likely be the good front zone scorers, after that qualifications are really just a rank randomizer.
I dont remember the match or teams involved, but at wisconsin, the outcome of an elimination match was changed by 100 points in fouls. In my opinion for there to be 100 points in fouls, there should be no doubt in anyones mind what happened. For 100 foul points there should be a fire, a bloody finger on the field, or something obvious. The reality is 3 kids in the question box wondering what the hell happened. That sucks.
This game could have been one of the best.
I'm sure there are 5000 posts that have said this on CD over the years, but it seems appropriate to once again point out that unless you are top three, qualification wins and losses really don't matter. Who cares if you have a partner who fouls a lot? Do you think scouts will actually blame your team? Just play your best, win when you can, and know you'll make it to elims if you've got what it takes.
MrTechCenter
22-03-2014, 23:42
For one thing, if you have an alliance partner that is incapable of possessing a ball, is dead on the field, or does not show up for a match you are then at a huge disadvantage because you cannot get three assists and those 10 extra points per cycle that the opposing alliance might be able to get, AND it makes it easier for the opposing alliance to play defense on yours if you only have two scoring robots, because they'll have to exchange the ball somewhere.
Also, there are a lot of complaints about the fouls in this game, and while I agree that the value for a technical is a bit too high, my main problem with fouls is that they are inconsistently called not just between different regionals, but even in the same regional. I've seen too many times where a team is called for a foul that another team also should have received but didn't. This is most likely attributed to the fact that the referees have just too much to keep track of, and it makes it difficult to see and/or call everything.
While this game was designed at enforcing teamwork amongst an alliance, and does so, there is a lot of improvements that could have been made to this game.
brennonbrimhall
22-03-2014, 23:43
The opinions expressed below are mine, and I take full ownership of them. They do not reflect the opinions of other members of Team 20 (in fact, some of them are quite fond of this year's game and try to turn me around), or any other entities I'm associated with.
2) 'fouls decide too many matches': While in Week 1, teams may have drawn fouls which decided some matches, that has been fixed. If teams are drawing fouls, they should be more careful, and READ THE MANUAL. Also, if you notice that your future alliance partners are getting fouls, tell them what they are doing and how to stop. When you are scouting for eliminations, a good thing to rank on MIGHT BE to make sure they don't get many fouls. There is a reason Technical Fouls are 50 points. THEY DONT WANT THOSE THINGS HAPPENING. Don't do those things. Also, fouls decide games every year.
If I'm interpreting Andrew Screiber's tweet correctly (found here (https://twitter.com/ASchreiber/status/446433950966509568), and assuming the usual Twitter caveats), that's pretty insane. Assuming the assumptions and conditions hold for a one proportion z interval, we get a 95% confidence interval that the true proportion of all FRC matches decided by fouls is in between 16.785% and 19.165%. Even though I don't have a baseline from previous years, the idea that nearly 1 in 5 matches are decided by fouls is crazy.
I theorize that most of this is due to game design. Teams are rewarded and punished for accomplishing the same tasks: possessing a ball could give your alliance a 10 or 20 point boost, or a technical foul. Similarly, catching a ball is 10 points, or a technical foul. The only difference in these tasks are the color of the ball.
Additionally, I've yet to see a ball pickup that doesn't go outside of frame perimeter and is effective. This leaves robot subsystems vulnerable damage from hard defense (addressed in the G27 update, but still an issue), and opens up a Pandora's box of G28 issues.
3) 'if you have one really bad alliance member, you will lose': No. This is how most team sports work, so why should it be different here? It should be a team effort. In football, you cannot have just a good quarterback who carries the team. You have to have receivers who catch the ball. In baseball, you cannot have a good pitcher who holds the tem to one run, if your hitters cannot score.
In the case of a dead robot, it does halve the amount of assist points your alliance can generate, and potentially costs time in a dead ball card, the win margin (via defense), and completely changes the strategy for your alliance -- and while that's something that every alliance should be prepared to react to, most aren't.
Robots that have a propensity for drawing fouls are just as distasteful, but are even more likely to swing the outcome of a match.
So yeah, I'd say that a bad robot can really spoil things for the rest of your alliance, who are punished for choices they didn't make.
Honestly, I think this game is one of the best. For once, you can be a 6, 7, or 8 captain, and not abandon all hope once you are set there. Upsets happen more often, defense is a viable strategy, and spectators are entertained. I would like to hear a legitimate reason that this game is bad.
My theory for why all the upsets happen is related to my previous point. In district events with ~30 teams, the 2nd pick by the #1 seed is generally a robot that minimizes damage to the alliance, not expanding the horizons of the alliance. And that robot can really ruin things for their partners.
There's been a number of execution things missing from the game. Hot goal timing and when robots were disables was messed up at some Week 1 and 2 events, but seems to be mostly fixed now. Today, at the Southington District Event, I saw some pretty obvious pedestal issues where the pedestals would light 10 seconds or so after the previous cycle was completed. And while competing at Tech Valley, we had to quickly modify our intake to not stall while sucking up balls that were over-inflated (within the scope of ambiguous rules; they were 26.5 in or so, as compared to the non-official spec in the field videos of 25 in -- the inflation guide is incredibly subjective, and the ball's volume, pressure, and other properties varies with temperature).
And, I can't tell you how many grandparents, parents, and spectators have come to me asking about how this year's game is scored. And that explanation is not as short, concise, easy to understand, or as intuitive as it should be.
My major complaint is that the level of inspiring gameplay is relatively unattainable by most teams; I've only seen it in Waterloo eliminations. They way I think the GDC intended the game to be played is only doable (currently; I'd really like to see this change) by the god-tier teams of 254 and 2056.
But all of that aside, I think the major reason that people have a hard time with this game is because the previous year's game, Ultimate Ascent, is widely considered to be the best game ever. There was incredible design parity, many different ways to accomplish tasks (floor pickup, FCS, climb, cycle), fair fouls, game pieces that were impossible to be oversized, have density discrepancies, or be improperly inflated, and incredible alliances that capitalized on each other's strengths.
And after that, who would be satisfied with a lesser game?
I'm sure there are 5000 posts that have said this on CD over the years, but it seems appropriate to once again point out that unless you are top three, qualification wins and losses really don't matter. Who cares if you have a partner who fouls a lot? Do you think scouts will actually blame your team? Just play your best, win when you can, and know you'll make it to elims if you've got what it takes.
But what about the teams who's goal is be a captain? To seed first? What about the team who seeds 8th but could have been 3rd if it weren't for one foul?
wesbass23
22-03-2014, 23:44
I love this game on the game side but the fouls and inconsistent reffing are driving me crazy. The "new Thursday rules" were reffed seemingly completely opposite on Friday and Saturday at the Wisconsin regional from my estimation, giving teams an incorrect idea of how they would be called in eliminations.
I completely agree. I don't remember high speed ramming being called once all qualifications, at least not in the matches I watched or played in. And then suddenly there were 10+ throughout elims. What constitutes high speed ramming? What if two robots moving at "high speeds" hit each other? Who do you penalize? Should a robot moving at a "high speed" be penalized for an opposing robot moving into it's path? Too much left up to the refs to decide.
Besides that I love this game. The strategy is so much more fun than essentially playing a match by yourself, just making sure not to get in your partners way. This does not however make quals any more fun. You really have to prove your worth to those in the top 8 if you want to ensure a spot in the elims. But once you get there the strategies you can plan out with your alliance are so much more fun (and usually more successful).
2) 'fouls decide too many matches': While in Week 1, teams may have drawn fouls which decided some matches, that has been fixed.
Care to explain this point?
Anthony Galea
23-03-2014, 00:10
Care to explain this point?
If a team has their intake out, a team cannot just run into them and draw a foul.
Yipyapper
23-03-2014, 00:17
The lack of an end game is also an extremely notable point. The vast majority of people outside of FIRST I know who watch the matches as a spectator were disappointed by the lack of an end game for this year, even if the qualification and elimination matches they watched were pretty nifty (Canada has the best regionals :p )
In 2011, I enjoyed the minibot. FMS issues aside, it was a quick yet dramatic buildup to the towers lighting up, and watching the minibots race was really exciting. Then the game was picked up a notch into my personal favourite end game with the balance bridges the following year, and the still amazing and, to many, the more exciting "pyramid" end game.
These end games were exciting; they kept you on the edge of your seats, wondering if by some huge drama, the game would flip the tables in a few moments' notice. It gave teams another function on their robot, which allowed for more innovation, more opportunity to shine and some attention from scouts instead of having a bunch of one-trick ponies shooting to the human player, goal posts, over the truss, etc. There's variety for sure, but it's still relatively linear in that shooting and passing in the same capacity (as in you can just set one type of shooting, like going far away, and do anything in the game with only that mechanism) and you miss out on some really interesting methods of getting the game done.
Making more matches exciting not only helps keep spectators watching, but it gets them, the players and the other team members pumped up for the competition.
This year, as a fellow 781 team member said it best, the end game exists as fouls. Other parts of the game were already touched on before I posted here, so I'll just leave this as it is.
But what about the teams who's goal is be a captain? To seed first? What about the team who seeds 8th but could have been 3rd if it weren't for one foul?
More power to you. Is this year really that much different in terms of these goals than previous years? Watching Waterloo, I saw lots of matches with one great robot, one that struggled and one that barely moved in alliances where they won by a wide margin thanks to strategic play from the great bot. The best robots in Utah seeded first and second. And if your bot went from 3rd to 8th based on nothing more than a foul caused by your alliance partner's poor play, do you think the scouts in #1 and #2 don't know how great you are?
I'm not saying that rules and human error in reffing calls aren't deciding some matches; clearly they are, and they've changed my team's fate in our first regional. But I've been doing FRC for 10 years and have seen that happen before, in almost every year's game. That's part of what happens.
MrForbes
23-03-2014, 00:33
I like it. It's fun, it's challenging...it can be frustrating because the match schedule can decide who is picking whom...but in the elimination rounds, the teams get sorted out, who is the best.
Fouls were not an issue at Arizona.
hardcopi
23-03-2014, 00:45
Here is an example of a foul that just baffled us this weekend. A robot on the opposing alliance rammed our alliance partner and got caught on them. Our partner backed away and got a 50 point foul. The referees agreed this is what happened, but said because they were caught on us and it pulled their bot when our alliance backed away it was "against the spirit of first".
Another example from this weekend. We had 2 bots on our alliances that had issues. They barely moved the entire match. The other alliance's ball landed on one of the unmoving bot. We ended up with 170 foul points that match (holding and extended hold).
It isn't so much the fouls, it is more the amount that the fouls seem to effect the outcome. If they weren't 50 points a pop it might not affect the game so much.
The other thing wrong with this game is the scoring seems... off a lot of the time. The referees are so busy watching for fouls that they miss little things. Like auton points. We had a match where they didn't count any of our autonomous points. We sent a member to ask about it. They went ahead with one or two matches before talking to him and just told him "we don't have a record of that".
It is difficult to play a game when the rules are so interpretive.
That all said, the game itself is actually growing on me. It is fast paced and fun, but they need to fix the foul issue.
Just my two cents.
Rangel(kf7fdb)
23-03-2014, 02:56
Fouls seemed to not be a big issue at Arizona. There were a couple human player ones early on but very quickly the fouls became pretty rare in the matches. Part of it is that compared to the regionals I've watched on webcasts in previous weeks, it seemed teams were much more focused on scoring than defense. It also sucks sometimes in qualifying when you have 2 immobile robots against an alliance with decent passing robots though I don't think this will be as much of a problem by championships. All in all the game is actually pretty awesome in eliminations but falls short in qualifying due to adding more emphasis on getting a good schedule as opposed to previous years.
Anyone who says the fouls aren't a problem in this game need look no further than 1114.
22 time regional champ. Second most winning team in FIRST (behind 254). Have won 3 regionals in the same year a whopping 5 times. On the #1 alliance, they were eliminated in the semifinals at two events by a technical foul. At ONTO, their partner accidentally caught the opponent's TRUSS shot. At ONWA, they were damaged in a collision which left a part of their robot hanging >20" outside the frame perimeter. The robot that caused the damage only got a 20pt Foul for that action.
The fouls and field problems are breaking this game. Generally speaking, you should not be seeing matches decided by fouls during eliminations. By then the teams ought to have figured out what not to do. Anybody have stats on what percentage of elimination matches are being decided by fouls, compared to past years? I'd bet it is much higher this year than most previous years.
The game concept itself I agree is among the better ones, it just seems like its lacking polish.
Max Boord
23-03-2014, 04:57
At ONTO, their partner accidentally caught the opponent's TRUSS shot. At ONWA, they were damaged in a collision which left a part of their robot hanging >20" outside the frame perimeter. The robot that caused the damage only got a 20pt Foul for that action.
+1
The fouls and field problems are breaking this game. Anybody have stats on what percentage of elimination matches are being decided by fouls, compared to past years?
I forgot the exact number but the its around 5 times.
Arial Assault is a broken game and, with a plethora of new rules updates the GDC seems addicted to making it worse. Here the 12 step program:
1. Lower all human player penalties to regular fouls.
2. Stop making strategy changing rules updates the day regionals start.
3. Get an apple I or comadore 64 for field timing so the hot goals turn on at the right time.
4. See #3 and replace hot goal with robots being enabled and disabled.
5. Make the inbound an assist. No more having to hold the ball for half an hour to get the 1st assist.
6. Develop a system of immediate rematches for when things go wrong.
7. Create a proper inspection protocol for eliminations.
8. Remove refs ability to retroactively DQ a team or alliance due to an inspectors mistake.
9. Remove penalties that hurt offensive plays under heavy defense.
10. Make ball tracking and assist crediting ether all electronic or the job of 1 ref per alliance.
11. Remove rules that can not be enforced evenly throughout different events.
12. Inject some common sense into penalty judgement.
The game itself is pretty cool. It's like a robotic version of Rugby or Australian Rule Football but the rules are too invasive and are deciding too many matches.
I like it. It's fun, it's challenging...it can be frustrating because the match schedule can decide who is picking whom...but in the elimination rounds, the teams get sorted out, who is the best.
^^^^ This
FIRST has always used the concept of the "luck of the draw" in qualifying to help level the playing field.
I think the game is fun and really no different a challenge than we've seen in past years. But then again onf of MY all time favorites was in 2001 when it was 4 v 0. THAT game was where Coopertition and sharing among teams really started.
I like the assist idea even though it can be frustrating in practice. My biggest complaint is that we go to all of the work to score assists and then don't get the points for them.
It would be a much better game if every single team had a functional collector that can quickly pick up and eject the ball.
Zuelu562
23-03-2014, 09:13
I was speaking about this point with other mentors on my team: the term "assist" completely misled you about how extra points were gathered until you had a grasp on the wording and rules (I had to explain to multiple people how it actually worked). That, among with other issues already addressed in this thread, has made this both my favorite and most hated game in my 7 years in FIRST. To be honest, I was ok with no end game, primarily because the "buzzer beater" truss or score was just as stressful, edge of your seat action.
I have a lot of thoughts on this game. There are a lot of positives to take away, and nearly as many negatives. One thing I can say is that the strongest robots will win. The question is, how many strong robots look alike? Not. Many. And THAT, is my key takeaway this year.
Honestly, I am a junior this year, and this is my favorite game, with rebound rumble following in second behind ultimate asscent.
I think what is nice about this game is it is less about shooting, and more about ball movement, strategy. I mean there is still a fair amount of shooting but I think teams are finding its pretty easy to score undefended.
I felt like an ultime asscent most games would just be a shootout instead of an actual game. There wasnt a lot of room for defense.
With regards to bad alliance partners losing the game, I mean isn't that kinda like everygame? If there is only one robot scoring on the team then its pretty $@#$@#$@#$@# easy to know what robot needs to be shutdown. On the Lacrosse field, if one kid is scoring all the goals, who do you put your best defender on? It shouldn't be anyother way.
We have also found that with a skilled robot, you can carry a game on your own if necessary, not ideal but against some matchups you have to.
Disregard any spelling mistakes I am typing on my phone :D
Just returned from Waterloo. I have been reflecting on what the most important thing, the one thing I would put on the feedback form.
Here it is:
It's practically impossible to predict how a game will be played by 50000 smart people, young and the-young at heart. Even if you recruit Neil deGrasse Tyson (as an example) and put him onto the GDC.
So, what can be done to continue growing STEM better through FIRST?
Engage the 50,000 smart people in participating the evolution of a game in structured way. Leverage the competition experience of teams like 254, 469, 33, etc; the less experienced teams; and the rookies and pre-rookies too.
Turn the problem on its head.
Don't fix this game (yes, you heard that from me here... :-) )
Invest our time in enhancing the process of conceiving, designing, testing and deploying the game. Transparency will lead to understanding, engagement will lead to acceptance; and openness will lead to willingness to forget about the imperfect aspects of the system.
pyroslev
23-03-2014, 10:28
I don't love this game. I don't hate it either.
2004 and 2013 for me are the reigning great games for me. 2004 for was a culmination game of previous years. 2013 was a reinvention year for games.
Here were are in 2014. They chose to emphasize assisting other teams in the spirit of GP. I saw a lot of defense but I'll call it cycle defense. Two robots work to assist. As soon as the first robot has handed off, they went on the offense to block either the other alliance from scoring or to protect their alliance. That can be rough overall. At Virginia which many claim is the Defense capital we The only massive damages I saw were arms pop rivets snapped and one set of swerve drive wheel brackets snap.
Not the best game they've made but there are elements that will work it's way into the next culmination game.
efoote868
23-03-2014, 10:39
I wouldn't say that I "hate" this game, but there are two things in my mind that are go against it and make me grind my teeth when watching.
First is one game piece per alliance. I can't tell you how many times I've watched a team pick up a ball, only to have it die on the field and effectively lose the game right then and there. Took them what seems like ten seconds to pick up the ball, another ten to figure out their shooter isn't working, and another ten to realize it's stuck and get another ball in play.
Second is qualifications. In years past 2:3 or 1:3 matches could be won by the powerhouse teams, but this year when your alliance partner's bumpers fall off and they get disabled after autonomous, you effectively lose the match right there. I would love to see some sort of strength of schedule correlated to seeding, and that correlation compared to OPR vs seeding. My guess is this year has more to do with luck of the draw than any other year in recent memory.
April_robo
23-03-2014, 10:40
Personally I am loving this game. What has been said multiple times about the match list deciding your fate, I think is not true at all. This is the second year 3548 has been at Royal Oak and we are doing extremely well. At our first district in Southfield we did have some pretty good alliances but we were still a major part of the scores being put up. We ended up being 5th seed at the end of quals. At our second district at Howell our alliances were mostly teams ranked in the 20s and below and we were the top seeded team on our alliance most of the time but we still managed to play with the big dogs all day Friday. Yes things started going wrong Saturday morning and knocked us out of the top 8 down to 13th but the number one alliance knew all the hard work we put in to get there and chose us. I do not believe that the match list decides a teams fate, it gives an opportunity to show off how qualified your robot really is. Scouting this year is one of the most important things you can do and it can change the outcome of the competition for you more than fouls. (My alliance for elims only had one foul, and we still won that match)
MrForbes
23-03-2014, 10:50
Scouting this year is one of the most important things you can do and it can change the outcome of the competition for you more than fouls.
Very good observation.
I have to say that at first I did not like this game. After watching week one, it became clear that even though it was different from past games, it was a game that was going to evolve as weeks went by into a very good game. Your alliance partner getting fouls is just part of it, after all you are paired up in the qualifications at random. Human players are a big part of this game, and can cost teams matches. We lost a match this weekend, that was so stacked that is was almost unfair, yet one of the human players on our alliance managed to rack up 170 points in fouls. Looking back, maybe we should have talked to the human players better before the match to determine what they knew about the rules, Placed that player in a position that they could have done less damage and educated the player on the rules the could draw fouls on to make sure they understood the potential results.
As far as a ball landing in an opponents robot, the rules are very clear about that and even give a warning that you should design your bot so it can not end up with a ball it did not intend to get.
In closing, FIRST has been trying to make working together part of the game for a while now. I think they nailed it. If you end up with a partner that is nothing more than a box on wheels, it is up to you to figure out how to utilize them in a way that is a benefit to the alliance. Many teams have figured out how to do this very effectively. This game is not about being able to win by yourself.
Cant wait to see what the game evolves into in the next three weeks
Cheesycakester
23-03-2014, 12:44
I fondly remember the emcee at Arkansas mistakenly referring to the game as "Aerial Assault" in the closing ceremonies
I don't particularly have an opinion on the game as I'm also a junior and lack perspective; I hear countless recollections of how horrible 2010 was in-house and yet I hardly ever see it mentioned on CD as much as 2002 or 2003. This "ranking" of FRC games seems far less consistent than any seed results from qualification rounds this year.
JohnSchneider
23-03-2014, 13:05
You live and die by the sword in this game. Yeah 5 and 6 seeds have a chance in elims, but at the same time you can be put in unwinnable situations in quals. We had, on more than one occasion, teams hold the ball and keep missing shots and they wouldnt let us have it back. You end up fighting your own alliance partners in quals and thats why this game ranks low on the totem pole for me.
You live and die by the sword in this game. Yeah 5 and 6 seeds have a chance in elims, but at the same time you can be put in unwinnable situations in quals. We had, on more than one occasion, teams hold the ball and keep missing shots and they wouldnt let us have it back. You end up fighting your own alliance partners in quals and thats why this game ranks low on the totem pole for me.
Question for the masses of CD. Is it GP to call a dead ball in this scenario?
jeremylee
23-03-2014, 13:12
I dont remember the match or teams involved, but at wisconsin, the outcome of an elimination match was changed by 100 points in fouls. In my opinion for there to be 100 points in fouls, there should be no doubt in anyones mind what happened. For 100 foul points there should be a fire, a bloody finger on the field, or something obvious. The reality is 3 kids in the question box wondering what the hell happened. That sucks.
This game could have been one of the best.
This was us. Quaters 2, Match 3 at Wisconsin. We are in the pits already, rushing to replace popped rivets on our shooter so we can go play semis thinking we won, and then pops up the score... Us and our alliance partner across from us in the pits just drop everything and stare at the screen from the pits with our mouths wide open. We are in shock.. We ended up losing by 9 points after 100 foul points given to the opposing alliance (final score 197 to 188). We had almost doubled the opposing teams score, and yet, get sent packing. I look forward to seeing some video of this as for sure, the possession penalty is very debatable as it looked like a single bump of the ball to me from the stands. I don't know the details of the 2nd penalty, I never saw it watching the match. Also add in no call for isolation on the opposing alliance for parking to prevent pickup of a ball in the corner of the 1 point goal and wall for what seemed like an eternity, this was a very tough loss.
Rewind to Centrail IL regional. Again, 3rd match in the quarter finals. We are up and basically have the match won due to some tough defense. Opposing alliance throws a truss shot towards the end of the match that falls in a robot on our alliance. They quickly spit it out, but still, 50 point penalty. We end up losing by 5 points (133 to 128). Thus, we were up by 45 before the penalty that was in no way intentional. Some of you may have seen what our lift cylinders looked like after this match, we were damaged beyond repair inside our frame after this match, no calls as such.
Thus, our season is over losing twice in quarterfinals by technicals that really had very little impact on the match in which we had a quite large lead while knowing additional penalties were missed.
Do I hate the game? No, we've had a blast playing it this year. The strategy involved in the game is complex and very interesting. Is the game perfect? Far from it. Can these imperfections be fixed at this point, probably not. Just enjoy it while you can, because before you know it, you'll be packing up your robot preparing for next year longing to put your previous years robot on the field 1 more time like always.
Sparkyshires
23-03-2014, 14:08
Same thing happened at our (the Virginia) regional. Semi final 2 match 3, one alliance had won 121 to 82. An amazing match, solid on both sides, when suddenly the score was released 121 to 132. A tech foul decided it. Now I was standing in queuing waiting to start the finals match, so I didn't have a good look the entire time, but from what I saw there was no obvious tech foul damaging enough to change the outcome of the game.
I think the most damaging issue with this game is not the fouls, but the stress it puts on VOLUNTEER judges, and all the crap they get because of their calls. I have a feeling FIRST is going to take a serious bite after this year, because I don't see how any judge would return after being put to the grindstone no matter what they decided, like they did this year.
DarrinMunter
23-03-2014, 14:22
Only in this game, could we be picking up the ball and have someone from the other side come flying at us, run into our arms, and since they got damage, we get the penalty. Thats like me out driving a car, I rear-ended someone, and the cops give THEM a ticket because my car got damaged.
From now on all appanages will need to be made from pool noodles only.
Thanks to 93 for picking us, and 1736. Hopefully will meet up again sometime.
jeremylee
23-03-2014, 14:55
Only in this game, could we be picking up the ball and have someone from the other side come flying at us, run into our arms, and since they got damage, we get the penalty. Thats like me out driving a car, I rear-ended someone, and the cops give THEM a ticket because my car got damaged.
From now on all appanages will need to be made from pool noodles only.
Thanks to 93 for picking us, and 1736. Hopefully will meet up again sometime.
Is this what the 2nd penalty was??
I don't know the details of the 2nd penalty, I never saw it watching the match. Also add in no call for isolation on the opposing alliance for parking to prevent pickup of a ball in the corner of the 1 point goal and wall for what seemed like an eternity, this was a very tough loss.
I feel that as the driver of the opposing alliance's captain, I should input some into this conversation.
I must say that we, too, were shocked when we discovered that there were 100 points in penalties that match; we were on the way to pack up and move out. Honestly, we didn't even see the debatable possession of the ball because we were watching in horror as our robot didn't move. I do want to provide some of the details of the second penalty that match; the penalty that you didn't see.
As soon as autonomous was done, we went to prevent team 93 from obtaining the ball from the in-bounding station, as we had decided that the majority of their strategy hinged on their retrieving the ball ASAP. As we were pushing up against them(I don't remember how hard we hit them; it wasn't "ramming speed" but it may have been forceful enough to result in some of the ensuing penalty) their claw/arm became entangled inside our frame perimeter a good 4-5," and one of their wheels on the arm became hooked around our frame. As they pulled away after about 5 seconds of struggling, part of their claw snagged the power cord to our radio, unplugging it and disabling our top scoring robot for the match, resulting in the low score which the opposing alliance easily outscored.
Additionally, I would like to speak of the ball isolation you mentioned and how it looked from our perspective. I personally wasn't part of that maneuver, but I agree now replaying the match in my head that it very well could have been a foul; however the rule about isolation is very subjective. The rule you are referring to is G12-D (I would assume) which says "overt isolation or holding one or more BALLS against a FIELD element or ROBOT in an attempt to shield them" is prohibited. Our alliance members were not holding the ball against the wall, so I believe the only applicable part of that is "overt isolation." The rules say that G12 is to prevent the opposing alliance from inhibiting interaction with the ball, which is why this particular incident is in question, as the alliance was unable to touch their ball for quite a long time.
////SECTION REMOVED
I removed a section here because it was a mis-remember and I was describing a completely different match
Whether this is overt isolation or not, I don't know; the rules don't say what overt isolation is; however, my guess as to why it wasn't called is that either
A) The referees didn't see it
or
B) The fact that the ball was accessible from some sides did not qualify as "overt isolation" in the eyes of any referee that saw it.
Again, I just wanted to add our perspective to this conversation and point out that at least half of the 100 penalty points was valid as there was a very obvious robot inside frame perimeter which disabled a robot completely. As for the ball possession foul I have no idea; I was trying to figure out why our scoring robot was dead and didn't see the incident. And in regards to the ball isolation, I think we have a case of referee subjectivity as, from my perspective, it could have been perceived as a foul, but it also could make sense to not have been one.
Jay O'Donnell
23-03-2014, 15:19
The only problem I have with this game is having to rely on your alliance partners in quals so much. There were multiple instances at UNH where we shot the ball over the truss to our partners, who then proceeded to fail at scoring the ball for the whole match but not let us come in to just get the job done. We had one of the worst schedules I've ever seen and went 4-7-1 because of it, but were still good enough to be picked by the 4 seed in the first round.
The largest problem of all is the subjectiveness of the calls and the sheer total number and types of penalties ref's are forced to call by the original game design. (The fixes have been the best things yet, some good, some not really helping, but all have improved the game so far as far as making it more suit the actual as designed mission IMHO....and I absolutely usually hate rules tinkering as a whole).
But, that is a whole different set of issues.....Can you actually compare teams that competed across the board (game play wise, across the entire season, based on any reasonable scoring metric), from Week #1 through Week #4 and further beyond to the last match on Einstein? No, not this year....You cannot and should not (you would have to look at each task each robot can perform & complete, and you will not see that on ANY RESULTS SHEET this year as a whole. Just too many changes so far.
Case in point, posession of an opponents ball last week was a 50 point penalty against and scored as for the offended alliance and added to their score....Yesterday, it was 20 points added toward an offended alliances score (that wouldn't have changed who won or lost in the match I am personally comparing and thinking about, but would / could, many others). And I actually witnessed a called pinning penalty yesterday w/ a completed 2 different sets of full call flag action, that was never even later added to the score, I've assumed, because the offended alliance was a hundred points ahead in an elimination match...They didn't even have the usual (and there were many), end of match ref conference that particular match, because it was evident which alliance had won the match. (So those points were never even added to the ending score).
So IMHO, after all the rules tinkering that this game design has received so far, it is getting much closer to what I personally "think" the GDC had in mind, you will still need to compare all the games played each week to one another, and not any week against any other week, and definitely not across the spectrum of the season as a whole. (If you measure it that way - across the whole season,...You will be very far off on the actual cut). And your ending pcs. just won't fit. That is why most of the adults dislike the game....And why (I believe), most of the students responses, as seen here, they actually love this game.....Now!
By lifetimes of experience, most adults simply dislike change or rules tinkering causing constant change. Most of the students have yet to gain that adult disavantage, and that helps them to adapt quicker and much more easily.
But, we adults can anticipate through having those previous life experiences, what disappointment can and WILL happen when they add those huge subjective penalty points after the matches are completed, and apparent wins can turn to actual losses, and all the effort seemingly just goes up in smoke like a shorted motor. And the "magic" is released in an instant due to subjectiveness of a single action that nobody seemingly has control of. The Ref's are human and stuck in the middle of a human / robot game officiating...It is NOT their fault. PERIOD.
What we will see (I hope and already have seen the effect of the changes take effect), at the Championships, and eventually on that Einstein Field that every FRC Team aspires to play on, will be a very different game than the one we all read that thick rulebook in the first week of January and since, and was set our minds eye then, to really be. It will be a great game to watch if played as designed. And I personally saw some of that yesterday.
It can be an amazing game, but it takes tinkering to get the intended result, and that is why many of us actually disliked (and some may still highly), it to begin with.
I will not make this book any longer. I have added my 2 cents and it is now up to $3.50 by now or $125.00 at least. I congratulate the GDC on getting much closer in Week #4 to their intended vision, but fear there is still a long way to go.
The secret to getting the teams to be more offensive and less defensive is located in a financial reward (IE: As was offered at the AZ Regionals by the Event Sponsor of $500.00 off next years event fee, for all teams involved in both alliances of any 2 alliances, that exceeded 200 points each side). That act culminated in a final match (and true coopertition all around), that rivaled what we saw in another Regional ending match yesterday (Waterloo comes to mind), too. (Last year the offer by the sponsor was all 6 robots hanging legally in any match, which was completed many times). The task was not completed this year in AZ, but they came quite close in the final match.
Watching teams back completely off of the defensive angle on the most part (working together to attempt to rise to another different challenge not in that all important book), and play a really fast paced, and fairly clean offensive only game of Aerial Assist, showed just how great this game can be, how fast paced and artful it can be, and exactly how great each of the participating robots and team members on both sides, can really be, if not hindered by each other. And those matches were cleanly done too, thereby keeping those subjective calls pretty much in the bag. (But, that was a very special case).
I'd bet the Ref's. felt more at ease too in not having to end the event by announcing ANY penalties also.
If you students enjoy this game...Just go play it. (Do not pay attention to how us old foggies feel about it...As we aren't the ones playing)...Enjoy yourselves...You have earned that. But, also understand and accept the associated disappointments too....And, that there will be many of those. So, expect them and prepare for them....And, when they seem subjective to you, understand why some of us expected that and complained about this particular game. Go w/ the flow.
Congrat's to all who played this Week #4....And to all the WINNERS! And Good Luck to Week #5 players.
(IE: As was offered at the AZ Regionals by the Event Sponsor of $500.00 off next years event fee, for all teams involved in both alliances of any 2 alliances, that exceeded 200 points each side)
There was a monetary incentive for teams to not play defense?...
That seems really sketchy.
There was a monetary incentive for teams to not play defense?...
That seems really sketchy.
This. Defense is a perfectly valid part of the game, and pay for performance should never be a part of FIRST.
jeremylee
23-03-2014, 17:18
I think we have a case of referee subjectivity
I appreciate your perspective and agree with everything being subjective.
I remember seeing you guys getting entangled with 93 and a penalty being called on 93 just after they pulled away seeing the ref waive the flag. I recall you being dead also, but I guess for some reason I thought both of these occurred at the same time in the 2nd match (the redo one). I will have to watch some replays when they are available before I speak any further.
For isolation, yes you are correct on the rule I was referencing, and I agree it's very subjective along with many of the other rules.
Either way, no hard feelings. This is a perfect example of the game this year, trying to figure out what exactly was called on who for doing what.
There was a monetary incentive for teams to not play defense?...
That seems really sketchy.
That's not right at all. First of all, money for performing well is a bad thing, but defense is a perfectly fine thing to do. That's like bribing a team to play the game a way that some random person thinks is right. This brings back bad memories of agreements in 2003. :ahh:
cstelter
23-03-2014, 18:06
I put our video of Wisconsin Regional Quarter Final 2 match 3 on You Tube: http://youtu.be/sbJUjhtlHLs. Unfortunately the student doing the recording turned off the video before they announced the reason for the fouls. But my recollection was 50 for inside frame perimeter causing damage plus possession. Blue also benefited from a 20 pt foul and I can't recall that either (one instance of ramming maybe??)
3018 was pretty clearly trying to minimize contact with 93 while still playing effective defense to keep them away from the action. No ramming involved that I can see. 93 actuates their arm while inside our perimeter extending the entanglement, but I sincerely doubt that was the intent. It's just unfortunate that we could not disconnect without the radio being disconnected, or that would have probably only been 20 point foul, and we could have finished playing the match.
I must admit I'm still baffled about the 50 point possession foul. Our video doesn't show all the action going on in the lower left corner of the screen. But I'm unconvinced that is where the possession foul occurred.
The only only thing that appears to be close to possession that I can see would be the trapping part of G12 (although the ball was never against a robot or a game piece). However, there are 3 times throughout the match where 706 is trying to get to the red ball but one or more blue robots are in between them and the ball preventing any red robots from getting the ball. Given the 'G12 Intent' clause, perhaps this is what led to the possession foul for the other 50 points.
I don't think it could have possibly been called for the inconsequential contact of 93 nearly catching the one truss catch.
I forgot the exact number but the its around 5 times.
Arial Assault is a broken game and, with a plethora of new rules updates the GDC seems addicted to making it worse. Here the 12 step program:
1. Lower all human player penalties to regular fouls.
2. Stop making strategy changing rules updates the day regionals start.
3. Get an apple I or comadore 64 for field timing so the hot goals turn on at the right time.
4. See #3 and replace hot goal with robots being enabled and disabled.
5. Make the inbound an assist. No more having to hold the ball for half an hour to get the 1st assist.
6. Develop a system of immediate rematches for when things go wrong.
7. Create a proper inspection protocol for eliminations.
8. Remove refs ability to retroactively DQ a team or alliance due to an inspectors mistake.
9. Remove penalties that hurt offensive plays under heavy defense.
10. Make ball tracking and assist crediting ether all electronic or the job of 1 ref per alliance.
11. Remove rules that can not be enforced evenly throughout different events.
12. Inject some common sense into penalty judgement.
Wow!.......Now that would make this particular game on Einstein in just a few weeks time, a "completely different game", than was released in January. (If we need a 12 point program to fix it, we need to also go to rehab. here in AZ for a few weeks (like many politicians who fall from grace seem to do lately), and the season will never become a great memory for the Senior and other Students)....But, they certainly could learn a whole lot about life in the process. Lol.
Smirk. SRY. (Personally, I hope they "fixed the game issues" about as much as they are going to.....But, I fear that is not the case, since some still believe changes -some wholesale changes, are still necessary. It sure looked cleaner to me yesterday streaming many regionals from the comfort of my home.
Also TY FIRST, for getting the AZ Reg. "stats link" fixed late Friday night...My blood pressure was much less elevated yesterday due to solely that fact. To see those stats & scores posted too made a world of difference.
_________________________________
Thanks also to Falcon Robotics (and others), for the high quality full field Q-vids Friday (that helped me tremendously, though without the actual scores included it was really tough to keep track...Though, I also know doing it by phone had to be very hard to add those too). I hope you also did the elims., and will be posting those on YouTube in the same place too...I know you were plenty busy...Congrat's. on that big Win. I personally know your competitors, fully enjoyed it right down to the bitter & great tasting end.
__________________________________
Those elims., & the finals were absolutely fantastic to watch. (The smile on my son's face at 1:30 AM this morning (when they arrived home), will be a very long lasting memory, for both of us)...And his banner say's Regional Finalist this time instead of Regional Winner. In 4 years of actual building, driving, programming, and every other facet of the FIRST experience he has been immersed in throughout his 4 years of High School, he has tasted both of those feelings, and utter absolute defeat also. He knows the difference by now). He's proud of their acheivements...and there is still the rest of the season to go, and to look forward to. I can tell he is in the "I Love This Game! camp." He said so this morning. I'm slowly being won over.
So, ergo, the game does work GDC! That much I can tell you. You can see it in their sparkling eyes. Even when they eventually lose in the end...They (and we), are all WINNERS! At least they played the game, as some never actually get a chance to do.
Knowing you played your best, against the very best (especially against long rules odds, w/ some odd things occurring too at the same time, and you just battled on w/ pure GP)......That makes that sparkle in the eyes truly & easily show.
I was proud of watching the level of play yesterday across all of the Regions and Districts...I was more proud of that level of play personally involved w/ a team and as a parent of a direct participant, when I later found out this morning, that in the middle of all that great action yesterday, a driver station laptop (the 6th seed Alliance Captain's....Yes, OURS), was dropped & the screen was accidentally broken w/ the drivers station still up during qualifying, but through a totally unviewable white & rainbow colored screen. (I was told only by text that there was "an issue," not ever explained to, what that "very serious issue" was, even when I texted "what system?", I was "properly just ignored"....The "issue" was "being handled", and that, was all I needed to know).
Then for them, to come back from that major issue (all I knew watching the stream is they arrived at the next and last 2 of their scheduled Q-Matches and played very well...looked like a minor issue easily resolved to me, business as usual, doing what they can do w/ the robot they designed and built, can accomplish, and trying things they did not even design for specifically, and battle on like nothing ever happened, and do that well, was just amazing. Good Job.
My personal thanks goes out to ALL that helped concerning the curing of that particular serious issue, as you ALL embody GP. (Strictly my fault...except that I did not drop it...But, then again, you can't drop it, if you don't take the long chance of actually carrying and using it, high pressure, to say the least is, a robot drivers job). My personal fault because, I always sneak the backup laptop puter down w/ us, even if others do not actually think we will ever need it...But I didn't go, so it wasn't ready to just slap on that drivers station in a single minute, all ready & charged and therefore, ready to go...issue resolved).
Lastly, (watch the vids of both the AZ and the Waterloo Regionals, all of them, but especially the Final Matches)....And you just may see IMHO, the game the GDC attempted to design all of a sudden appear out of nowhere. At least that's what I think I saw.
That wasn't Battle Bots like we have seen earlier...Those eliminations were pure art and flow, showcasing what only FIRST Robotics can be. Winning isn't everything, playing is. It isn't ALL about the robot, or ALL about the specific game designed in less than a year.
STEM turned into artful accomplishment. Only FIRST provides that experience to our children. TY FIRST, and TY to all those daring officiants always, but, especially this year.
DarrinMunter
23-03-2014, 18:23
The other foul, from what I know (I had to go back to the pit to find out why we couldn't launch the last ball) - that foul had something to do with the start of the match, not gameplay.
The fouls I said before, happen during seeding matches. - Which gave us the Yellow Card.
sircedric4
23-03-2014, 19:25
I dislike this game for two simple reasons.
A single game piece which causes animosity between what should be alliance members. Teams are justified in wanting to play the game with the robots they spent $4000 on and many many evenings working on. Half the teams out there are having to not play offense for fear of losing the game. Now they cant even play defense for fear of incurring penalties.
The other reason is the number of subjective penalties in this game and how punishing they are. On the score and the overworked refs. Good luck getting the volunteers to want to ref again when the refs go through the emotional ringer after every match.
FIRST,I know it is about inspiration and not the robots but you cant do away with the game and robots completely and expect to keep growing. Its like we got an entire new GDC that has never played a game before especially after the complete success of the last few years. What happened?
Christopher149
23-03-2014, 19:41
Caution, biased opinion of first-time finalist team.
At our first event, I was annoyed at the fouls, which (amongst other issues) effectively caused our loss in QFs. After our second event, I have to say I really like playing this game, and it can be fun to watch (at least for an insider) when the robots are getting into a groove.
That's not right at all. First of all, money for performing well is a bad thing, but defense is a perfectly fine thing to do. That's like bribing a team to play the game a way that some random person thinks is right. This brings back bad memories of agreements in 2003. :ahh:
It was announced yesterday in full view and voice to all in AZ (and over the stream to the world watching), that our specific team was the original responsible party many years ago, for the very first (publicly known), incidence of collaberation between teams (and that it was also very controversial at the time), but that it is VERY accepted today as "a way of naturally just doing business", to be successful across the FIRST community.
And it is!...Teams collaborate often throughout the community, they sometimes build together, or work out of the same lab or shop, they contact one another often, they practice together, they even sometimes plan to compete together in eliminations (oh really! Ahhhh. Eyes wide). Sometimes, even the actual game is designed to force or reward coopertition amongst red/blue opposing alliances. And some teams even have official FIRST Regulation Field Setups purchased for them by their sponsors as I found out recently. Life isn't fair. And it wasn't ever meant to be.
There were no secret financial rewards, the reward was only an, open & publicly announced & published, further personal event sponsor incentive for all the teams to attempt to do their best on the field during the event (To score at least 200 points for each alliance, and it was never actually accomplished), and said VOLUNTARY SPONSOR INCENTIVE was proper, again voluntary, and was offerred to ALL who participated.
It wasn't sketchy. And it acheived the desired results....Though nobody during the event even qualified for the intended reward. So, please put away the tinfoil hat. </;-) (I was only giving a suggestion that will not occur, and is not expected to occur, of how to possibly further to discourage battle bots, and elevate this particular game to it's desired end goal of Humans using Robots designed to accomplish specific tasks, instead of Humans using Robots to keep others from achieving their goals and accomplishing said tasks...the art of defensive strategies).
The FIRST experience is built and run daily on sponsors asking us each to do our best for them (and showcase them in full partnership also), and financial support is traded on to complete that mission using both parts and dollars and tons of other support.
As a side note...Our specific team never collaborates anymore w/ other teams, except on the field of play itself of course, call it hard lessons over the years and now ingrained in our specific 2 digit long time in existance team (and that probably hurts us now more than ever, during this present age of extreme team collaboration that, we may have historically just BTW helped to create during years past...Remember that was very controversial when first introduced)....But, you will not find any debut vids released of our teams robots until it hits the field at the first event (usually Week #4).
Actually, I tried (to personally change our own team culture this year if others were willing, I would have presented it to the team for acceptance or rejection), here during this particular build season. I received no responses whatsoever, except, after another prod post, I received a few of...."Talk to us after the build season." It never happened so, we collaborated onfield again instead of before we reached the field. And it will again in 2 weeks (though the offer is still always open). I realized early on after reading the game rules the very first time, that the teamwork was needed early on for this game to be highly successful is all.
This game needs team collaboration to be highly successful on field....And it shows when it is done well. Those that do collaborate will be highly complimentary to each other, and should be highly successful as the game seems to be designed, as a pure team game, rewarding teams that are more willing to work together. Not so much for teams that will not. (Though the stats will still be kind to them also if outstanding robot design and task completion is there). I have witnessed teams choosing a really high # seeded team...No other game would you usually find that.
Deals are born and made between teams daily, the games are based on playing in an alliance forcing collaboration.....That is not sketchy. That is just downright smart!
Not to be anti-GP...But, to quote you......"First of all, money for performing well is a bad thing...."
Someday, some employer is either going to get a real steal by hiring you as you will perform at top levels without the associated "bad financial reward"...Or, he will be very sorry, because you personally will not perform because of the idea that...."First of all, money for performing well is a bad thing...." (Not trying to pick on you personally please understand...Just look at the statement, and think about it honestly a minute first......OK?)
The capitalist based business world succeeds above all others, mainly because "Money for performing something well, is a GOOD THING!"
Trading labor, time, knowledge, product, and or services for that so bad & evil money, it is the engine that drives our economies worldwide. If you think it doesn't drive the FIRST Community also...Try surviving a single season without those (things you may consider "evil"), and absolutely necessary SUPER Great Sponsor $$$$'s, and many teams do every year. It isn't easy. It's downright nearly impossible at a high level. (The volunteerism provided across the entire community is the VERY important fuel and access, along w/ all those VERY important Sponsor $$$$ engines, providing us the actual technology!):)
MrForbes
23-03-2014, 19:48
This. Defense is a perfectly valid part of the game, and pay for performance should never be a part of FIRST.
The offer to pay part of next year's entry fee was made by a FIRST Director, and the offer was using his own money. No teams were able to fulfill the requirements this year.
It was announced yesterday in full view and voice to all in AZ (and over the stream to the world watching), that our specific team was the original responsible party many years ago, for the very first (publicly known), incidence of collaberation between teams (and that it was also very controversial at the time), but that it is VERY accepted today as "a way of naturally just doing business", to be successful across the FIRST community.
Now that I understand what happened, and realized that it is not FIRST's money being spent, I am very okay with what happened. My 2003 comment referred to a few incidents where teams agreed before a match to not knock over each others stacks, but ended up violating the agreement. This was really controversial because it was totally un-GP, but not illegal. When teams sincerely wanted to make the no stack hitting agreement, it was tough to decide to trust them or not.
Just returned from Waterloo. I have been reflecting on what the most important thing, the one thing I would put on the feedback form.
Here it is:
It's practically impossible to predict how a game will be played by 50000 smart people, young and the-young at heart. Even if you recruit Neil deGrasse Tyson (as an example) and put him onto the GDC.
So, what can be done to continue growing STEM better through FIRST?
Engage the 50,000 smart people in participating the evolution of a game in structured way. Leverage the competition experience of teams like 254, 469, 33, etc; the less experienced teams; and the rookies and pre-rookies too.
Turn the problem on its head.
Don't fix this game (yes, you heard that from me here... :-) )
Invest our time in enhancing the process of conceiving, designing, testing and deploying the game. Transparency will lead to understanding, engagement will lead to acceptance; and openness will lead to willingness to forget about the imperfect aspects of the system.
This above.....
It wasn't that I didn't like the game (though I anticipated it would become very damaging Battle Bots like, and it did for a period of time, forcing some changes)...It was that I knew I wouldn't like the resulting "fixing that was going to be applied" either to the field elements, or all the rest that would be necessary.
I agreed w/ the above poster weeks ago...Though the GDC took the only route available once many stated how much they didn't like the game, and attempted to, in their way make the game better....It has improved it, and I am now a convert. It is better. Though, if you rely on your scouting or the Stats from week 1, 2, 3, or 4 at the Championships (or compare those stats on a season wide basis)...You just may be sorry you did. As too many changes have taken place in just less than 3 months, and the last 4 weeks. Will there be more to come? Who knows.....But, my personal complaints about the game are over.
Anthony Galea
23-03-2014, 20:55
2) 'fouls decide too many matches': If teams are drawing fouls, they should be more careful, and READ THE MANUAL. Also, if you notice that your future alliance partners are getting fouls, tell them what they are doing and how to stop. When you are scouting for eliminations, a good thing to rank on MIGHT BE to make sure they don't get many fouls. There is a reason Technical Fouls are 50 points. THEY DONT WANT THOSE THINGS HAPPENING. Don't do those things. Also, fouls decide games every year.
It seems this this section is being taken wrong, and I can see where that can come from.
I would just like to point out that this is NOT referencing any unpreventable fouls. This section is referring to G40, and intentional infractions of G12, but mostly G40.
falconmaster
23-03-2014, 21:42
Very good observation.
I agree!
Alex2614
23-03-2014, 23:32
I keep reading these threads, and people seem to think this game is terrible.
People are saying this game is 'worse than 2003', 'fouls decide too many matches', 'if you have one really bad alliance member, you will lose'. This negativity is just terrible for FIRST. I feel like most people never gave this game a fair chance, just because it is a little different.
1) 'Worse than 2003': I wasn't around in 2003 for the game so I may be incorrect, but from what I've heard, what was bad was that it was nearly impossible to score after autonomous, and robot parts were on the field after almost each match from poor field setup. In this game, scoring is possible after autonomous. This is clearly evidenced by the scores that are being put up after autonomous. Also, the field is well set up, with no field elements causing damage without the fault of a team.
2) 'fouls decide too many matches': While in Week 1, teams may have drawn fouls which decided some matches, that has been fixed. If teams are drawing fouls, they should be more careful, and READ THE MANUAL. Also, if you notice that your future alliance partners are getting fouls, tell them what they are doing and how to stop. When you are scouting for eliminations, a good thing to rank on MIGHT BE to make sure they don't get many fouls. There is a reason Technical Fouls are 50 points. THEY DONT WANT THOSE THINGS HAPPENING. Don't do those things. Also, fouls decide games every year.
3) 'if you have one really bad alliance member, you will lose': No. This is how most team sports work, so why should it be different here? It should be a team effort. In football, you cannot have just a good quarterback who carries the team. You have to have receivers who catch the ball. In baseball, you cannot have a good pitcher who holds the tem to one run, if your hitters cannot score.
Honestly, I think this game is one of the best. For once, you can be a 6, 7, or 8 captain, and not abandon all hope once you are set there. Upsets happen more often, defense is a viable strategy, and spectators are entertained. I would like to hear a legitimate reason that this game is bad.
Sorry if this seems ranty
Thanks for this! Very well said. And actually, at Palmetto in week one, the only time I saw fouls determine the outcome of matches (which happens every year) is when teams blatantly disregard the manual (mostly accidental, of course). If you stay within the boundaries the GDC has set for you, fouls will not happen as much. I think our alliances had only had fouls called against us a couple times throughout the duration of the event. And rarely did it call the match in our case (not for every match, but for the ones in which we played). At WEEK ONE. I don't know what was different at Palmetto, but I haven't seen a lot of things people are ranting and raving about.
What 3175student17 has summarized, in particular 2 and 3 HAPPENS EVERY YEAR. And every year, I see the same complaints.
First of all, when IS a game exactly like we (and the GDC) imagined it would be by the time April comes around? I've only been involved with FRC for 7 years, but I can't recall a time (other than MAYBE 2008/2012) that had every element of the game stay the same from the visions of kickoff to Einstein. But as far as gameplay itself goes, it's pretty similar to what I imagined. It just turns out to be better and more exciting than I thought it would be.
That being said, my team has only competed in one event so far (Palmetto) and will be traveling to Knoxville this week. So, I only have one event's point of view, and admittedly have not seen other events other than maybe a match here or there via webcast.
I really like this game. I was extremely skeptical at first (which isn't unusual for me), but even going into the week one event, I thought the game would be a total flop. We have some of the worst luck when it comes to reliable alliance partners in qualifications. I thought it was going to be a mess for everyone.
What I saw, however, was completely the opposite. There were a couple matches that saw little to no collaboration, and it showed in the scores. But because this game forces teams to collaborate to be successful (even more so than 2012), most teams put forth the extra effort to do so. There were countless extremely close matches often determined by a single last-minute score. It was down to the wire ALL THE TIME, and proved to be a very stressful game, which is a good thing in my opinion. It's more engaging and fun.
To quote our wonderful coach, we can't control what happens on the field. What I see in this game is a lot more of a real-world experience. For example, we saw some awesome defense, but some even better clever replies to the defensive strategies.
Again, I admittedly do not have as much experience with this game as I would like, and this is my first time posting in this thread. I'm sharing a semi-outsiders' point of view. I like the extra challenge of having to collaborate with alliance partners. I think that whatever the circumstances may be, the best and healthiest thing we can do as a community is work with it. If FIRST makes decisions to alter the gameplay, then our students need to come up with clever solutions. It makes life more interesting and challenging, and is definitely preparing our students for the real world. We can never control what happens on the field... That's one of the most exciting parts about FIRST. You never know what you're going to find.
Brandon_L
24-03-2014, 00:01
Remind me to guide my kids to build a non-robust robot next season, because all you need is a poorly designed robot and the tech foul gods are on your side.
GDC needs to be fired. Straight up, just going to say it. Go home. I'm tired of you.
We lost too many matches we should have won (http://screencloud.net/v/Dekf), including elim matches, because of this bull. With everything else you've put other teams through (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/2985), you need to make a change. Have you never attended an FRC event yourself? Seriously, what do you expect to happen with one game piece and 3 robots? two robots are doing NOTHING at any given point. And then you have the nerve to put out a rule that basically says "don't touch other robots"? Why in the world was "what if a ball becomes stuck in a robot" an afterthought? Are you kidding me? Are you even aware that most robots at district levels and regionals in some locations can rarely even play the game? We're cheated out of more then 20 MAR points and at risk of not attending because we're sitting on the bubble now.
My kids, my mentors, and myself poured our heart and soul into this robot to make it what it is, including our student captain who is #2 in his class. He is not #1 because of the time he willingly put into this program. We spent countless hours in design to make sure not a single part would fail at events because of anticipated rough defense. And we've only experianced one failure which was a quick and easy fix after two events. We walked away today with the Quality Award, at the cost of being punished on the field for it. You tell me what to do when I have to tell my kids there is nothing we can do other then be at the mercy of inconsistent reffing, poor calls, and the worst rulebook in FRC history all because they worked too hard. How am I supposed to handle this?
GDC if you want to inspire teams to enter engineering fields, you're doing it wrong. Very wrong.
Hey JVN and Vex folk, nows the time to start up a FRC-Sized VEX event. I'm sure more then enough teams will be happy to jump ship at this point.
OP, this game is good in concept. Its execution is amazingly terrible. Its uninspiring and bringing out the worst in people. This is why everyone hates this game.
Yipyapper
24-03-2014, 00:23
Remind me to guide my kids to build a non-robust robot next season, because all you need is a poorly designed robots and the tech foul gods are on your side.
GDC needs to be fired. Straight up, just going to say it. Go home. I'm tired of you.
We lost 6 matches we should have won (http://screencloud.net/v/Dekf), including elim matches, because of this bull. With everything else you've put other teams through (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/2985), you need to make a change. Have you never attended an FRC event yourself? Seriously, what do you expect to happen with one game piece and 3 robots? two robots are doing NOTHING at any given point. And then you have the nerve to put out a rule that basically says "don't touch other robots"? Why in the world was "what if a ball becomes stuck in a robot" an afterthought? Are you kidding me? Are you even aware that most robots at district levels and regionals in some locations can rarely even play the game? We're cheated out of more then 20 MAR points and at risk of not attending because we're sitting on the bubble now.
My kids, my mentors, and myself poured our heart and soul into this robot to make it what it is, including our captain who is #2 in his class. He is not #1 because of the time he put into this program. We spent countless hours in design to make sure not a single part would fail at events because of anticipated rough defense. And we've only experianced one failure which was a quick and easy fix after two events. We walked away today with the Quality Award, at the cost of being punished on the field for it. You tell me what to do when I have to tell my kids there is nothing we can do other then be at the mercy of inconsistent reffing, poor calls, and the worst rulebook in FRC history. How am I supposed to handle this?
GDC if you want to inspire teams to enter engineering fields, you're doing it wrong. Very wrong.
Hey JVN and Vex folk, nows the time to start up a FRC-Sized VEX event. I'm sure more then enough teams will be happy to jump ship at this point.
OP, this game is good in concept. Its execution is amazingly terrible. Its uninspiring and bringing out the worst in people.
Yes.
You cannot give Reputation to the same post twice.
Zebra_Fact_Man
24-03-2014, 00:26
I like this game. That said, I'll know how much I like it come week 7 when the state championships roll around.
I think one of my favorite aspects this year is the unpredictability of the elimination rounds. Really, any alliance seed could win the whole thing, as opposed to previous years where Alliance #1 seemed to win an overwhelming majority. This past week, all three MI districts were won by non-#1 seeds. I can't ever remember that happening before in a single week.
Kinda reminds me of the unpredictability of march madness, which everybody loves.
PayneTrain
24-03-2014, 00:29
It is really disappointing to see a game that is probably at its core the most exciting game to watch in FRC be marred by poorly thought out rules with massive gray areas. It's like they turned in the outiline and first page of the essay but didn't deliver on the rest. It just bums me out.
And I'm not on a team who built a kickin' robot that might get left out of a higher level of competition over the poor administration of the game.
To further elaborate, this game has amplified a lot of things that are both good and bad about FIRST and the FRC community as a whole. FRC can't brush weaker machines and teams under the rug this year. FRC teams who look like pillars of the community are going through emotional breakdowns. Volunteers are either gettign thrown into the fire or doing part of the throwing.
jeremylee
24-03-2014, 00:31
I put our video of Wisconsin Regional Quarter Final 2 match 3 on You Tube: http://youtu.be/sbJUjhtlHLs.
I see flags waived for 1 red technical, 2 blue technicals, and 1 red foul. I only see penalty points scored for the 2 blue technicals and the 1 red foul? Odd.
Looks to me red initiated the tie up twice playing defense on blue. It also looks like red initiated the final pull apart the 2nd time driving away from blue at which point the robot then became disabled. Technical on blue only for this? Or was it to be a technical on both and the red wasn't scored?
The 2nd blue technical appears to occur at the 1 minute mark when the head ref points to the red robot on the right as they moved in/out of a defensive position triggering the 2nd blue flag wave. Correct call?
Quarter Final 2 Match 2 is another story of a match ending with penalties potentially swinging the outcome. A similar tie up occurred between the same robots with penalties accessed upon them separating. Maybe someone has video of this also?
I like this game. That said, I'll know how much I like it come week 7 when the state championships roll around.
I think one of my favorite aspects this year is the unpredictability of the elimination rounds. Really, any alliance seed could win the whole thing, as opposed to previous years where Alliance #1 seemed to win an overwhelming majority. This past week, all three MI districts were won by non-#1 seeds. I can't ever remember that happening before in a single week.
Kinda reminds me of the unpredictability of march madness, which everybody loves.
Whichever team flips the better coin gets less fouls. And that's due to a horrible rule book with rules that punish teams for things they could not, under any circumstances, have avoided.
Not sure why that's a good thing...
Jared Russell
24-03-2014, 00:38
GDC needs to be fired. Straight up, just going to say it. Go home. I'm tired of you.
Many of your points have merit, but statements like this make it hard to be sympathetic to them. A rational critique (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/2974) is usually more effective than a tantrum.
Many of your points have merit, but statements like this make it hard to be sympathetic to them. A rational critique (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/2974) is usually more effective than a tantrum.
When you realize that you've wasted $5k registration and probably ended your season today (in Brandon's case) because of horrible rules, that warrants (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1363254#post1363254) a tantrum, in my opinion.
Abhishek R
24-03-2014, 00:49
I have a feeling everything will be sorted out and all the rules will be in order by Week 6 through Championships. Of course that's too late for many teams to even rationalize the game, but, I have faith that this mess will be tidied up to make for one of the most exciting games in FRC history.
Brandon Holley
24-03-2014, 00:49
When you realize that you've wasted $5k registration and probably ended your season today (in Brandon's case) because of horrible rules, that warrants (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1363254#post1363254) a tantrum, in my opinion.
Take this from someone who has learned the lesson the hard way- no one listens to someone throwing a 'tantrum'. The most effective way to get your message across in the most brutal of circumstances is just to remain as calm as possible and keep sticking to the facts.
This may seem like obvious advice, but believe me, it goes such a long way.
That being said, of course there is truth in Brandon's post. Its just being fed through an emotionally charged lens and while some people may be able to see through that, there are certainly others who will not be able to do so.
Believe me, I've been there. I've made the same type of post on CD after a competition way back in the day. Take a night, sleep on it, try to get back to the facts and use those as your ammunition to try and force change.
-Brando
Brandon_L
24-03-2014, 00:50
When you realize that you've wasted $5k registration and probably ended your season today (in Brandon's case) because of horrible rules, that warrants (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1363254#post1363254) a tantrum, in my opinion.
$7k+, countless hours, and the robot with the most potential from us to date.
That being said, of course there is truth in Brandon's post. Its just being fed through an emotionally charged lens and while some people may be able to see through that, there are certainly others who will not be able to do so.
Very much so, thank you for putting that into words for me.
Off to sleep on it.
Zebra_Fact_Man
24-03-2014, 00:55
Not sure why that's a good thing...
Many of the complaints to this year's game regarding rules are very reminiscent of sports to me. For instance, whether a pass interference will be offensive or defensive can sometimes be entirely up to the referee calling the play, and we all know how an umpire can skew the results of a baseball game by a simple safe/out call. Or in basketball whether or not something is a foul or whether or not it is a flagrant foul; subjective to the collective referee crew.
Do we always agree with the calls? No. But upon, further consideration, I honestly don't believe there is much that could be done to improve the current rules we have without the degrading the integrity of the game (maybe lessening a few individual penalty values from 50 to 20ish, but only a few if any).
Abhishek R
24-03-2014, 00:59
Many of the complaints to this year's game regarding rules are very reminiscent of sports to me. For instance, whether a pass interference will be offensive or defensive can sometimes be entirely up to the referee calling the play, and we all know how an umpire can skew the results of a baseball game by a simple safe/out call. Or in basketball whether or not something is a foul or whether or not it is a flagrant foul; subjective to the collective referee crew.
Do we always agree with the calls? No. But upon, further consideration, I honestly don't believe there is much that could be done to improve the current rules we have without the degrading the integrity of the game (maybe lessening a few individual penalty values from 50 to 20ish, but only a few if any).
I see your point, but in basketball, 20% of the matches teams play are NOT decided by fouls. By the amount of drama that's been rising at at least one regional every week, there is clearly a problem that needs to be addressed.
Zebra_Fact_Man
24-03-2014, 01:22
I see your point, but in basketball, 20% of the matches teams play are NOT decided by fouls. By the amount of drama that's been rising at at least one regional every week, there is clearly a problem that needs to be addressed.
I don't know about that. I can think of quite a few matches where if Team X had/hadn't shot free throws, it would have changed the entire gameplay of the final seconds. Maybe not 20% I suppose, but definitely 10%.
Take today's Wichita State game for example. If that final foul had been a flagrant, it could have changed the whole dynamic of the situation (note: the correct call was made in that instance). And that's just today.
Everyone's getting all worked up about something that isn't new by any stretch of the imagination.
Abhishek R
24-03-2014, 01:28
Everyone's getting all worked up about something that isn't new by any stretch of the imagination.
It is, however, very different in FRC compared with Ultimate Ascent, Rebound Rumble, and LogoMotion.
PayneTrain
24-03-2014, 01:31
Many of your points have merit, but statements like this make it hard to be sympathetic to them. A rational critique (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/2974) is usually more effective than a tantrum.
My favorite part of this year's game is watching how many things are amplified. I know you know and I know I know what it's like to be a financially poor FRC team, and Brandon is in that situation right now. You know what? He threw a tantrum. However, this game is also making people ask bigger questions. How much are we supposed to go to "defend our kids"? I took over the drive coach position under fire from others on my team until they saw how rough this game can be on the teams. I don't want to puff my chest out too much, but I am there to protect a bunch of smart and talented kids from getting nothing short of screwed over by people who lack understanding of the game they are playing. They know the strategy.
Last year you could get by in a match when a partner committed a foul, one robot went limp on the field, or the volunteer referee clue whiffed on a call or 3. This year, when I go to a week 4 event and have to ask referee crews to check team updates from prior weeks before they misspeak at a driver's meeting, that is objectively NOT GOOD. When I have to stare at a glowing trashcan for 13 seconds, that is also NOT GOOD. When I see a question box 12 teams deep and a rulebook on tap and the foghorn sound effect is getting its biggest workout in half a decade, these are all not good things.
However despite our earlier than planned exit at our last event due to some unsavory no-calls, we still get to play one more time. 254 still gets to play one more time. Brandon's kids ran into overdrive over 7 weeks to put together a very fantastic robot (2nd overall pick at LSDR) only to get booted over a hasty and poorly thought out Team Update that came down the pipe half a week earlier. They don't get to go back and start planning for a surefire trip to MAR or World Champs. They may nto have a shop to go back to if the school district cuts the program if they see it as underperforming from last year.
Yeah, Brandon got emotional. He screwed up. He's not the only person who screwed up this year. People who have really dropped the ball this year are paid to NOT do that kind of thing, ever. You and I get to book our hotels under the arch while Brandon's team is asking why they even bothered trying to build a robust machine when the GDC suddenly changed the stance of "robust machines win" over to "play extra nice".
It's one thing to say that you went out there, left it all on the field, and made your team, your sponsors, your school, and yourselves proud. We didn't win an event, but I'm proud of my team. 254 has won 2 events, and I guess/assume you're proud of them because there's no doubt you guys pushed your own limits and earned your wins. 2495 went out, left it all on the field, and then some, but had the deft hand of incomplete thought wipe them out of the competition, probably for good, in 2014. I can understand that.
Alex2614
24-03-2014, 01:31
Coming from someone who has had horrible luck in the past with referee calls, iffy rules, dead alliance partners, judging discrepancies/bias, other types of adversity etc. I can see why some people have seen the need to call out those responsible. But I just want to throw out a word of caution as we proceed.
Two years in a row, we were eliminated from regionals because of an alliance partner that invoked a red card (or two yellows) completely accidentally and unknowingly. My junior and senior years of high school. Talk about devastating. 2009 we saw many many robots that drove around, had no way of scoring, but still made it to the top seeds of an event. Point is, every year we see problems, and every year we have complaints. Every year, we think we have the winningest design, and poured countless hours, dollars, and manpower building a winning machine. Our team even have a team of students/alumni whose main job is figuring out how the game will be played so we can design accordingly. And every year, we are faced with problems on the field that prevent us from winning. It happens, and it has actually prepared our students for the real world more than anything else.
Every year, we see problems with the games and everything associated with it. Yes, the GDC has made some mistakes with this particular game. They tried to go in a new direction this year with input from the students and mentors with feedback from the previous year. This kind of change is healthy and refreshing. It was a learning year for all of us involved. But again, to quote Dean Kamen, life ain't fair.
But saying things like that will only make things worse. The GDC has one of the toughest jobs in the world. Honestly, they do. And, in trying to put ourselves in that position can maybe help us understand a little better. Honestly, I can guarantee that if we all sit back, take a couple deep breaths, get one or two nights of sleep, we will have much fewer regrets.
Speaking out against FIRST and the mistakes it has made in the forms of tantrums, rants, raves, etc. only reflects very poorly on FIRST and only succeeds in tearing the organization apart, rather than constructively seeking change. If we, as a community want to see change, it is our duty and responsibility to seek such change from our leaders. Nothing is more frustrating as a leader than to see those you lead talk negatively about mistakes you have made behind your back and not constructively with you. I'm sure this is something those persons on the GDC right now are going through. Talk to them personally about why they made the decisions that they did. Find out what went into making the rules this year. I guarantee you will gain a fresh new perspective on things, and rather than seeing the issues through an "emotionally charged lens" and more through a critical and informed one.
The best thing we can do, as a community, is continue through this year graciously and professionally. At our next events, figure out what we can do to win (whether that is what you initially had in mind in January or not). Then we can go from there. If we don't have any next events, continue supporting FIRST's missions and spreading their ideals through outreach, service, etc. as well as cheering on our fellow teams. No amount of complaining, ranting, raving, etc. is going to make the situation any better. I guarantee the GDC has learned their lessons this year. And if we want to be entirely sure, I'm sure they will welcome personal feedback. I can't wait to see what they have in store for next year, and I certainly can't wait to watch the competition in St. Louis (whether from home or in person).
/rant. Sorry if the length or breadth of what I have said is inappropriate. I tend to get more wordy the later I stay up. I'm not trying to say that I'm better than anyone; I have gone through these situations many, many, many times before, and I am only simply offering what has worked best over the years both in FIRST and in the many other organizations/communities in which I preside. I look forward to working with and talking with all of you in the coming times. Thanks for listening.
AllenGregoryIV
24-03-2014, 02:14
Talk to them personally about why they made the decisions that they did. Find out what went into making the rules this year. I guarantee you will gain a fresh new perspective on things, and rather than seeing the issues through an "emotionally charged lens" and more through a critical and informed one.
I find this part of the post interesting. How exactly do you recommend people speak to the GDC?
I'm not entirely sure who is even on it anymore. Serching the FIRST website only gives this result from 2010 (http://www.usfirst.org/aboutus/press-room/new-members-2010-frc-game-design-committe). A google search turns up the video from 2010 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvyK2kbEgH4). I know Dave and Woodie resigned in 2011. (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90538) They also introduce themselves in the 2012 kickoff video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DA-b9FQSHYY#t=3393). Did I miss another announcement somewhere, did they post all their email addresses and phone numbers somewhere that I missed?
Akash Rastogi
24-03-2014, 02:20
Off to sleep on it.
I don't think Brandon necessarily needs a lecture about what he posted, as much as I respect Jared and others. I'm sure he realizes what he has posted is emotionally charged, which is why he will sleep on it. He is more mature than his post reflects.
This is really the best solution to a hard day. Sleep on it, gather your thoughts, and at the end of the day, remember that this is a high school robotics competition. Yes, your hard work was diminished on the field due to terrible rulings and a flawed rule book, but don't let that diminish how hard you really worked. I know it, you know it, your kids know it. Leave it at that for now. Unfortunately, everything else is slightly out of your control.
For what it's worth, I think there is nothing wrong with speaking directly about what is wrong with FIRST on CD. I would rather see mentors post their honest opinions than sugar-coating the situation because someone might be reading these posts. I'm sure anyone from FIRST reading this understands the frustration coming from teams, and probably has thick enough skin to deal with it.
My favorite part of this year's game is watching how many things are amplified.
This is the most accurate description of this season I've read so far.
Alex2614
24-03-2014, 02:53
I find this part of the post interesting. How exactly do you recommend people speak to the GDC?
I'm not entirely sure who is even on it anymore. Serching the FIRST website only gives this result from 2010 (http://www.usfirst.org/aboutus/press-room/new-members-2010-frc-game-design-committe). A google search turns up the video from 2010 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvyK2kbEgH4). I know Dave and Woodie resigned in 2011. (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90538) They also introduce themselves in the 2012 kickoff video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DA-b9FQSHYY#t=3393). Did I miss another announcement somewhere, did they post all their email addresses and phone numbers somewhere that I missed?
I understand, and partially rescind my comment. However, I will reference this http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/blog-frank-answers-fridays-11112013 where persons will be given the opportunity to express opinions of the game through feedback via open-ended comment boxes. Letters (digital or snail-mail) can also be sent directly to FIRST headquarters, where they will be forwarded to the correct parties.
There are also usually times at the championship where questions can be answered directly by the director and other parties of FIRST. And if you cannot attend the championship, these things are usually available via live webcasts. These among other resources FIRST provides are sometimes great avenues to get our messages across.
My point is, there are ways to get your opinions known to the right parties at the right time. The GDC will be looking over CD posts, I'm sure. And if all they see is hateful comments or emotionally-fueled complaints and/or "tantrums" for lack of a better word, they will only get angry (at least I would) and may even be less likely to listen to what you have to say. Again, just personal experience both in and outside of CD and FIRST, in other organizations, with other people.
For what it's worth, I think there is nothing wrong with speaking directly about what is wrong with FIRST on CD. I would rather see mentors post their honest opinions than sugar-coating the situation because someone might be reading these posts. I'm sure anyone from FIRST reading this understands the frustration coming from teams, and probably has thick enough skin to deal with it.
I do not disagree. However, I often find that comments filled with emotion directly after things happen are not honest opinions. Yes, at their core they may be, but they are delivered in such a way that is not honest or true to the intended message. I'm not trying to call Brandon or anyone out personally. But I see this all the time across CD and other places of the internet, not just on this thread or this topic either. I have done the same thing personally many times and have learned that people are more likely to listen to what you have to say if your comments are not fueled with heat-of-the-moment emotion. Usually, the person who says something like that (again, guilty myself) realizes later on that what they said was not exactly what they intended.
Clearly thought through, well-organized, and even-tempered arguments, criticisms, or general feedback is not sugar-coating anything. It's dealing with it graciously and professionally.
Again, I truly am not trying to call any one person out, so please don't read into this as if I am. We are all guilty of it. I'm just giving some friendly reminders :).
I've been hesitant on posting in this thread, because I know my views aren't exactly the most popular, and very few people, if any at all, share them.
I've read through countless Chief Delphi threads and Facebook posts. I've heard both sides of the argument, and been a volunteer at an event every week. I've had key-chains thrown at me, drive teams screaming in my face, and people complain that the balls aren't inflated properly. I've listened to people complain about the rules, the penalties, how they lost because of penalties.
And you know what? I love this game. I find no issues with the rules, the fouls, or the GDC. For once, a team of average robots can destroy an alliance of great robots. And no, it's not because they got a lot of fouls. Just look at the Great Lakes Bay Region District from this past week. It seems this year that everyone and their grandmother have something to gripe about. As a drive team member of 68 back in 2012, I can tell you that losing your regional because someone on your alliance drew a tech foul is NOTHING compared to what happened at Worlds back in 2012. Did you see flocks of students running to Chief Delphi complaining and letting their emotions run wild? No. Your Alliance drew the foul. It was completely within your control. Unless someone else took control of the robot and caused you to get the foul, it was your alliance's fault. If you accidentally broke a robot on the opposing alliance because they built a non-robust robot, then maybe you shouldn't have hit them so hard. If a piece of your robot fell onto the field and caused you to lose the match, maybe you shouldn't have pieces of your robot that can fall off so easily.
Eliminations is a best 2 out of 3. If you lose one match due to fouls, you still have the other two matches to prove you have the better alliance. If you lose the second match because of fouls, then you're doing something wrong.
Worst of all, you're taking the victory away from the alliance that beat you. They also spent countless hours and money on their robot. What makes your time and money anymore valuable then theirs? Their students worked just as hard as yours, and you should be congratulating them instead of complaining that you lost because of a tech foul.
The game manual and the rules have been here since January 5th. If you don't know them well enough to not draw a foul, it's your own fault. No one elses. Freak accidents happen, yeah. So go on out in your next two elimination matches and prove that you deserve the win.
Sincerely,
Tired of the Gripe
hardcopi
24-03-2014, 03:13
My biggest issue is that nothing is the same from match to match. Fouls seem to be called at the whim of the referee. I don't think they are doing it out of spite but because the rules are vague. Our bot played very little defense but got called out when ever we tried to get away. We had one foul out of many that I agreed with (we ran over to slow down another bout and hit the pretty hard. Other times we got fouls called on us for no real reason that anyone could see our tell us.
As a rule we don't go to the question box. This year though we are thinking of how to decorate it because we seem to live there. Not that we ever got a real answer.
I am not really sure how our if they can fix it. The referees are trying their best though to enforce vague at best rules and it really hurts the game.
What do we tell or drive team? How can they not draw fouls? They get hit while trying to pick up the ball they might they might they might get a foul.
DampRobot
24-03-2014, 03:57
And you know what? I love this game. I find no issues with the rules, the fouls, or the GDC. For once, a team of average robots can destroy an alliance of great robots.
And this is a good thing because? We usually build robots that are only a little bit above average, and I'd much rather see the best robots win than the average robots beat those that are fundamentally better. If they could, why would we bother trying to built the best bot we can?
GDC needs to be fired. Straight up, just going to say it. Go home. I'm tired of you.
...
GDC if you want to inspire teams to enter engineering fields, you're doing it wrong. Very wrong.
Hey JVN and Vex folk, nows the time to start up a FRC-Sized VEX event. I'm sure more then enough teams will be happy to jump ship at this point.
Before this season started, I was dreading the day this would happen, and the rift it would create between the FRC and the VRC Pro people. After this season, I look forward to the day we can choose.
GDC needs to be fired. Straight up, just going to say it. Go home. I'm tired of you.
Then who would design games for you to play?
I give the GDC credit they put the game out there and let people take full on headshots at them without flinching when it would be just as easy to say "screw all of you" and walk away and leave us with nothing to do but reminisce about the good old days when we had a FIRST competition.
cstelter
24-03-2014, 06:27
I see flags waived for 1 red technical, 2 blue technicals, and 1 red foul. I only see penalty points scored for the 2 blue technicals and the 1 red foul? Odd.
Looks to me red initiated the tie up twice playing defense on blue. It also looks like red initiated the final pull apart the 2nd time driving away from blue at which point the robot then became disabled. Technical on blue only for this? Or was it to be a technical on both and the red wasn't scored?
The 2nd blue technical appears to occur at the 1 minute mark when the head ref points to the red robot on the right as they moved in/out of a defensive position triggering the 2nd blue flag wave. Correct call?
Quarter Final 2 Match 2 is another story of a match ending with penalties potentially swinging the outcome. A similar tie up occurred between the same robots with penalties accessed upon them separating. Maybe someone has video of this also?
Before I begin, I want to make clear that I am not continuing this discussion in an effort to prove that the match was scored correctly. I'm only trying to arrive at a common understanding of the most likely reason that the score wound up the way it did. I truly empathize with all team members involved on both alliances-- this was a harsh way for the quarter final to end.
I do have video of the Q2 Match 2 you refer to but have not viewed it yet. I will try to post as time permits.
Honestly, I hadn't watched the video of match 3 in full screen until after I posted it. I had watched it numerous times on my camcorder that was used for the recording, but that is a 3" screen. I was going on my memory of what was announced as the final score was read-- not based on the actual flags waved during the match.
I only see 4 flag waves although the video does not capture the ref in the lower left corner-- a red flag first while pointing at red followed by the start of bumping wrists (but not much conviction), then two blue flag waves each followed by distinct bumping wrists together. All 3 of these signals are within a few seconds. Then later around 1:33 a red foul no wrist bump indicated by the lower right ref pointing at some activity that is out of frame on the video but can be seen by looking at the audience screen in the video. I'm thinking that must have been the announced possession in that red was inhibiting blue from getting at its ball to score.
Also, I hadn't noticed on my small screen, but the first 50 points of the two blue TF's was actually scored around the 2:10 point in the video. You can see the ref who waved the fouls accessing the panel in the upper right corner of the field. Red score jumps from 87 to 137.
I have no answer why the ref first signaled a red TF that was clearly never scored. Perhaps the gesture was a mistake (miscommunication between head judge and ref?). Even when he switched to the blue flag he pointed at the red robot while waving the flag. Since the ref who signaled the red TF clearly was involved in the scoring, my best conclusion was that the red TF signal was a mistake.
As to the question of which robot initiated contact. I guess it boils down to this bit of G28:
A ROBOT with an element outside its FRAME PERIMETER may be penalized under this rule if it appears they are using that element to purposefully contact another ROBOT inside its FRAME PERIMETER. Regardless of intent, a ROBOT with an element outside its FRAME PERIMETER that causes damage to another ROBOT inside of its FRAME PERIMETER will be penalized, unless the actions of the damaged ROBOT are the catalyst for the damage.
There was a minor entanglement as red tries (successfully) to interrupt a pass between 93 and 1736 at 0:36 on the video. Red is fully within its frame perimeter (all appendages in) at this point and pushes 1736 as it is trying to receive the ball from 93 and successfully defends the pass. Just after 93's arm catches on some part of 3018, but it is minor, no damage and not worthy of any foul on either side in my eyes.
I see 3 events that led to the next entanglement/eventual damage. Red pushes blue in a way that allows blue to enter its frame perimeter. Blue articulates its arm vertical while inside red's frame making disentanglement impossible. Red and blue attempt to disentangle leading to the eventual disconnection of the radio.
I do not think that blue was trying to intentionally entangle when it articulated its arm vertical. But if blue does not articulate, the two robots easily separate and continue playing after red pushes blue aside, similar to how the first entanglement was resolved at 0:36.
So was red *the* catalyst for the damage it received? I personally don't think so, but of course I'm biased. I can see how some might see it that way. Unless one can definitively say that red was 'the catalyst' that caused the damage, the 50 points has to go in red's favor. That's the only exception to robot A causing damage to robot B while inside perimeter (at least that's how I read G27)
As for the *second* blue TF-- well, I'm not at all sure. I don't see it.
sircedric4
24-03-2014, 08:50
I find this part of the post interesting. How exactly do you recommend people speak to the GDC?
I'm not entirely sure who is even on it anymore. Serching the FIRST website only gives this result from 2010 (http://www.usfirst.org/aboutus/press-room/new-members-2010-frc-game-design-committe). A google search turns up the video from 2010 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvyK2kbEgH4). I know Dave and Woodie resigned in 2011. (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90538) They also introduce themselves in the 2012 kickoff video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DA-b9FQSHYY#t=3393). Did I miss another announcement somewhere, did they post all their email addresses and phone numbers somewhere that I missed?
This is the best question I have seen raised. Another question I would add to this is: Has anyone on the GDC been a mentor or a member of an actual team? I am wondering if the things that are causing such grief this year is because no one on the GDC has actually been down in the thick of it. How do we find out the history of our GDC members?
I have never seen the overall level of grousing, grief and general disappointment in a game on CD in my memory. You can love or hate this particular game (I personally am disappointed in it for reasons I already elaborated) but you have to admit that there is something different about this game than other years by the general noise and aggression level around here. I sincerely hope the lessons are being noted so that we get a return to better years like Ultimate Ascent, Rebound Rumble, Breakaway for next year's game.
This is the best question I have seen raised. Another question I would add to this is: Has anyone on the GDC been a mentor or a member of an actual team? I am wondering if the things that are causing such grief this year is because no one on the GDC has actually been down in the thick of it. How do we find out the history of our GDC members?
I have never seen the overall level of grousing, grief and general disappointment in a game on CD in my memory. You can love or hate this particular game (I personally am disappointed in it for reasons I already elaborated) but you have to admit that there is something different about this game than other years by the general noise and aggression level around here. I sincerely hope the lessons are being noted so that we get a return to better years like Ultimate Ascent, Rebound Rumble, Breakaway for next year's game.
Linda Maulding is a long time mentor on my team but she helped design the last two games. Not this one.
Let us have a moment of silence for those teams that built their robots more robustly then most, and may have sacrificed some design functionality to do so, that now have gotten screwed over by the new rule (and may not be moving on because of the rule)
In other news, GDC, please let us know about rule changes like this a little sooner then you did. Seriously, Thursday? Seriously?
greasemonkey
24-03-2014, 09:45
I can sum up why I don't like this game in one word, Rematch.
Ryan Dognaux
24-03-2014, 10:00
Its bringing out the worst in people.
I'd agree with this. I saw and heard things during this year that I haven't seen in previous years. There were entire sections of teams booing from the stands and entire alliances, including adult mentors, in the referee question box at Boilermaker. This year's game has driven some not-so-great behavior from some individuals that has made us look bad as a whole.
On the flip side, I've seen many teams handle this year with grace and composure. This has been a rough year for a lot of teams and for a lot of the volunteer staff, especially the referees.
hardcopi
24-03-2014, 10:16
It seems at every event a lot of matches are being decided on fouls. These are not violent matches particularly or bots behaving badly. This speaks volumes.
Even though we got stung by it a few times the human player foul I'm okay with, because it is under our control. There are too many that really aren't. If you have a pickup then you seem to be in danger of being hit and losing 50 points.
pfreivald
24-03-2014, 10:17
A few thoughts on this contentious subject:
A. Everyone should read this book: http://www.amazon.com/Crucial-Conversations-Talking-Stakes-Edition/dp/0071771328
Tantrums/rants not only don't solve anything at best, they are almost always counterproductive. The catharsis is not worth it.
There are ways to disagree passionately and vehemently while being both gracious and professional about it. Most people are pretty bad at it. I'm not as good at it as I'd like to be. We could all use the improvement. This book is an excellent start.
B. "Everyone" doesn't hate this game. As with everything else in life, complainers drown out the satisfied. Unless we have polling data, we don't know what the percentages are, and pretending that we do is simply confirmation bias.
C. Anyone who has ever been in any kind of administrative position (be they a judge or a head ref or a teacher or a coach or a school board member or a member of the GDC) knows the fundamental fact about making people angry:
There are only two ways to make people angry: do something, and do nothing.
The GDC is in a hard spot every year, because no matter what they do--literally--a vocal minority will complain about it. (For example, if they update the rules mid-season or late-season or on some Thursday, people complain that things have been changed and that's not fair to those who built/planned for the rules as originally presented, while if they don't update the rules, people complain that they're unresponsive and don't care.) It's a lose-lose for them no matter what, and I for one am thankful that they're willing to do it at all.
I strongly suggest cultivating some empathy for the decision-makers, even if you disagree with their decisions.
D. Yes, this game has flaws. EVERY game has flaws. If you've ever studied game design, you'd know how hard it is to create an open rules set (as opposed to a closed rules set) game. Professional game companies spend literally thousands of man-hours playtesting and revising game rules before they hit the market, and at least hundreds of man-hours playtesting any rules changes before they're made, and yet they still have unforeseen issues once the game is released to the creative and motivated public. This is not possible with FRC, which means that more flaws will make it to the field.
E. Both "sides" of both the penalties and robustness arguments have merit--but I'm not certain it's possible to satisfy either one, much less both, of either argument. ("The rules are what they are. Build your robot so that it won't be a problem and it won't be a problem" will satisfy one side, and enrage the other.)
Compromise is the art of making sure that everyone walks away equally unhappy.
jeremylee
24-03-2014, 10:22
I'm only trying to arrive at a common understanding of the most likely reason that the score wound up the way it did. I truly empathize with all team members involved on both alliances-- this was a harsh way for the quarter final to end.
I think we've arrived at that common understanding of the match. We both had great alliances, and I recognize that the end result is hard on both sides.
Good luck at champs, hope we meet up again at some point in the future.
Paul Copioli
24-03-2014, 10:24
Hey JVN and Vex folk, nows the time to start up a FRC-Sized VEX event. I'm sure more then enough teams will be happy to jump ship at this point.
There are many things stated by many people in this thread. There are many valid points and some crazy ones (from my point of view). However, I feel I need to respond to this one specifically. Neither VEX Robotics nor the REC Foundation (the actual company who operates and supports the VEX Robotics Competition and VEX IQ Challenge) have any intention of starting an FRC sized competition. The VEXpro product line was specifically designed to support the competitors in the FIRST Robotics Competition. Please do not read anything into the above statement. We are quite happy supporting the VEX IQ Challenge, VEX Robotics Competition, and FIRST Robotics Competition and have no intention of changing that.
GDC needs to be fired. Straight up, just going to say it. Go home. I'm tired of you.
Comments like this will mute out the valid points that you do have. I know you are frustrated, but if you make your points in a professional and respectful way you will have a better chance of being taken seriously.
Paul
I have a few quick points to make this morning.
1) There may be general agreement about 2013 being one of the best games ever (as referenced in this thread several times), but I recall last year seeing threads with posts that pointed out how bad the game was in comparison to previous years. For more cases like this, see also 2012, 2011, 2010, etc.
2) There have been several recent posts that suggest that teams that didn't win (for whatever reason, though everyone seems to be pointing to the rules) "wasted their money". Really? Is that what you do this for? Are your sponsors going to fire you if you don't win the regional? I always thought that winning was the thin icing on a very big cake that is the development of fantastic young people through inspiration.
Grim Tuesday
24-03-2014, 10:37
D. ... Professional game companies spend literally thousands of man-hours playtesting and revising game rules before they hit the market, and at least hundreds of man-hours playtesting any rules changes before they're made, and yet they still have unforeseen issues once the game is released to the creative and motivated public. This is not possible with FRC, which means that more flaws will make it to the field.
Why is it impossible to test an FRC game? There were six Robot in 3 Days teams this year. Why not invite them to HQ to playtest the game ahead of time? Have them play out the game video instead of those silly animations. Place a restriction on those who work on the "official" Ri3Ds that they can't have contact with FRC teams besides what is released at Kickoff for the first week of competition so as to keep it fair.
nuclearnerd
24-03-2014, 10:44
A few thoughts on this contentious subject:
Tantrums/rants not only don't solve anything at best, they are almost always counterproductive. The catharsis is not worth it...There are ways to disagree passionately and vehemently while being both gracious and professional about it. Most people are pretty bad at it.
You're quite right, but I want to chime in with a different take, for what it's worth:
While most people are going to be bad at discussing stressful topics like match outcomes and rule interpretations respectfully, I strongly believe that we should still have these discussions. A public forum like CD allows the FRC community to hash out disagreements publicly, share ideas for improvements and ultimately strengthen our collective investment in the program through participation. It is just as important for readers to allow space for various opinions here (and not to conflate personal opinions with team reputation), as it is for contributors to post as professionally as they can muster. This is internet 101, and my bet is the GDC would agree.
BrendanB
24-03-2014, 10:45
I have a few quick points to make this morning.
1) There may be general agreement about 2013 being one of the best games ever (as referenced in this thread several times), but I recall last year seeing threads with posts that pointed out how bad the game was in comparison to previous years. For more cases like this, see also 2012, 2011, 2010, etc.
2) There have been several recent posts that suggest that teams that didn't win (for whatever reason, though everyone seems to be pointing to the rules) "wasted their money". Really? Is that what you do this for? Are your sponsors going to fire you if you don't win the regional? I always thought that winning was the thin icing on a very big cake that is the development of fantastic young people through inspiration.
Everyone has something about each game that stands out to them making it the "best game". For a lot of people 2013 stood out as the best for a variety of reasons including a large number of game pieces, unique/challenging endgame, tons of strategies to play in a game, variety of robot designs to play the game, complexity of being able to pull off a "do it all robot", etc. It was one of the first games where you couldn't do it all (ground pickup, quick cycle, full court shooter, 30 point climber, color frisbee dump, etc) in a match.
For a lot of people 2012 was their favorite game but 2013 seems to have been more favored.
As for your second point, I would hope that a sponsor would not cease to support a team due to them losing however taking a tough loss or the season ending early is not an easy thing to have to tell your biggest supporter who is financially supporting your team or donated a lot of shop time for parts. It really depends on each team's situation but yes there are teams who spend a good amount of money not only to play but to iterate designs ($), build a practice robot/assemblies ($$), or compete at additional events to increase the chance of qualifying ($$$). A bigger investment is also all the time and efforts teams have put into their robots as well as senior members who may have gone "all out" in their final year only to lose due to a bad call. Its not an easy thing to swallow when you put your all into something, you followed the rules, and yet a bogus call ends your season.
Andy Baker
24-03-2014, 10:54
Comments like this will mute out the valid points that you do have. I know you are frustrated, but if you make your points in a professional and respectful way you will have a better chance of being taken seriously.
Paul
Amen, Paul. This is excellent and I totally agree.
To many others:
Being frustrated with a game or with a referee's call is not new in FIRST. Were people frustrated when alliances were added in 1999? Heck yeah. Were they frustrated when defense was taken away during the 2001 4-0 game? Oh, yeah. Were teams at IRI frustrated when the head ref DQ'ed the entire 71-93-111 alliance in the final match in 2002 for inadvertent entanglement? Um, yeah, there was some frustration. Were teams frustrated with the triangle zone penalty in 2005? Yes, those penalties decided matches too.
Did some people get very upset at FIRST and these key volunteers? Yeah, that happened. However, people showed this frustration in different ways. Some had to vent about it, loudly disagreeing with the ruling. Others would lob insults to the folks who they disagreed with. To me, this shows the true character of a person. How does a person act when everything seems to be against them? Are they still a positive role model, or are they not careful about tossing these insults while students are around? Are they quick to judge and fast to pick a side without knowing all of the details, or do they wait for the full story and careful to figure out what all is going on before making a rash judgement?
This program has not survived and grown for 20+ years by people who overly freak out when things are not exactly how they wish them to be. We have helped FIRST progress each year by being graceful under pressure, handling change well, and focusing on the big picture moreso than details which need to be improved.
Believe me, there are things I don't like about this game. I wish that the human players would not be able to cause G40 so easily and I wish that the wide open geometry of the field did not cause so many other fouls and I wish that the ball re-entry had a better system than it does now. However, we can play this game like it is, with hopefully some continued improvements between now and the Championships.
Thanks for listening,
Andy B.
hardcopi
24-03-2014, 10:54
It is also tough for kids to spend months of all their free time only to have their work marginalized by uneven calls.
At this point if at the end of the match you are not at least 100 points ahead their is no celebration until the score is posted. Is that really how it was intended to play out?
I am hoping that they make one final rule change to lower all penalties. Penalties should be equalizers they should not hand out victory.
martin417
24-03-2014, 11:17
This post will probably draw some ire. I will get comments like "not us! we are a good team and we like the game!". I know I am making generalizations, and my comments may not apply to you. So if you feel insulted, and my comments seem unfair, then just assume I wasn't talking about you and forget it, don't flame me.
WARNING: GENERALIZATION BELOW! IT MIGHT NOT APPLY TO YOU!
From what I have read, teams that traditionally build a competitive robot don't like the game. Teams that usually build a defense bot, or a non-competitive robot think the game is great.
I have not posted any positive or negative comments on the game itself. People who are familiar with me know that I don't like defense, and I don't like games that encourage defense. In my view, building a defensive bot is a cop out. It says "accomplishing this task is hard, it sure would be easier to just keep other people from doing it." I have been involved since 2008, and never experienced any of the bash bot phenomena of the earlier years. I liked Overdrive because it discouraged defense. I liked Lunacy because it made defense difficult, and made offense dangerous (when you approached your goal, you were taking your opponents goal closer to them). Each year, the GDC has been able to somewhat discourage defense. Last year, with Ultimate Ascent, we won an off-season event because during finals the other alliance used two robots to defend us. We didn't score, but our two alliance partners were un-hindered, and the other alliance had only one bot left to score.
I have not yet attended a regional this year. I have watched matches from other regionals every weekend. What I saw was embarrassing. Orlando was especially brutal. I saw bots screaming across the field at 16-18 fps and ramming another bot. Anybody can build a brute pizza box. That doesn't make you great or dominant, and it is not inspiring. A monster drivetrain with 6 CIMs and super traction wheels that can do nothing other than push other bots around is no better. What is inspiring, and is CHALLENGING is to build a bot that accomplishes the goals set out in the game rules. Note that attaining the goals of the game is rewarded with point values. Preventing others from attaining that goal is not mentioned in the rules, nor is it rewarded with points.
If your goal is to inspire the kids, then have them look at the challenge before them, and design a robot that can meet that challenge to best of their ability. Remember, it's not about winning by any means, it's about inspiring the kids to rise to a challenge. A team that feels they can only build a brute pizza box might instead build a bulldozer that can inbound well and push a ball into the low goal. Yes, you can play defense, but not battle bots. If you do that well, you would be tops on my third pick list.
PayneTrain
24-03-2014, 11:28
Are your sponsors going to fire you if you don't win the regional?
Whether or not it is right, that is a concern for some teams.
pfreivald
24-03-2014, 11:54
Why is it impossible to test an FRC game?
I didn't say it was. I did say "literally thousands of man-hours" of playtesting, though, and I think you can figure out the logistics of that one well enough.
(An added difficulty of why it is to some degree impossible to test an FRC game at all is robot variability and out-of-the-box thinking of tens of thousands of people. That's the peril of an open rules set...but people complain about the closed parts stifling creativity, too!)
pfreivald
24-03-2014, 11:57
While most people are going to be bad at discussing stressful topics like match outcomes and rule interpretations respectfully, I strongly believe that we should still have these discussions.
I agree 100%.
mklinker
24-03-2014, 12:08
The game has flaws but I LIKE THE Game!
The best part about the game is that it is an equalizer.
Some adjustments could be easily made to the penalties and ball inbounding to make the game go so much better.
Adding the "end game" mid season would have been fun as well:)
Brandon_L
24-03-2014, 12:48
To all - I realize I exploded in the heat of the moment last night, and for that I apologize. I do not necessarily wish I did not say it though. It was real, and it was what I felt in the moment. Its the same reaction I saw all weekend throughout the event. Most of you both for and against my method of venting my frustrations seemed to agree with my points, at least.
I woke up this morning a little less heated, and filled out the survey for the event in a constructive manner.
The fact of the matter is, my students worked amazingly hard, harder then any group I've ever had before. We pretty much had an 8 week build season - Our intake wasn't working properly so we withheld it and continued the grind. All of the time and money we spent chasing perfection feels wasted, as we're out ~20 MAR points and probably wont get an invite because of a hastily thought up rule that came out literally the day before the event and probably wont exist next week. I hope everyone can understand that is where my frustration is coming from. I am proud of the rest of the team for how they handled the situation.
However, we can play this game like it is, with hopefully some continued improvements between now and the Championships.
To be blunt, not us. Out of all the teams in FRC, only a fraction get to attend champs. I agree, champs will be much better, but what about the rest of the teams? At this point, nothing more I or anyone else can do other then wait and see. We're probably done for the season, though.
Hey JVN and Vex folk, nows the time to start up a FRC-Sized VEX event. I'm sure more then enough teams will be happy to jump ship at this point.
There are many things stated by many people in this thread. There are many valid points and some crazy ones (from my point of view). However, I feel I need to respond to this one specifically. Neither VEX Robotics nor the REC Foundation (the actual company who operates and supports the VEX Robotics Competition and VEX IQ Challenge) have any intention of starting an FRC sized competition. The VEXpro product line was specifically designed to support the competitors in the FIRST Robotics Competition. Please do not read anything into the above statement. We are quite happy supporting the VEX IQ Challenge, VEX Robotics Competition, and FIRST Robotics Competition and have no intention of changing that.
My statement was an unnecessary callout, and for that I do apologize.
Kevin Sevcik
24-03-2014, 13:11
I won't say that I hate this game, but I'm really disappointed in the number of fouls and the seeming ease with which you can be hit with them. While the points obviously encourage offense, the rules and fouls seem to encourage a defensive robot just so you're not at risk of all those foul points. I think this is best illustrated by a quote from the GDC, as pulled directly from the rules:A BALL that becomes unintentionally lodged on a ROBOT will be considered POSSESSED by the ROBOT. It is important to design your ROBOT so that it is impossible to inadvertently or intentionally POSSESS an opponent’s BALL.Emphasis mine. If I'm supposed to design a robot so it's impossible to intentionally possess an opponent's ball, I'm designing a robot that can't possess any balls, and thus can't participate in offense. That's the only way you can come close to complying with this suggestion. Even if you ignore the "intentionally" there, it's awfully difficult to design a robot that can catch a truss shot or an inbound, but not unintentionally catch an opponent's ball that's flying at your robot.
I'm glad so many teams (mine included) decided to ignore the suggestion that we eschew offense in favor of avoiding G12 penalties, but I think it says a lot about the overall game design that one of the rules has attached a blue box that you're pretty much forced to ignore if you want to play offense and meet the actual challenges presented in the game. And I'm disappointed when that means that teams trying to play offense end up penalized because they were accidentally under an opponent's ball that took a weird bounce.
JeremyLansing
24-03-2014, 13:43
When this game was released I had very high hopes for it. I felt that it would give traditionally less competitive teams a very easy way to compete, since building an intake is not super difficult, especially with all the 3 day robots. I knew defense would be important and the game would be much more physical than previous years, but I had no idea that it would turn into the kind of Aerial Assault slug fest we saw at week 1.
The rules to begin with were missing a few key components, namely the possibility of robots dying with balls in their possession. Unfortunately, as the week 0 scrimmages and week 1 competitions showed, the game was extremely rough, which seemed to catch some people by surprise. Robots were smashed, irrelevant human player actions were tech fouled, and a lot of people's tempers flared.
I had hoped after week 1 that the GDC would take steps to address the issues in the game. I was quite happy to see the changes made to G40, and I don't believe (to my knowledge) a single G40 was called at Wisconsin last week. That being said, most of the recent updates have felt like Band-Aid's on a severed limb. The most recent update was extremely frustrating. Not only was it released on practice day for our regional, but it contained wording so ambiguous I almost wanted to laugh. I'll leave the specifics of the update to another thread, but as the game stands right now, I would go so far as to say it's not Aerial Assault any more, it's Ambiguous Assault. Ref's are left in the unenviable position of trying to guess the intent of a robot and sort their way through mountains of rules over who did what to who, where, and how many times. Each team sees the incidents differently, and we have seen recently how frustrating it can be when these phenomenally close calls have such a big impact on match outcomes.
All that said, I don't hate the game, and I still have hope the GDC can fix it. I think the concept for the game is superb, but like someone else said, it feels unfinished. My heart goes out to everyone who has been affected by the (IMO) poorly written rules. I know it's hard to make a good game, but after 2013, we all know the fantastic work the GDC is capable of.
Andrew Schreiber
24-03-2014, 14:10
I didn't say it was. I did say "literally thousands of man-hours" of playtesting, though, and I think you can figure out the logistics of that one well enough.
(An added difficulty of why it is to some degree impossible to test an FRC game at all is robot variability and out-of-the-box thinking of tens of thousands of people. That's the peril of an open rules set...but people complain about the closed parts stifling creativity, too!)
I don't think this is as impossible as you think it is. Actually running thousands of matches may be impossible but within a week I've often run simulations of thousands of matches (likely many more). That's me, with excel/R. Like seriously, it's not hard. Do I catch everything? Nah. But it woulda told me that 2011 the minibots were ridiculously over valued. (2012 was the first year I started doing real models and running a bunch of scenarios, they've gotten more complicated every year).
But most of the egregious problems with games should be apparent with even a modicum of common sense. Examples:
- 2014 — One game piece per alliance? More power in the KoP than ever? More COTS for getting that power to the ground? Open field? Recipe for pain
- 2013 — Humans can throw frisbees? Rain of discs inevitable.
I don't know the make up of the GDC any more but I would imagine that most folks who've been involved in a team that is competitive would have caught those issues quick.
Kevin Kolodziej
24-03-2014, 14:27
The moment I saw this game at Kickoff, I loved it. The strategy is the best we've seen in a long time for an FRC game. There are many many many types of robots out there. The design of the game allows a decent robot to have an opportunity to play every part of the game, from inbounder, to trusser, to cycle ender, to defense - sometimes all in the same match. For the first time in a long time, I feel like this game is actually a competition and not an exhibition of who's robot is faster at a given task.
That, I think, is where the problem lies. The FRC community has gotten complacent. The last time we had an open field was 2009, and no one could get enough speed to really cause any damage in that game. Before that, you have to go back to 2002 to really have a dynamic "if you do this, I'll do this" sort of game. Maybe 2004. We have nearly 10x as many teams playing the game in 2014 vs 2002 - so naturally, there will be more complaints.
Are there flaws with the way the game is administered? Sure. The GDC is working on them. The decision to change a rule on Thursday, while not unprecedented, was a terrible idea (note: it didn't really work last time either, if memory serves correctly). The rule change itself is not a bad thing, but it is a knee-jerk reaction to the communities complaints and I don't personally like it.
My biggest complaint this year is consistency. Event to event will never be consistent, but that's fine. The inconsistency between days of a single event is unacceptable. Replays on one day for pedestal delays but not the next? That's not okay. Not a single high speed ramming call during qualifications but 10 in the elims? That's not okay (yes, play is more intense, but of the calls I saw, they were not damaging nor malicious).
How do we fix it? I say get rid of the pedestal light altogether and just take the ball when the ball is scored - end up with 2 balls on the field? Make that a technical foul. No judgement required there.
Referee consistency is partly due to the overworked refs - just put more refs on the field. I was told this weekend that HQ would not allow more than 4 refs + head ref for qualifying. I don't understand this at all. When I reffed in 2008, each quadrant had a ref, there was a head ref, and there were at least 2 other refs (maybe 4?) watching the scoring (tracking balls, tracking robots). THIS WORKED. Why can't we do that this year?
This is my absolute favorite game now. When it was released, I was not a fan. I thought it was too simplistic, and had no end game which was the wow! factor. But now after playing it at two regionals, it was the most fun game, and required the most alliance strategy and assisting than any other game.
Good job game design!
Mastonevich
24-03-2014, 15:29
In answer to the original question, I don't hate it.
I love the life lessons this game teaches:
Life is not fair
Help\teamwork usually produces better results than working alone
You can't please everyone all of the time
Competition can bring out the worst in good people
Good people sometimes get thrown under the bus
There are two sides to every conflict
Nothing is perfect
Resources are limited
Sometimes it is best to "sleep on it"I also don't necessarily love it. It is pretty much par for the course in a lot of ways.
I do love the big picture of FIRST and the superstars of tomorrow it is creating.
I think we are stuck with subjectivity in foul calls, because the alternatives are worse. I think the best set of rules would advise the referees to mostly let the teams play, but call fouls if the contact becomes egregious in the judgment of referees.
Here are some worse alternatives that eliminate the judgment calls:
1) Any type of contact is legal: results in battle bots
2) All contact is illegal: robots tiptoe around each other in fear of penalties, creating a lame game
3) Any contact within frame perimeter is a penalty on the extending team: penalizes offensive robots more, and allows teams to ram other teams to give them penalties
4) Any contact resulting in damage is a foul on the other team: pretty silly if you were sitting still and a team runs into you and breaks themselves, or if their robot was held together with bubble gum and a really light hit made their widget fall off.
5) Any collision faster than, say, 10 ft/s is a foul on the team that initiated it: how do you know which team initiated it, and how do you measure the speed? Better to simply admit that collision speed and intent are judgment calls on the part of referees.
Regarding the fouls for possessing the other team's game ball, I think the rules aren't hugely far off from where they need to be after the update that allowed regular fouls for inadvertent possession. The point value of fouls and technicals is still very high compared to the average match score, but I think it is appropriate that referees can award different penalties depending on the perceived intent and result of an opponent possessing your ball. The existence of that technical is important to eliminate any incentive to intentionally possess the opponent's ball and take the penalty. I think the smaller foul is helpful, because if the other team possesses your ball by accident, it still wastes some of your time. Other sports have different penalty levels, too: Hockey has major and minor penalties, basketball has "flagrant" fouls, football has 5 yard and 15 yard facemasks depending on severity, etc.
Last comment: I think games would be called better if the "can't cause your opponent to commit a foul" rule was consistently followed. The other team can't throw a ball into my stationary robot and give me a foul, and they can't ram their lego tower into my robot to break themselves and give me a foul, and so on. This is another judgment call, but it's a necessary evil to prevent other problems that are much sillier.
I just realized that FRC lacks the following rule, which comes from this year's FTC rules:
FTC Rule <G11> The actions of an Alliance or their Robots shall not cause an opposing Alliance or Robot to break a rule and thus incur penalties. Any rule violations committed by the affected Alliance shall be excused, and no penalties will be assigned.
We really need this rule. All we have is this:
FRC Rule G14
Strategies aimed solely at forcing the opposing ALLIANCE to violate a rule are not in the spirit of FRC and are not allowed. Rule violations forced in this manner will not result in assessment of a penalty on the target ALLIANCE.
Violation: TECHNICAL FOUL
Referees don't technically have the option to simply not call a foul in some cases when that would be the best call. I can think of only one time that I've ever heard of a G14 penalty (or similar from previous year) being called on anybody.
George Nishimura
24-03-2014, 15:42
I don't think this is as impossible as you think it is. Actually running thousands of matches may be impossible but within a week I've often run simulations of thousands of matches (likely many more). That's me, with excel/R. Like seriously, it's not hard. Do I catch everything? Nah. But it woulda told me that 2011 the minibots were ridiculously over valued. (2012 was the first year I started doing real models and running a bunch of scenarios, they've gotten more complicated every year).
I'm interested in this. What sort of testing/validation do you think would be possible through mathematical simulations and modelling?
---------
On the thread in general:
I'm withholding my opinion for now. I would like to build on some things people have said though:
The GDC's job is very difficult. They have to design a game that's interesting to build a robot for, play, watch, make it feasible for teams with a wide range of resources, feasible logistically for event organisers, etc. Every year the list seems to get longer.
What could we do to help?
Currently there's only two ways to communicate with the GDC. Indirectly through posting on ChiefDelphi (we know at least one member reads it) and semi-directly through the Q&A.
The rules come out seven weeks before the first regional. That's seven weeks where we can potentially 'fix' a lot of the problems.
For example, the situation at Waterloo, where a team was penalised 50pt because another team accidentally broke their antenna so they extended beyond the 20in perimeter (G24), has existed since January. Could someone have spotted that and alerted the GDC?
G40 exists because it's a huge safety concern. Maybe there's a better, feasible way to keep human players safe but not make it easy to incur a huge draconian penalty.
While CD does not extend its reach to everyone, even here we have a large pool of smart, dedicated people that represent most of the FIRST community: engineers, students, mentors, event organizers, inspectors, refs etc. Why can't we take a more active role in at least informing the GDC, if not helping in a more direct way somehow?
A mentor from 610 (I believe, forgive me for the lack of details - I'm on my phone) suggested finding a means of including more input from the experienced and competition-saavy. Is that the solution and, if so, how can we implement it?
This program is designed to help inspire a new generation of problem-solvers. Depending on your perspective, there's a few problems or a lot of them. I think it's time we shifted the focus of discussion away from "I don't like X; Y needs to be fixed" to "How can we fix X? How can we make sure we don't make a similar mistake in the future? Are our solutions good? Are they feasible and inclusive?".
To get the ball rolling:
I think one of the over-arching problems that needs to be solved is the lack of direct communication and feedback to the GDC. I don't think we should rely on Frank reading a thread on CD to highlight major issues/possible solutions to the game. I think a dedicated, official, public, suggestion/feedback site akin to the Q&A could work, where more people can highlight issues and discuss solutions for the GDC to consider and maybe partake in.
waialua359
24-03-2014, 15:55
The game has flaws but I LIKE THE Game!
The best part about the game is that it is an equalizer.
Some adjustments could be easily made to the penalties and ball inbounding to make the game go so much better.
Adding the "end game" mid season would have been fun as well:)
I really dont see this game any different than in year's past. Many of the successful veteran teams are still winning regionals, similar to that of recent years.
pfreivald
24-03-2014, 15:56
I don't think this is as impossible as you think it is.
I have sufficient experience in professional game development to be confident in my assessment. :D
Andrew Schreiber
24-03-2014, 15:57
I'm interested in this. What sort of testing/validation do you think would be possible through mathematical simulations and modelling?
Time/Difficulty vs Point Reward is my primary focus. 2010 is the most obvious case of Difficulty/Point Reward being crazy out of whack. Suspensions were rare because it was often worth more to keep scoring than take the time to line up a suspension and risk the damage to another robot.
2011 is another pretty obvious scoring whack up wherein the rack didn't matter nearly as much as the minibots.
Please note that these assertions are primarily true for 90% of FRC teams. Obviously 254's 6 second climb was crazy but they were one out of 3k teams to do that. Most other 30 point climbers took close to 2 minutes to ascend.
This year the big thing woulda been the penalty points as compared to the match scores. Even our no defense analysis showed that a 50 point penalty would be massive. Factoring in that defense can usually halve optimal that 50 point tech foul was high on our list of "things to avoid" (I think it was shortly behind 'ejecting the battery').
Coupling the difficulty in scoring (as compared to years like 2008/2012 where teams could score points merely by being mobile) with high foul points should have been able to show the GDC that a disproportionate number of matches would be decided by fouls even at high levels of play. [insert Ether here to back up the exact number or elim matches decided by fouls]
Kevin Leonard
24-03-2014, 16:14
I think the game is improving every week. And when fouls don't taint the game, I love this game! It's high-octane, exciting, and suspenseful. It feels more like a "Varsity Sport".
When tricky fouls get involved, thats when this game gets ugly. I think most of us have gotten over the G40 foul and know how to avoid it, but things like inadvertent ball possession and extensions beyond the frame perimeter or beyond 20" mess with the spirit of the game.
But the game today is way better than the game from Week 1. The penalties are less frequent, the game is evolving in a complicated and strategically intense way, and the robots are becoming more consistent and more competitive.
I understand fully the frustrations of many teams involved in events so far. Losing out on the rest of a season you worked hard for is difficult, and sometimes deserving teams don't win when they maybe should.
I'm excited to see what these next few weeks of competition hold for everyone. And I certainly hope the problems with this game are resolved and don't hurt other teams down the road.
RoundTabler
24-03-2014, 16:54
To be clear: I LIKE this game. Its a neat concept, and when played well, its really cool to watch. HOWEVER: The rules make it UNPLAYABLE (depending on the refs). The day that ramming other robots is a tech foul, or when building a harvester results in tech fouls (over the bumper rule update 3-20-14), or when human player actions that DO NOT impact the match decide the match, this is the day that FRC becomes uninspiring. The GDC really punished teams that built offensive bots this year. The 3-20-14 rule update said that high speed ramming, even if undamaging results in a 50-point foul. How are refs supposed to call fouls that use wording like "if intentional", or "purposefully damaging"? The only way to harvest balls this year is by going over the bumper, but the 3-20-14 rule update removes protection for these assemblies, and makes it possible, no LIKELY that the pickup device will result in penalty calls.
This is the issue. The game is fine. Its the rules that are broken. The GDC seems like they don't want ANY defense played, yet they make rules that make defense the only viable option. People keep saying that they like how this game allows bad robots to beat good robots, and to that I say WHAT??????? How is that positive? Strong offensive bots should always beat mediocre or bad robots. If the GDC wanted the game to be an equalizer, they should have realized that the result would not be positive. Why would teams build good robots if a drivebase w/o any scoring potential beat them?
At RI this weekend, the refs called few penalties, only making calls on blatant fouls. This was nice, as it allowed scoring to be the focus, not avoiding fouls. However, we lost in the Finals because of a human player foul (he stepped outside the human player box after an amazing jump catch - we would have won by 8 points otherwise), and our robot breaking in the last match. 78 had a great alliance, and it was really close, but it kinda stinks to have games decided by actions that did not impact gameplay at all.
I hope everything I said makes sense, and I hope its clear that I like this game when its played clean. I too would like to know how many members of the GDC have EVER been on an FRC team, or if they have ever attended an event. The GDC needs to stop playing games with the rules.
Our team built probably our best robot ever this year. At both of our events this year, we have been finalists. Luckily for us, due to the new district model in NE, we still have a chance of going to champs. I hope the GDC figures out how to NOT punish GOOD teams for being GOOD.
/end rant
This ended up being a lot longer than I meant it to be, but its nice to get it off my chest. :o
I've been hesitant on posting in this thread, because I know my views aren't exactly the most popular, and very few people, if any at all, share them.
I've read through countless Chief Delphi threads and Facebook posts. I've heard both sides of the argument, and been a volunteer at an event every week. I've had key-chains thrown at me, drive teams screaming in my face, and people complain that the balls aren't inflated properly. I've listened to people complain about the rules, the penalties, how they lost because of penalties.
And you know what? I love this game. I find no issues with the rules, the fouls, or the GDC. For once, a team of average robots can destroy an alliance of great robots. And no, it's not because they got a lot of fouls. Just look at the Great Lakes Bay Region District from this past week. It seems this year that everyone and their grandmother have something to gripe about. As a drive team member of 68 back in 2012, I can tell you that losing your regional because someone on your alliance drew a tech foul is NOTHING compared to what happened at Worlds back in 2012. Did you see flocks of students running to Chief Delphi complaining and letting their emotions run wild? No. Your Alliance drew the foul. It was completely within your control. Unless someone else took control of the robot and caused you to get the foul, it was your alliance's fault. If you accidentally broke a robot on the opposing alliance because they built a non-robust robot, then maybe you shouldn't have hit them so hard. If a piece of your robot fell onto the field and caused you to lose the match, maybe you shouldn't have pieces of your robot that can fall off so easily.
Eliminations is a best 2 out of 3. If you lose one match due to fouls, you still have the other two matches to prove you have the better alliance. If you lose the second match because of fouls, then you're doing something wrong.
Worst of all, you're taking the victory away from the alliance that beat you. They also spent countless hours and money on their robot. What makes your time and money anymore valuable then theirs? Their students worked just as hard as yours, and you should be congratulating them instead of complaining that you lost because of a tech foul.
The game manual and the rules have been here since January 5th. If you don't know them well enough to not draw a foul, it's your own fault. No one elses. Freak accidents happen, yeah. So go on out in your next two elimination matches and prove that you deserve the win.
Sincerely,
Tired of the Gripe
I agree. At first, I wasn't a fan of the game, but now I love it. It's more like traditional sports, where teams of all skill level and experience can play and have fun, unlike previous games, which were hard for inexperienced teams to play. Watching elimination matches is very exciting, and is when the game really becomes fun to play. Most robots this year do the same thing, pick up the ball, then shoot, but it's still amazing to see how fast and accurate some of these teams are.
Lots of people have complained about the human player fouls. The foul rules have been always been here, and teams should have practiced throwing in the balls. It's not ridiculous to give teams a heavy penalty for reaching too far into the field. Compared to building a robot, keeping your hand away from a line is an easy task. It's the same story with possessing an opponents ball. It says in the manual that you need to be careful of this. The same applies with defense on an open field with no safe zones. Even if you don't think that a rule makes sense, a rule is a rule and will be enforced.
After watching week four, it seems like the G27 update that got everybody all upset isn't to stop defense, but to stop excessive robot damage and discourage teams from becoming extremely violent. It hasn't been called much, and it seems to be called only if the damage was caused by really violent ramming.
The only issues I see with the game are a few glitches on the field with the pedestal light, but these matches are usually replayed, which is a free match and extra driver practice for your team.
Brandon_L
24-03-2014, 17:06
After watching week four, it seems like the G27 update that got everybody all upset isn't to stop defense, but to stop excessive robot damage and discourage teams from becoming extremely violent. It hasn't been called much, and it seems to be called only if the damage was caused by really violent ramming.
The only issues I see with the game are a few glitches on the field with the pedestal light, but these matches are usually replayed, which is a free match and extra driver practice for your team.
Don't know what events you were watching, but G27 was all over lenape and tech fouls were falling from the sky some matches and not at all when they clearly should have been in others. The pedestal issues were almost nonexistent, though.
George Nishimura
24-03-2014, 17:11
This year the big thing woulda been the penalty points as compared to the match scores. Even our no defense analysis showed that a 50 point penalty would be massive. Factoring in that defense can usually halve optimal that 50 point tech foul was high on our list of "things to avoid" (I think it was shortly behind 'ejecting the battery').
Coupling the difficulty in scoring (as compared to years like 2008/2012 where teams could score points merely by being mobile) with high foul points should have been able to show the GDC that a disproportionate number of matches would be decided by fouls even at high levels of play. [insert Ether here to back up the exact number or elim matches decided by fouls]
The tricky thing with analysing the foul points is coupling the intent with the value. G40 is intended to scare people from ever putting their hands in danger (My personal grievance is that the human player zones have a back line - ie they are too small).
For the other TFs, I think some of them are out of whack on purpose. G14, TFG27, updated G28 are about ethical retribution/scare-forcing rather than balancing out strategic advantages.
"In game justice" is hard in FRC because the games are too short. Ideally there would be a ruleset like Ultimate Frisbee, which is designed to recreate the state of the game before the foul (read: not as a punishment), but in FRC that's near impossible. Using points, the penalty points, on average, have to make up the points lost because of the foul. But that often means situations are either under-penalised or over-penalised.
Take, for example, trying to determine an appropriate foul point for tipping. A team that is tipped loses the alliance some amount of points depending on the capabilities of the robot and the state of the game (namely, time left). How is it possible to derive one point value to cover all cases? This is why ridiculous "20 pt + 3rd level hang" foul happened last year for interfering with only 10pt hangs.
The consequence is a choice between more subjective refeereeing (yay!), less rules (battlebots!) or purposely high penalty values to scare teams from accidentally or intentionally committing the foul (50pts!).
But just to be clear - I think that your analysis (and all of TwentyFour) is great and useful and more publishing of this type of analysis and deconstruction would really help the community and the GDC.
Don't know what events you were watching, but G27 was all over lenape and tech fouls were falling from the sky some matches and not at all when they clearly should have been in others. The pedestal issues were almost nonexistent, though.
I only watched Waterloo eliminations and a few random qualification matches. I do agree that any rule that relies on a interpretation of an ambiguous word is not very good. It is very hard to standardize a word like "ramming" or "aggressive", and only giving teams a referees a day to wrap their heads around the new change, which has the ability to totally change the game if interpreted a certain way, is a risky move.
Andrew Schreiber
24-03-2014, 17:48
For the other TFs, I think some of them are out of whack on purpose. G14, TFG27, updated G28 are about ethical retribution/scare-forcing rather than balancing out strategic advantages.
Fun fact that most people don't know - My degree is Computer Science with a concentration in Game Design. So, the following is based primarily on that...
Let's say we are designing a game. Obviously there is a set path we want the player to follow to advance through the level. There's a couple different options we have.
1) We can incentivize that path with things like points, power ups, or just cool visual experiences (Carrot)
2) We can penalize them (death, point loss, waves of enemies) for alternate paths. (Stick)
3) We can force them down that path by not allowing any other options. (Rails)
All three options are perfectly valid and have their uses.
The Rails options isn't really viable for the GDC. Linear games don't allow teams much strategy and just straight up aren't fun for FRC. Plus, it's pretty hard to do this when you don't control everything the players can do like you do in a game. (Wanna block off an area? Put up an invisible wall)
Now, the Stick method is one that the GDC favored this year. "Play this game the way the developer intended or you will be punished" is a viable approach and some games excel with it. Personally I've always found that it chafes to play these games. There's very little freedom and you often see crazy high penalties for alternative play styles and the metagame quickly becomes stale because it's not a function of strategic play, merely executing more effectively.
The Carrot method, in my opinion, is optimal for game design. 2013 encouraged teams to play the game they wanted by making it easy enough to play the game that the penalty for being even a 50% shooter wasn't that high. Think of this as the pick up and play factor. There were lots of ways to play and teams tried them all to varying degrees of success.
Now, why this is relevant to FRC and why I dislike this game...
The Stick and Rails patterns are just lazy design. There, I said it. This game was just lazy. Properly incentivizing scoring so as to discourage defense takes a lot of work but it creates better FRC games. Much in the way that discouraging camping in FPS games takes a fair bit of work but creates less boring games.
Couple that with the high degree of difficulty of executing successfully (scoring) and the penalty for failure being high? You're going to produce not only a bad game but a toxic community. One need look no further than DOTA/LOL to see what happens with a hard game that has a high penalty for failure. (There's a reason I never got into those games; I don't like being called a 'feeding noob' or whatever the derogative du jour is)
So, I don't like this game because it IS, by almost every measure I was taught, a bad game. It is lazily designed, difficult, and punishing and has created a toxic community.
Fun fact that most people don't know - My degree is Computer Science with a concentration in Game Design. So, the following is based primarily on that...
Let's say we are designing a game. Obviously there is a set path we want the player to follow to advance through the level. There's a couple different options we have.
1) We can incentivize that path with things like points, power ups, or just cool visual experiences (Carrot)
2) We can penalize them (death, point loss, waves of enemies) for alternate paths. (Stick)
3) We can force them down that path by not allowing any other options. (Rails)
All three options are perfectly valid and have their uses.
The Rails options isn't really viable for the GDC. Linear games don't allow teams much strategy and just straight up aren't fun for FRC. Plus, it's pretty hard to do this when you don't control everything the players can do like you do in a game. (Wanna block off an area? Put up an invisible wall)
Now, the Stick method is one that the GDC favored this year. "Play this game the way the developer intended or you will be punished" is a viable approach and some games excel with it. Personally I've always found that it chafes to play these games. There's very little freedom and you often see crazy high penalties for alternative play styles and the metagame quickly becomes stale because it's not a function of strategic play, merely executing more effectively.
The Carrot method, in my opinion, is optimal for game design. 2013 encouraged teams to play the game they wanted by making it easy enough to play the game that the penalty for being even a 50% shooter wasn't that high. Think of this as the pick up and play factor. There were lots of ways to play and teams tried them all to varying degrees of success.
Now, why this is relevant to FRC and why I dislike this game...
The Stick and Rails patterns are just lazy design. There, I said it. This game was just lazy. Properly incentivizing scoring so as to discourage defense takes a lot of work but it creates better FRC games. Much in the way that discouraging camping in FPS games takes a fair bit of work but creates less boring games.
Couple that with the high degree of difficulty of executing successfully (scoring) and the penalty for failure being high? You're going to produce not only a bad game but a toxic community. One need look no further than DOTA/LOL to see what happens with a hard game that has a high penalty for failure. (There's a reason I never got into those games; I don't like being called a 'feeding noob' or whatever the derogative du jour is)
So, I don't like this game because it IS, by almost every measure I was taught, a bad game. It is lazily designed, difficult, and punishing and has created a toxic community.
Hard and punishing games do not always create a toxic community. I'll point you towards Dark Souls 1 and 2, where the game is extremely punishing and exceptionally difficult, and still enjoyed by millions of fans.
One needs to look no farther then DOTA/LOL to see what happens with a hard game that has a high penalty for failure. LOL is the most successful esports game to date, with over 3 million people watching the world championships and over $17 million in prize money, coupled with hundreds of smaller tournaments.
Unfortunately, comparing FRC to video games isn't exactly the best choice. You can choose not to play a certain game, and go play another one instead. The same thing applies to sports. You don't like basketball? Well there's football and soccer and baseball etc. etc. You can't say, "Oh I don't like Aerial Assist so I'm going to play Rebound Rumble instead."
There just simply isn't a parallel here.
Andrew Schreiber
24-03-2014, 18:25
Hard and punishing games do not always create a toxic community. I'll point you towards Dark Souls 1 and 2, where the game is extremely punishing and exceptionally difficult, and still enjoyed by millions of fans.
One needs to look no farther then DOTA/LOL to see what happens with a hard game that has a high penalty for failure. LOL is the most successful esports game to date, with over 3 million people watching the world championships and over $17 million in prize money, coupled with hundreds of smaller tournaments.
Unfortunately, comparing FRC to video games isn't exactly the best choice. You can choose not to play a certain game, and go play another one instead. The same thing applies to sports. You don't like basketball? Well there's football and soccer and baseball etc. etc. You can't say, "Oh I don't like Aerial Assist so I'm going to play Rebound Rumble instead."
There just simply isn't a parallel here.
DS1 and DS2 are not really designed as a wide audience multiplayer game. They are good games but they aren't really designed to compete with your CoD/Battlefield/Halo/LOL type stuff which is designed as mass market distraction (Personal opinions about mass market games go here). See also Super Meat Boy (which is a great way of disposing of extra gamepads/monitors). I should have been more clear, hard/punishing games forcing players to work as teams were more what I was focusing on.
DOTA/LOL may be successful esports games because, when played well, they are phenomenal games. (There was a followup I was going to write about that topic). But they are not a good community.
Comparing FRC to video games is actually quite valid as they are both games designed to be played much the same as soccer/basketball (hockey is not a sport, it's a way of life thank you very much!). Many of the same tricks apply to FRC/FTC games as apply to any other multiplayer game designed for mass market. And, I CAN go play other games. If I don't like FRC I can go play Vex, or battlebots, or compete in the AVC, or IGVC, or any of a dozen other competitions for robots.
And for folks who think I'm being too harsh - There IS a followup to these posts talking about why 2014 is a good concept that does achieve a lot of FIRST's goals. I just need a little longer to think the topic through. I'm a firm believer in props where props are due.
And this is a good thing because? We usually build robots that are only a little bit above average, and I'd much rather see the best robots win than the average robots beat those that are fundamentally better. If they could, why would we bother trying to built the best bot we can?
Generally, powerhouse teams build the best robots every year. There are always exceptions of course, but I can tell you, atleast in Michigan, that 33, 67, 469, and the like will always build some of the best robots in the state. They generally win their districts and win states as well.
I for one would rather see an alliance of "average" robots beat an alliance of powerhouse teams. If the best robots won every event simply because they are built the best, then why do we have a competition? Why don't we just say "33, 67, and 469 built the best robots in Michigan this year, they win all the competitions there's no need to actually compete."
Upsets are some of the most exciting things in anything. Period. It doesn't matter whether its a video game, a professional sport, or an FRC competition. When the 4th alliance pulls out an excellent strategy and manages to defeat the double powerhouse teamed 1st alliance, everyone it up on their feet cheering.
If the best robots should win every year, what do you tell to a rookie team that built a defensive bot because that is only thing they have the knowledge to do? "I'm sorry, but there's absolutely no way for you to win the competition because there are better robots here so don't even bother trying."
So why should you even bother trying to build the best robot possible? Because it gives you the best chance to win a competition. It gives you the best chance to seed higher. And it gives your students something to be proud of. Because it's INSPIRING.
FRC isn't a beauty contest. It's a competition. You get awards for building the best mechanically sound robot. That's why we have judges and awards, to showcase the teams that build the best designed robots. The competition part is a culmination of good robots, strategy, and skill. The Winning alliance is the alliance that has the best combination of the 3, not just the first part.
Generally, powerhouse teams build the best robots every year. There are always exceptions of course, but I can tell you, atleast in Michigan, that 33, 67, 469, and the like will always build some of the best robots in the state. They generally win their districts and win states as well.
I for one would rather see an alliance of "average" robots beat an alliance of powerhouse teams. If the best robots won every event simply because they are built the best, then why do we have a competition? Why don't we just say "33, 67, and 469 built the best robots in Michigan this year, they win all the competitions there's no need to actually compete."
Upsets are some of the most exciting things in anything. Period. It doesn't matter whether its a video game, a professional sport, or an FRC competition. When the 4th alliance pulls out an excellent strategy and manages to defeat the double powerhouse teamed 1st alliance, everyone it up on their feet cheering.
If the best robots should win every year, what do you tell to a rookie team that built a defensive bot because that is only thing they have the knowledge to do? "I'm sorry, but there's absolutely no way for you to win the competition because there are better robots here so don't even bother trying."
So why should you even bother trying to build the best robot possible? Because it gives you the best chance to win a competition. It gives you the best chance to seed higher. And it gives your students something to be proud of. Because it's INSPIRING.
FRC isn't a beauty contest. It's a competition. You get awards for building the best mechanically sound robot. That's why we have judges and awards, to showcase the teams that build the best designed robots. The competition part is a culmination of good robots, strategy, and skill. The Winning alliance is the alliance that has the best combination of the 3, not just the first part.
I agree very much that a powerhouse alliance being taken down by some average robots with a killer strategy is a great and exciting thing, and is, IMO, the coolest part of the game. Having powerhouse robots kicked out because of stupid rules that make winning pure chance is bad. Personally, I'm not sure how I feel about some of the rules. Sometimes, I think that the GDC is right in what they've done, sometimes I feel they shouldn't have changed it, and other times I hate this game. Right now, I kind of like it :D
What isn't INSPIRING is when your students take extra care to make sure your robot will not break in regular match play, only to be later penalized because someone else didn't. You should build the best robot you possibly can, because it should give you the best chance at winning the competition. Upsets are great. I love them. I don't love them when its from a technicality of a poorly written rulebook. As a former mentor on 3929* whos alliance beat us on penalties in quarters, I had a student from 3929 apologize that they beat our alliance 'in such a troll game'. I don't blame them at all - they went on to do fantastic and win the event, and I am happy for them. I blame the laziness of the GDC in this game design.
*3929 wasn't even the robot involved in the incident
You have at least 2 matches to beat the opposing alliance during eliminations.If you lost because of fouls in both of them, then it is highly unlikely that both of them resulted from "stupid rules". If they did, and you incurred the same "stupid rule" twice, then the old saying "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me" applies.
I understand where you're coming from. I felt pretty angry myself after the Newton Finals in 2012. The difference is, your alliance had to do something to get a foul. You either hit someone a little too hard, or dropped your intake down at the wrong time, but you had control over the situation. Drive a bit slower, be more careful with your intake, spend more time training your human player. These are all things that you can do to make the second (or third) match more successful.
My main problem with the complaints about the penalties is there was something you could do to not incur the foul. You see someone coming at you fast with a non-robust robot? Back up. Chances are the 5 additional seconds it'll take you to pick up the ball aren't going to change the outcome of the match. If it costs you the match because you can't get a last second truss shot off, then it's worth the risk to stay and get hit. If there's still a minute left to go, why risk incurring a 50 point tech foul?
What happened in Newton Finals 2012, we had absolutely no control over, there was no way to do anything about it. What so ever. However, not a single 68 student came on to the forums to complain. Or a member of our alliance. And that was us losing to events outside of our control. You can see why I'm against all the posts complaining about things that were within a teams control.
George Nishimura
24-03-2014, 19:19
1) We can incentivize that path with things like points, power ups, or just cool visual experiences (Carrot)
2) We can penalize them (death, point loss, waves of enemies) for alternate paths. (Stick)
3) We can force them down that path by not allowing any other options. (Rails)
As you probably know though, any design has a combination of these three things. I cannot think of any game that does not have a 'rail' or 'stick' involved.
There will always be the possibility of actions that are:
a) malicious or dangerous
b) unfairly advantageous
Regardless of how many 'carrots' you provide. If we talk on a points per second ratio, and the assumption that point prevented = point scored, there will always be means of gaining points that are not within the original intention of the game.
This is why every rule set has foul/penalties.
I think Aerial Assist is intended to be a dynamic game, with both offense and defense, but the kind that requires good teamwork and organisation. Defensive strategies where one robot can prevent another team from scoring are the main causes for concern.
The fact that there is only one ball and that you rely on your partners is central to the game. Accepting that's not going to change, the rules now need to reflect the need to realize the original vision of a dynamic and co-operation oriented game.
So, the rules they have for achieving those goals:
Incentivize working together on offense/prevent an unbeatable lone wolf:
Carrot
- 30pt for triple assists (3 robots)
- 20pt truss & catch (2 robots)
- mobility bonus (per robot)
- Assist as second ranking
Rail:
- one ball at a time
- one truss per cycle
Incentivise working together on defence/prevent one robot from crippling an alliance:
Carrot:
- two "idle" robots
Stick:
- G12 (possession of an opposition ball)
- Goalie rules
- low goal rule
Protect robots/Prevent robot assassination
Carrot:
- Random qualification partnerships
- GP
Rail:
- Inspection
Stick:
- G27
- G28
- G14
Protect humans/prevent risking human safety
Stick:
- G40
I think the goal for safety-related rules should not be stick-oriented, but be rail-oriented. Reduce the possibility of people being hurt rather than de-incentivise. Otherwise, the general architecture of the game seems pretty balanced. I'm not clever enough personally to see possible improvements of 'stick to carrot'.
How sharp and jaggedy those sticks are is another question.
Then there is another set of possible actions that are not accounted for: inadvertent actions. Basically anything in the hole between what carrot/stick guide you toward, and the rail.
Any FRC rule set is vulnerable to these actions, especially the more interaction teams have with the opposition. How do you judicate for these actions (eg a robot damaging another robot, tipping, hitting the ball out of the field etc)?
pfreivald
24-03-2014, 20:40
Fun fact that most people don't know - My degree is Computer Science with a concentration in Game Design. So, the following is based primarily on that...
I'm not a computer game guy, but I've been paid in real life for design work on card, board, roleplaying, and tabletop miniatures wargames. I think the best parallel between any of these and FRC is the last one, because it's very open-ended in terms of strategy (including force selection) and tactics (in-game actions).
[As an aside, the absolute hardest part of wargame design is balance between forces; fortunately, FIRST doesn't worry about that overmuch beyond some power, money, and time restrictions--we don't have a point system for force-building to exploit.]
CLandrum3081
24-03-2014, 21:23
My opinion: Great game, poor execution. You know there are too many issues/rules for referees to pay attention to when a pedestal goes unlighted for twenty seconds (what happened to my team in quals). There are ~6 of them - if one of them doesn't notice no blue/red ball on the field for twenty seconds after a goal, something is wrong. And not with the referees. The referees have too many other, non-game-changing fouls to focus on to even bother with stuff that can actually change the outcome of a match, or safety issues.
My $0.02.
mutantlog
24-03-2014, 22:42
My opinion: Great game, poor execution. You know there are too many issues/rules for referees to pay attention to when a pedestal goes unlighted for twenty seconds (what happened to my team in quals). There are ~6 of them - if one of them doesn't notice no blue/red ball on the field for twenty seconds after a goal, something is wrong. And not with the referees. The referees have too many other, non-game-changing fouls to focus on to even bother with stuff that can actually change the outcome of a match, or safety issues.
My $0.02.
I hope I'm not speaking inappropriately by posting as a referee this past weekend, but while I've lurked around here in my past 9 years volunteering as a ref, this is the first time I've bothered registering to post. Of course my opinions are my own and not representative of anyone at my regional or my fellow referees, etc.
Without turning this into a laundry list of issues, I was surprised at the basic issues of referee location on this year's field. With regards to seeing whether the pedestal lit up, I found that standing by the tablet in front of the gates made it very challenging to see due to the angle and the number of drivers and coaches in between my position and the pedestal. I could step back and turn towards the pedestal, but that took me away from the scoring tablet and the action on the field.
If anyone knows of a proper channel to provide feedback to FIRST and the GDC as a referee, I'd be interested to hear it. I feel like a bit of an odd duck as my experience with FRC is limited to refereeing once a year and watching the occasional live stream on other weeks, and I won't be at St. Louis so I can't find someone there. For what it's worth, every prior year I finish the weekend with the intent to sign up in VIMS as soon as I remember it's open. This year is the first year where I'm more hesitant, and I expect that I'll read the 2015 game rules in detail before I agree to sign up.
R-Garst1625
24-03-2014, 22:55
Personally, I feel that the fouls are really inconsistent. I am a human player, and at the Wisconsin Regional I went to, almost every referee did not call the human player reaching fouls. They only started calling it the second day, and even then only one referee was calling it. Also, I don't like that there is only one ball, and only one robot can score at a time. I also don't like the scoring of the game, and having to keep track of all the points from scoring and assists.
If anyone knows of a proper channel to provide feedback to FIRST and the GDC as a referee, I'd be interested to hear it.I'd talk to your head ref. You could also reach out to your volunteer coordinator. You're not the first ref I've heard from whose in the hesitant-or-no for next year boat. I'll have reffed some 300 matches by the end of the season, and I don't yet know how I feel about that. I do know, though, that we're risking losing volunteers. I do like things about this game, but that's reason enough for me to dislike it.
As a coach, it's been frustrating. I'm glad the game has gotten better, but to me, Week 1 is as much a part of the game as Week 7. As some wise person said around here somewhere, it's like FIRST identified everything they've been historically bad at or that's caused major challenges, and made it absolutely critical to this year's game. Too much to watch for refs, too much inconsistency for teams, too many points of failure for everyone.
Without turning this into a laundry list of issues, I was surprised at the basic issues of referee location on this year's field. With regards to seeing whether the pedestal lit up, I found that standing by the tablet in front of the gates made it very challenging to see due to the angle and the number of drivers and coaches in between my position and the pedestal. I could step back and turn towards the pedestal, but that took me away from the scoring tablet and the action on the field.
Too bad there aren't LEDs on the inbound zones that are wired off the same circuits as their respective pedestals.
... Then again if you light the inbound zones, it would make much more sense to just make the rule say that you can't inbound a ball without the inbound zone being lit. Maybe add in something about the entire alliance being able to only inbound 1 ball per instance of their respective inbound zone lights turning on to aid in clearing up confusion, but otherwise you wouldn't really need the pedestal anymore.
Andrew Schreiber
24-03-2014, 23:03
I'm not a computer game guy, but I've been paid in real life for design work on card, board, roleplaying, and tabletop miniatures wargames. I think the best parallel between any of these and FRC is the last one, because it's very open-ended in terms of strategy (including force selection) and tactics (in-game actions).
[As an aside, the absolute hardest part of wargame design is balance between forces; fortunately, FIRST doesn't worry about that overmuch beyond some power, money, and time restrictions--we don't have a point system for force-building to exploit.]
TIL. (And really agree) Remind me at CMP to buy you a beer and pick your brain sometime.
connor.worley
24-03-2014, 23:18
This game had a lot of potential for strategic play, but penalties neutered it. I'd rather see more consistent rules that allow for harder defense, or see more balls introduced to the field at a time.
pfreivald
24-03-2014, 23:19
TIL. (And really agree) Remind me at CMP to buy you a beer and pick your brain sometime.
It's a date!
...well, if we win FLR, which looks like it's going to be a brutally hard thing to do, in all the right ways. :D
CLandrum3081
24-03-2014, 23:23
I hope I'm not speaking inappropriately by posting as a referee this past weekend, but while I've lurked around here in my past 9 years volunteering as a ref, this is the first time I've bothered registering to post. Of course my opinions are my own and not representative of anyone at my regional or my fellow referees, etc.
Without turning this into a laundry list of issues, I was surprised at the basic issues of referee location on this year's field. With regards to seeing whether the pedestal lit up, I found that standing by the tablet in front of the gates made it very challenging to see due to the angle and the number of drivers and coaches in between my position and the pedestal. I could step back and turn towards the pedestal, but that took me away from the scoring tablet and the action on the field.
If anyone knows of a proper channel to provide feedback to FIRST and the GDC as a referee, I'd be interested to hear it. I feel like a bit of an odd duck as my experience with FRC is limited to refereeing once a year and watching the occasional live stream on other weeks, and I won't be at St. Louis so I can't find someone there. For what it's worth, every prior year I finish the weekend with the intent to sign up in VIMS as soon as I remember it's open. This year is the first year where I'm more hesitant, and I expect that I'll read the 2015 game rules in detail before I agree to sign up.
I really appreciate your insight, and the insight of other referees. From what I can gather, it's never easy to be a referee, and this year is even worse. As a student who will be graduating, I look forward to volunteering - HOWEVER, games like this make me hesitant to ever volunteer for refereeing.
I probably should have clarified in my original post - we did take it to the question box, and the referees said none of them even noticed. Your insight does provide more inspiration as to why some balls take 10-30 seconds to get onto the field, though. I really feel for all of you.
As a student whose life has been changed directly by this organization (most of the life-changing events happening in competition), it truly saddens me that years like this discourage the volunteers that make the competitions happen. FIRST was ambitious with this game, and it was a wonderful concept. However, it saddens me that the poor execution and detail in the rules has prevented this game from reaching its potential - and is discouraging wonderful volunteers like you.
In other words, this could be a whole lot of :D but is really a whole lot of :(
Andrew Schreiber
24-03-2014, 23:25
Regardless of how many 'carrots' you provide. If we talk on a points per second ratio, and the assumption that point prevented = point scored, there will always be means of gaining points that are not within the original intention of the game.
Not remotely true - 2013 was often ineffective to the point of removing points from your score. Truth be told - that game was phenomenally designed. It was incentivized and scoring was easy. Furthermore the penalty for a miss was effectively 0 so there was no real downside to having teams try to score.
At higher levels some defense started to occur but, as evidenced by the world champs, the optimal alliance involved 3 robots running and gunning.
I might come back to your other points later but it's been a long night.
DampRobot
24-03-2014, 23:37
Not remotely true - 2013 was often ineffective to the point of removing points from your score. Truth be told - that game was phenomenally designed. It was incentivized and scoring was easy. Furthermore the penalty for a miss was effectively 0 so there was no real downside to having teams try to score.
Not quite true... Disc shortages did effect gameplay that year. We ran out in a few matches, partially because partners were missing. Of course, this was only very rarely a problem, and we never had to tell partners not to load discs to allow us to score them.
I totally agree that what made 2013 so awesome was in part that everyone was incentivized to score, even if they couldn't do it very well.
Tristan Lall
24-03-2014, 23:54
I don't think this is as impossible as you think it is. Actually running thousands of matches may be impossible but within a week I've often run simulations of thousands of matches (likely many more). That's me, with excel/R. Like seriously, it's not hard. Do I catch everything? Nah. But it woulda told me that 2011 the minibots were ridiculously over valued. (2012 was the first year I started doing real models and running a bunch of scenarios, they've gotten more complicated every year).
I'm not a computer game guy, but I've been paid in real life for design work on card, board, roleplaying, and tabletop miniatures wargames. I think the best parallel between any of these and FRC is the last one, because it's very open-ended in terms of strategy (including force selection) and tactics (in-game actions).
I've always had some nagging doubts about that comparison between FRC and other types of gaming, and a hypothesis to explain those doubts just occurred to me. In a tabletop game, while there might be a diversity of strategies, it's unlikely that those strategies are fundamentally dependent on the execution of a complex task whose successfulness is (as a practical matter) non-deterministic because of a combination of physical randomness (imprecision in control, variability in game pieces and field, etc.), human perception (of the drivers, officials, etc.) and tournament sorting (essentially random in qualifying, but without enough iterations to represent all permutations). The tabletop game is essentially a very complicated set of strategic possibilities with well-defined randomness. An FRC game (or any physical sport) is only reducible to a set of strategies if you also have a way of reliably modeling the effectiveness of strategic execution in an unpredictably random environment. Computer games probably fall somewhere in between, depending on the nature of the simulation.
If those unpredictably random factors are major contributors to the outcome of an FRC tournament (as I suspect is the case), then designing the game on the basis of the straightforwardly predictable components may be insufficient. That's not to say that I disagree with the idea of a using a statistical model of an FRC game for game design purposes, just that for it to have validity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity_(statistics)), we need to be clear about the limitations of the model.
Better experimental methods might go a long way toward eliminating those limitations, but the feasibility of some possible approaches is rather questionable. For example, we could gather input and output data for robot mechanisms (of the type used in closed-loop feedback control) to get a sense of the ability of robots to physically execute tasks (confounded by operator ability, of course). Or we could record everything spoken in the question box, and code (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coding_(social_sciences)) it for rule compliance (subject, of course, to the existence of a canonical interpretation) to assess the quality of officiation and the likelihood of teams obeying the rules.
At the cost of analytical rigour, it's probably reasonably practical for the GDC to get much of the benefit of those formal methods by soliciting the input of people who are intimately familiar with those factors across a spectrum of FRC events and similar competitions, and asking for quantitative estimates of the distribution of variance. If the GDC isn't already doing this, maybe a good first step would be to try it for a selection of past games (for which the outcomes are known), to see if it can improve the predictive power of the models.
donkehote
25-03-2014, 03:56
I hope I'm not speaking inappropriately by posting as a referee this past weekend, but while I've lurked around here in my past 9 years volunteering as a ref, this is the first time I've bothered registering to post. Of course my opinions are my own and not representative of anyone at my regional or my fellow referees, etc.
Without turning this into a laundry list of issues, I was surprised at the basic issues of referee location on this year's field. With regards to seeing whether the pedestal lit up, I found that standing by the tablet in front of the gates made it very challenging to see due to the angle and the number of drivers and coaches in between my position and the pedestal. I could step back and turn towards the pedestal, but that took me away from the scoring tablet and the action on the field.
If anyone knows of a proper channel to provide feedback to FIRST and the GDC as a referee, I'd be interested to hear it. I feel like a bit of an odd duck as my experience with FRC is limited to refereeing once a year and watching the occasional live stream on other weeks, and I won't be at St. Louis so I can't find someone there. For what it's worth, every prior year I finish the weekend with the intent to sign up in VIMS as soon as I remember it's open. This year is the first year where I'm more hesitant, and I expect that I'll read the 2015 game rules in detail before I agree to sign up.
While I haven't been reffing as long as Ryan has, I was at Waterloo, GTR West, and I will be reffing at champs.
Seeing the pedestals is nearly impossible from the tablet locations near the field gates. The only way I could tell that a pedestal was unlit was when I was tracking that color ball on assists, and noticed that no human player was inbounding after a completed cycle, or when a team began yelling about an unlit pedestal.
Another issue noticed is that depending on the Head ref, the truss lines up exactly at eye level, obstructing the view of dead ball cards for one alliance by the head ref. This meant referees on the other side of the truss had to radio in dead ball cards. Not significant, but with the band aid that the dead ball card is, I dont think the GDC thought about this.
Several penalties are very difficult to enforce correctly.
G40 requires the ref to almost put they're head into the safety zone to see correctly. I don't know about you, but a head in the safety zone seems more dangerous than a human players hand. I understand the rule, but unless its blatant, its very hard to call now. I actually preferred it week 1, much less ambiguous.
G27 needs more defining. What is high speed? What is aggressive ramming? How does any defensive strategy, no matter how gentle not inhibit the other robot? Unless its more defined, the penalties wont be called consistently. The head ref sets the benchmark for each competition, but what ensures the rule is equally applied everywhere? A more thorough definition of these terms would make it a lot more enforceable, and also keep things fair for everyone.
G24 needs a damage clause. If a robot suffers damage causing G24 to be violated, but remain inconsequential to the match, I dont think the penalty should be applied. As the rule is currently written, this is not the case.
I understand that the GDC is unable to predict every twist or turn the season may bring, but having somewhere for Referees to submit feedback would benefit everyone, and lead to a balanced game much more quickly. I was surprised that there was no way to do this besides making suggestions to the head ref.
Tracking very fast paced teams is difficult, especially when there are a few powerhouses on one alliance milking assist points. With the slight delay on the tablets, keeping up with these teams meant that it was very difficult to watch for anything else besides possessions.
The rule change on a Thursday made things difficult as well. At Waterloo, one team played perfectly legal defense on Thursday, and ended up taking huge penalties on Friday for the exact same defense. If the GDC had wanted to stop high speed collisions, why not wait til the following Tuesday.
As a coach, the new rule changes frustrate me, but I can understand where they came from. As a mentor, I feel that anyone who had played a game made by the GDC would have noticed several things before the game was released. I cant blame them for not noticing, and the fact they are doing their best to fix it is evident, I just wish it had been done while teams could still redesign their robots.
Overall I like this game, but as others have stated, its execution is poor, and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I will volunteer to ref again, as its a lot of fun, gives a different perspective on the game, and I think whatever they throw at us next year will be a lot easier to ref than this.
PS: Woah, that turned into a wall of text really fast.
Travis Hoffman
25-03-2014, 04:32
I love this game on the game side but the fouls and inconsistent reffing are driving me crazy. The "new Thursday rules" were reffed seemingly completely opposite on Friday and Saturday at the Wisconsin regional from my estimation, giving teams an incorrect idea of how they would be called in eliminations.
The game *could* be fun...if the people responsible for game management were all...
1. consistent
2. competently aware of the rules
3. attentive
4. in possession of sufficient visual acuity to discern things that are happening directly in front of them
In other words, Canadian.
And can we PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE aggressively signal pinning counts (provided you even bother to start counting) like they do in Canada?
In all seriousness, it seems Canadian referee crews are generally praised for their performance. Can anyone corroborate this? If true, I openly wonder what their methods of recruiting, training, and preparation are, and I would like to question why the practices of better-performing crews aren't propagated/mandated by the governing body to other regions where refereeing is less well-regarded.
Here's a thought for HQ - spend some of that stockpiled cash you're sitting on on incentive bonuses for events who grade highly in event quality on post-event feedback surveys distributed to teams. Give RD's and VC's more of an incentive to place resources in the area of quality volunteer recruitment (and then train those individuals using better materials and methods than you currently supply (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1360870&postcount=50)). Also, if event performance is truly horrible, such team surveys would QUICKLY identify events where intervention is warranted (instead of watching the alternative happen - letting years of team abuse at the hands of a certain out of control head ref at a certain regional go by before a very public CD thread finally forced action....)
Even if everything is called straight up legit to the letter of the rules, certain foul situations built into this game can still put a sour taste in the mouth of teams, as Waterloo evidenced.
As far as I could tell, the "Thursday rules" had zero effect in Wisconsin, mainly because I felt an "anything goes" style of gameplay was permitted, especially on Saturday morning.
Refs are supposed to be the "police" of this game. Be overt and passionate in your actions in signaling teams that they are doing wrong. RUTHLESSLY PUNISH THE INEPT AND RECKLESS. Rain down swift justice upon the idiots such that those who actually, you know, "read the manual", can have a chance of success instead of being gutted by frame incursion damage in 3 straight Saturday matches with zero penalties called.
I will say that Week 4 pedestal lighting at Wisconsin seemed very good. So we finally learned how to deal with that major clusterfluge, not that that is any consolation to the teams who played in the earlier weeks. Now let's focus on punishing the guilty and reckless and giving the innocent the freedom to play this game the way it was meant to be played.
Week 4 rant....finis. Let's see what happens Week 5....
George Nishimura
25-03-2014, 08:46
Not remotely true - 2013 was often ineffective to the point of removing points from your score. Truth be told - that game was phenomenally designed. It was incentivized and scoring was easy. Furthermore the penalty for a miss was effectively 0 so there was no real downside to having teams try to score.
At higher levels some defense started to occur but, as evidenced by the world champs, the optimal alliance involved 3 robots running and gunning.
I think that's only really a third of the story.
Scoring frisbees was incentivized well, I agree, but that's also because it de-incentivized the other 2/3 of the game:
a) 2/3 level climbing was severely under-rewarded
b) defense was difficult/heavily penalized (namely through safe zones)
Essentially 2013 became about how quickly and consistently you could score frisbees in the high goal, which is a perfectly valid game. Straight shoot-outs were high-scoring, easy to understand for an observer and easy to referee (see FLL).
I can understand people describing 2013 as 'the best game ever'. It had few issues/controversies. It gave every robot an opportunity to show off. Better robots won out. For the most part, a single match was entertaining to watch. Every game should have these qualities.
But the depth of gameplay was quite shallow. The rules reduced 90% of robots to play one strategy: cycle + 10pt hang.
Aerial Assist is a lot braver. It wants to be dynamic and versatile. It wants more teams to think, talk and coordinate before and during a match (at least more than picking which feeder station to use). It wants to be more like a real team sport. Most teams sports have only one game-piece in play at a time as they cater for both defense and offense. That's what I believe Aerial Assist is trying to do.
There are two veins of criticism: criticism of the intent and criticism of the execution. Ultimate Ascent was executed very well, partially because the intent was simpler to execute. But as a fan of team sports, I personally welcome the direction the GDC are trying to take.
eddie12390
25-03-2014, 09:08
And can we PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE aggressively signal pinning counts (provided you even bother to start counting) like they do in Canada?
At least at Buckeye, the refereeing was extremely good in this sense. The referees were very clear when a pinning count was starting and what the current count was and they also showed when the pinning had ended with an easily visible sweep of their arms.
pfreivald
25-03-2014, 09:14
At least at Buckeye, the refereeing was extremely good in this sense. The referees were very clear when a pinning count was starting and what the current count was and they also showed when the pinning had ended with an easily visible sweep of their arms.
Same at Tech Valley--it was very, very obvious when a pin count was ongoing, and when it had been called off.
I don't think they were being called off correctly--six feet for three seconds--but it was at least clear.
RallyJeff
25-03-2014, 09:56
(My personal grievance is that the human player zones have a back line - ie they are too small).
Keep in mind that G39 this year takes a different approach from the "stepping out of bounds" rules of past years.
In previous seasons, teams weren't allowed to touch the floor outside their alliance station. This year, the foul is for losing contact with your alliance station/HP area.
This means that if you feel you need to be further away from the guard rail or safety zone to avoid G40 tech fouls, you can put your back foot outside the HP area legally. Just be careful to maintain contact with the HP area with your front foot.
Citrus Dad
25-03-2014, 12:27
For one thing, if you have an alliance partner that is incapable of possessing a ball, is dead on the field, or does not show up for a match you are then at a huge disadvantage because you cannot get three assists and those 10 extra points per cycle that the opposing alliance might be able to get, AND it makes it easier for the opposing alliance to play defense on yours if you only have two scoring robots, because they'll have to exchange the ball somewhere.
The penalty for not having a third robot is 20 points--that third assist, so the margin is actually doubled...
I for one do NOT hate this years game. In fact I love it. Every year the game is a compromise in some ways with both pros and cons. This year there seems to have more potential for inconsistent application of fouls, and potential pedestal delays and other frustrations on the field. I am sure that some of the issues with this years game are particularly concerning to some of the most elite teams who plan carefully, and depend on consistency. However, this years game also seems to offer a lot to offset some of those shortcomings. Here is why I particularly like this years game.
1. It is very exciting to watch. With high point swings, and large easy to follow game pieces, there have been some really thrilling games to watch.
2. The game is at least playable by a team with limited funding. This year it is much easier for small or disadvantaged teams to at least "show up" for the game, and compete at a modestly competitive level.
3. Cooperation is rewarded much more this year, and I have seen many more examples of cooperation on the field this year than on most other recent years.
4. Autonomous mode scoring is more obtainable this year, and I have seen a higher percentage of robots perform at least basic autonomous scoring this year.
These are just opinions. I do not have data to support any of this, but that was my impression of game so far.
Citrus Dad
25-03-2014, 12:55
So, what can be done to continue growing STEM better through FIRST?
Engage the 50,000 smart people in participating the evolution of a game in structured way. Leverage the competition experience of teams like 254, 469, 33, etc; the less experienced teams; and the rookies and pre-rookies too.
Turn the problem on its head.
Don't fix this game (yes, you heard that from me here... :-) )
Invest our time in enhancing the process of conceiving, designing, testing and deploying the game. Transparency will lead to understanding, engagement will lead to acceptance; and openness will lead to willingness to forget about the imperfect aspects of the system.
I agree with this sentiment. Other than the disproportionate foul points, I think this game gets an important aspect that can enhance the FIRST experience across all teams. It requires cooperation across the entire alliance to succeed. Unfortunately the competition has been dominated by power teams, even to the extent that there's a thread about the "ethics of saying 'no'". This game gets all of the teams back into the action. I think that the game could be better designed, and even Ultimate Ascent could have given even more incentives to alliance play (e.g., more points for FCS and rebound collected shots, and more allowance for blocking FCS to require counterdefense.) But that shouldn't take away from the aim of the GDC.
That said, the lack of design and build experience by the newer teams is highlighted in this game. A disabled or unavailable robot creates a 20 point per cycle penalty. That's unfair to the other two alliance members who have absolutely NO control over that aspect--it's even worse than a 50 point technical. FIRST made that worse this year by pursuing a strong team recruitment effort, particularly in California and Michigan (which I applaud hugely!) The result is even MORE inexperienced teams. From my analysis of the OPRs, it appears that the spread between teams has increased this year compared to 2013 and 2013 (which had very similar year to year spreads).
The answer is requires a thred-fold strategy (which we plan to implement the our part locally here in the Sacramento Valley).
1) FIRST needs to announce in September, long before Kickoff, that it is planning a game that requires robot interaction with bonus points. This gives all teams a signal that they must rely on their alliance members much more than in the past. The GDC need not reveal anything more so teams are not going to get a jump on design.
2) FIRST needs to provide a list of newest teams (including prospects) to other teams in the region so that the older teams know who they need to contact for step 3). FIRST should try to finalize this list by the end of November.
3) The more experienced teams should start in September to visit the newest teams, both this year's and last year's rookies to start, to explain how they design for different game strategies, including focusing on specific, manageable tasks at the outset, and to train these teams in building robust, reliable robots. And guess what? This program both enhances the FIRST experience AND achieves some of the most important educational objectives of FIRST. It also builds community by bringing together the best teams (which aren't always viewed in the best light) with the newest teams.
FIRST could take this a step further by assigning the top teams a number of new teams to mentor, e.g., 3-5, and start the assignments based on world ranked order. Participating could become a requirement for FIRST membership. Many top teams do this, but it would formalize the process and ease finding the newest teams. FIRST could even create the ability to have "superalliances" that some how play into regional rankings and world championships qualifications.
Citrus Dad
25-03-2014, 13:03
As far as a ball landing in an opponents robot, the rules are very clear about that and even give a warning that you should design your bot so it can not end up with a ball it did not intend to get.
You can't design for BOTH avoiding inadvertant capture AND truss catching. Even our robot with dual sided intakes that can catch a ball cannot not 100% guarantee avoiding a well placed bounce or rebound. We haven't incurred it, but this one rule could be a hazard for teams trying to play what is supposed to be the highlight reel moment of the game.
Citrus Dad
25-03-2014, 13:41
At higher levels some defense started to occur but, as evidenced by the world champs, the optimal alliance involved 3 robots running and gunning.
Based on our experience in 2013, the optimal alliance was an FCS with a counterdefense robot and a ground pickup for rebounds. Watch SF 1-1 on Einstein to see that in action. Our robot went dead in SF 1-2 (our fault) so it's hard to prove that point, however this required TEAM strategy, not individual robot performance.
Kevin Sevcik
25-03-2014, 15:17
But the depth of gameplay was quite shallow. The rules reduced 90% of robots to play one strategy: cycle + 10pt hang.
Aerial Assist is a lot braver. It wants to be dynamic and versatile. It wants more teams to think, talk and coordinate before and during a match (at least more than picking which feeder station to use). It wants to be more like a real team sport. Most teams sports have only one game-piece in play at a time as they cater for both defense and offense. That's what I believe Aerial Assist is trying to do.I'm reminded of a quote from "The Next Iron Chef": "If a dish is creative, but a failure, is it creative, or is it a failure?"
While there's something to be said for a brave, challenging game design with complex strategies that really makes teams think, there's also something to be said for a more straightforward game that lets teams succeed and have fun without throwing up a ton of arbitrary obstacles and gotchas. 2001's 4-v-0 game was probably one of the most out there game designs in FRC history, and it was pretty frustrating and not incredibly fun to watch, especially in the finals.
Also, I feel it necessary to point out that team sports have had decades to work out rules that allow for an even balance of offense and defense with a single scoring object. Heck, it took professional basketball 8 years to come up with the shot clock to make sure games kept moving. With a new game design every year, the GDC doesn't have a lot of time to tweak and twiddle to balance the game. Teams are happiest when they get it right out of the gate and don't have to make large rule changes in the middle of the competition season. I'm pretty sure simpler, less strategically complex games vastly simplify the balancing process and increase the likelihood of getting it right to start with.
Kevin Leonard
25-03-2014, 15:37
But the depth of gameplay was quite shallow. The rules reduced 90% of robots to play one strategy: cycle + 10pt hang.
Aerial Assist is a lot braver. It wants to be dynamic and versatile. It wants more teams to think, talk and coordinate before and during a match (at least more than picking which feeder station to use). It wants to be more like a real team sport. Most teams sports have only one game-piece in play at a time as they cater for both defense and offense. That's what I believe Aerial Assist is trying to do.
There are two veins of criticism: criticism of the intent and criticism of the execution. Ultimate Ascent was executed very well, partially because the intent was simpler to execute. But as a fan of team sports, I personally welcome the direction the GDC are trying to take.
But what Ultimate Ascent did well, that I don't believe Aerial Assist is doing well, is incentivize teams for creative engineering.
In UA, teams who built a floor pickup machine or a climber were rewarded with different ways to play teleop, and more auto/climb points. These were difficult tasks to accomplish. Teams were rewarded for figuring out how to full-court shoot, and that it was even a valid strategy!
Aerial assist tries to reward strategy and different robot designs, except it fails. It wants robots to be specialized in catching, trussing, and high goal shooting, but since all three tasks can be performed by one robot, it fails to do so.
Additionally, in Ultimate Ascent, all three teams could try to score simultaneously, which decreased the effectiveness of defense and the prevalence of defense greatly (except on full-court shooters). Ultimate Ascent also had passing between robots, where full-court shooters would pass to floor-pickup machines, but it wasn't forced by game design that those frisbees were worth more points- it just happened organically.
And so in some ways, in terms of general game design, I love this game, in other ways I'm quite disappointed.
Aerial Assist is like eating salad after your ice cream. The Ultimate Ascent flavored ice cream was delicious, what's next? A salad?!?! Awwww...
(salads are good but not in comparison to ice cream. Duh :) )
It's almost like the GDC should have put the truss on the floor as a barrier to get over. Less high speed, full field charging by robots, and different (maybe more interesting) gameplay. See 2012, just more of a challenge to cross the field.
Citrus Dad
28-03-2014, 13:18
It's almost like the GDC should have put the truss on the floor as a barrier to get over. Less high speed, full field charging by robots, and different (maybe more interesting) gameplay. See 2012, just more of a challenge to cross the field.
The last two comments make me wonder if the truss should have been replaced with a tunnel down low or a maze up high. Both would have been different tasks that high goal shooting.
I don't hate the game, but I agree it's severely lacking relative to other experiences. My experience was as a student from 99-01 and then a mentor in 2013 and this year, so I wouldn't say I have enough knowledge to declare any particular year the "best" game. That said I feel like this year's system is flawed in a few ways.
There are positives about this game. For starters it's exciting to watch as a spectator. Having a single game piece for either team makes it easier to follow the action and get excited on a score. The presence of strategy is also big; a team that can't necessarily score well but is good on defense with a powerful drive train can still contribute. This opens up the game to weaker teams, which I think is important. The team I mentor is not well funded or equipped so it's nice to have a chance to compete.
That said there are obvious negatives as well. The foul situation is an obvious one. Rules are intended to shape behavior, penalty-based rules especially so, and good rules have three aspects. They're easy to understand, they're easy to enforce, and the consequence of the rule is equivalent to the importance of the action. An example of a good rule (from a behavior standpoint) is the rule that a ball is scored when it passes through a goal. It's easy to understand, it's easy to enforce (ball enters the goal, points are scored), and the consequence (in this case the points) reflects the importance of the action.
Many of the fouls, especially technical fouls, are in my opinion poorly designed from a rules perspective. Several rules are hard to understand, as evidenced by the sheer amount of debate going on here as well as by the judges. Enforcement of those rules is also difficult and is heavily dependent on the interpretation of the referee. And finally the consequences are, in my opinion, way out of line relative to the importance of the action. Scores over 200 points are exceedingly rare, yet a technical foul is worth 50 points. That's a massive penalty.
Tmeziere
29-03-2014, 12:25
Compared to other years the field setup is somewhat boring. No obstacles and also no end game. I think is just because this year is so much different people are having trouble getting used to it. I personally like this game but see a few flaws in it also.
nuclearnerd
29-03-2014, 13:45
Having a single game piece for either team makes it easier to follow the action and get excited on a score. The presence of strategy is also big; a team that can't necessarily score well but is good on defense with a powerful drive train can still contribute. This opens up the game to weaker teams, which I think is important. The team I mentor is not well funded or equipped so it's nice to have a chance to compete.
That said there are obvious negatives as well. The foul situation is an obvious one. Rules are intended to shape behavior, penalty-based rules especially so, and good rules have three aspects. They're easy to understand, they're easy to enforce, and the consequence of the rule is equivalent to the importance of the action..
Well said. I support the idea of fewer game pieces and more defense for the reasons you list (more exciting game, better use of weaker teams), but we need to overhaul the foul rules so that playing defense in future games isn't a GIANT MINEFIELD of devastating and yet hard to predict foul penalties!
221Sarahborg
29-03-2014, 18:34
I haven't gotten to reading other opinions of the game, but some of the points that the original post I agree with and others I don't.
Saying the game is worse than the 2003 game, I just watched the video for the game, Stack Attack, which seems bad in it's own ways. This game has it's own issues, I can easily complain about with how big the defense seems to be in my own opinion. I could easily go on about the pros and cons at this game, compared to my interest in last year's.
With fouls being the contenders, I can agree that there are matches that have seen that just because of a single human player error an alliance has last the match, I have been on both sides of those matches. There's been matches where I've seen over 100 foul points have been added to matches and have made drastic changes to outcomes of matches and rankings.
I agree to the original post when it says that that's a part of having a good outcome is to input your alliance members that might be new or having a rough year to their best abilities and to use them to your advantage as defense or this year even as a robot that is for intake and the first assist. That's the big part of having Assisting as a large part of your alliance in winning with assists helping your score (and your ranking).
This game certainly has a lot of ups and downs with how it was played and scored, my personal opinion is that it could be better and the way the single game piece and fouls we used made it not as enjoyable as I think it could have been, and the rules for certain parts of competition could be improved as always I could see improvements in the ways things work in FIRST. Sadly my team's competition time in Aerial Assist is done until our off-season next school year.
Kingland093
29-03-2014, 19:17
I'm not a big fan of this game for a few reasons.
My team was in a very weak regional and in almost every single qualifying match, we were stuck with really bad robots. As a result, we went 1-9 and were ranked 62nd out of 63. It was really frustrating because every round, someone's shooter broke, or the refs didn't notice that we were calling a dead ball for 30 seconds or one of our partners got a foul. Our robot was running great and was pretty decent.
Basically what I'm saying is that since so much emphasis is placed on your alliance, a decent robot in a field of bad ones won't do well and won't get the attention of any scouts of the good teams
(apologies if I sound like a sore loser and/or really ranty)
However, this makes elims really awesome to watch!!!
Anupam Goli
29-03-2014, 20:34
After Palmetto, my opinion of the game wasn't great, but I wasn't complaining too much yet. Now that Peachtree has passed, my patience with this game and the way its officiated is completely gone. Giving the refs so much to do, leaving the gray area for G27 calls, pedestal issues, and the fact that possession of a ball is still a gray area absolutely killed our shot to be in a picking position for alliance selection. (Ask 2415 about inconsistent rulings between regionals, they'd love to tell you about it). One of the finals matches in eliminations had to be stopped and redone due to a pedestal issue, and teams were cheated out of potential assist and teleop points in some quals matches due to 20+ second pedestal delays. I'm almost glad our season's over, so we don't have to deal with the headache that is Aerial Assist anymore.
The game concept? Great.
Most elimination rounds? Pretty darn exciting.
The implementation? Horrible.
There is no consistency between events and matches. On webcasts, I keep hearing the words "technical foul assessed for entering the frame perimeter of a robot". What rule is that? Honestly, when a technical foul is called, a rule should really be cited.
Also, really subjective words, like "trapping" your opponents ball, "aggressive", "deliberate" (if I don't like you, your robot always "deliberately" did it...) and "high-speed" "ramming" are interpreted differently by everybody. At this point, there is literally no excuse for pedestal delays. It's been 5 weeks since the first issue was reported, and the technology to turn on a light at a certain time should not be too advanced for FIRST. It's a robotics competition. If this huge organization can't figure it out, I'm sure some members of the FIRST community could find a clever solution to turn on the pedestal light, like a light switch :rolleyes:
At this point FIRST should also just give up with the assist lights. I'm not sure what they really do, other than stress out the drivers. The assist dots on the webcast change a good 15 seconds before the lights update.
cadandcookies
29-03-2014, 22:01
I actually like this game.
It's unfortunate that the many good ideas have been poisoned by an ambiguous and ill-defined rule set and a lack of enough referees at events.
Frankly I'm surprised that there haven't been more complaints at competitions. It's one thing for us teams who are familiar with the rules and can understand why fouls are given to see a match decided by foul points, but it's another for parents or passer-byes who see a clean looking match swing another way because of heavy foul points. I can't count the number of questions I got on the rules this weekend from not only spectators, but also teams who were wondering why exactly they were disabled before the match started (and I'm not even a volunteer! Just a guy in a hat!).
Frankly, I'm exceedingly impressed at the volunteers and how hard they're trying in spite of the rules. Both of the events I went to were exceedingly well run (despite some misunderstandings), despite all of the inherent difficulties and high tension at the events.
All in all, I think it's been significantly better this year than it would have been if this game was played in my first year of FRC, 2011. Looking forward to seeing what next year's game brings.
BlondOfBlood
29-03-2014, 22:28
I do like the game this year a lot. It requires you to pay more attention to notice some of the scoring stuff, and it is great that it forces teams together. It's also nice becuase (presuming that every robot can move) every robot should be able have a role as defense.
The main problem with the fields is that they are inconsistent, and with the live time scoring it is difficult to change what may have been incorrectly selected. That said, fouls are a part of every game, and while when your team loses from them its not fun, they aren't new and some regulations if this sort is necessary.
scooty199
30-03-2014, 00:10
So my views on this game swing a lot.
At the time of unveiling, I was wary on this game. I thought more on it for about 2 days and then thought "This is actually cool and could be very fun".
I liked it even more and thought, this could be one of the deepest game strategy wise for FIRST. I really liked it and thought it could be played great. The assists aspect and the idea of teamwork looked really cool. I thought of things like different offensive styles and defensive styles, like a real sport. Loved the attempt FIRST made.
Come week 1, I saw the constant ramming and carnage and inconsistent reffing that occurred and the ridiculous amount of fouls. I ended up disliking that it marred the game so much.
Each week I grew more discouraged with gameplay. A lot of matches just weren't good at all, they were a pain to watch. A lot of the robots just also weren't that effective at playing the game, except for collisions. And the inconsistent officiating, which I believe is a result of both the game design and in my opinion understaffed events lessened the experience.
When the game is played like it's supposed to - It's a great game, looks awesome and it's exciting. That's not the norm however. The game is dreadful to watch otherwise. Some of the matches at the DC regional were just not fun to watch.
I believe someone mentioned this before, but the GDC attempted to do in a small amount of time what many sports have had for years. In months the GDC has to create a game and complex set of rules that are able to be justly and correctly enforced. It's definitely a nuanced thing, because sport rules are complex and backed by years of study and observation. FIRST GDC doesn't have that. I do love the attempt made by them and I think they can make the adjustments for Championships.
221Sarahborg
30-03-2014, 00:25
I'm not a big fan of this game for a few reasons.
My team was in a very weak regional and in almost every single qualifying match, we were stuck with really bad robots. As a result, we went 1-9 and were ranked 62nd out of 63. It was really frustrating because every round, someone's shooter broke, or the refs didn't notice that we were calling a dead ball for 30 seconds or one of our partners got a foul. Our robot was running great and was pretty decent.
Basically what I'm saying is that since so much emphasis is placed on your alliance, a decent robot in a field of bad ones won't do well and won't get the attention of any scouts of the good teams
My team went to a poor regional as well where there were a lot of rookies and newer teams in the area so bad alliances was common, and the first seed was the powerhouse seed and of course won. By the time they got to us at 6th seed there wasn't the best selection of teams there (yet I still blame the co-captain for not picking 1939 ((and again with our driver at the next regional))). Our only reasons for losing matches was because the other teams didn't listen to us and there was a lack of communication and strategy, or they were a very new team that wasn't working too well. We had problems with the deadball card, half because the team with the ball stuck in their robot refused to hold up their card and weren't able to find it to hold up, when we should have probably put ours own up and slammed the glass as hard as we could.
I agree that the good robots on alliances of not as good ones can really harm your ranks, especially when they don't seem to listen to the plans to work better. The matches we lost were because of miscommunication and not as good teams, not because of breaking down. If a team has good scouting like they should, they won't focus all that much on the results of an alliance as much as they need to on the robot's individual performance, if it's shooting well, if it can catch, how quick its' intake and outtake is, how good it's assists are and how often, not so much on how they're working with say the teams that are having low performance.
Also the elims are really interesting, but in my personal experiences it would be better to watch the same power house teams go up in the finals over and over and over and over every single regional, and they're extremely brutal. I watched a certain team completely and repeatedly ram into another robot to hit off another's pickup mechanism as seen in a match screenshot here (http://oi60.tinypic.com/o55my0.jpg) from when they were evaluating the damage for the score.
Oscar, I agree with many of your points. GDC is making a game more like a traditional sport: simple and deep. A lot of the problems relate to that attempt being within the one year turnover time period instead of fifty years of development and nuance.
In light of that, it might help to view many of the qual matches as developmental league- level play. Coaching peewee soccer for a number of years, I saw a lot of weird things that were perfectly fine for the age group. No offense intended to any team, but FRC is a mix of pros, up-and-comers and perpetual rookies (in the sport sense and in the amount of student and knowledge turnover). Boring (to watch) play comes with the territory; some of us are in peewee league, and are experiencing the game for the first time when we play match #8 on Friday.
It might also help to remember that qual play has always been spotty, every year.
pfreivald
30-03-2014, 11:43
A lot of matches just weren't good at all, they were a pain to watch. A lot of the robots just also weren't that effective at playing the game, except for collisions.
Has there ever been a year where that's not the case? In my experience, the bottom half or so of any given Regional in any given year can't accomplish any game objectives except (probably) driving around.
Nyxyxylyth
30-03-2014, 11:51
The rules are too subjective - unless DC bots are really that much meaner than St. Joseph bots.
St. Joseph 19 technical fouls
Livonia 28 technical fouls
New York 41 technical fouls
Waterford 53 technical fouls
DC 58 technical fouls
At this point I would have to say Aerial Assist is a pretty bad game at the regional level for the reasons that have already been stated in this thread.
However, I think it might get better at State Championships and Worlds. The most exciting matches of Aerial Assist I've seen are ones where the ref crew stands back only calls blatant rules violations. I understand this can't happen often at the regional and district levels because many bots can't handle that style of game play without falling apart. In divisional eliminations and above, hopefully the more passive style of refereeing will become more common.
Also, the FMS still has some issues, like once in a great while the whole field will lose connection. That could definitely put a damper on Einstein if it were to continue.
scooty199
30-03-2014, 12:45
Has there ever been a year where that's not the case? In my experience, the bottom half or so of any given Regional in any given year can't accomplish any game objectives except (probably) driving around.
That's a fair point. It seems even worse than particular this year. This is also a game that at the regional and district level, relies heavily on the floor in terms of robot ability. The floor sadly is a bit low in some places.
And no DC bots aren't that much meaner, it's what do you do when your robot is limited in capabilities? Play *defense*.
There also should have been more tech fouls than were called at the DC regional, but I believe that the volunteers there did a great job. I still have an issue with the pedestal and the inconsistency behind it. Cycles and runs have been affected severely because of it.
I do trust that by championships we will see a much better game overall. There have been a lot of improvements from the slugfest that was week 1.
Richard Wallace
30-03-2014, 12:49
The rules are too subjective - unless DC bots are really that much meaner than St. Joseph bots.
The most exciting matches of Aerial Assist I've seen are ones where the ref crew stands back only calls blatant rules violations.
... hopefully the more passive style of refereeing will become more common.
St. Joseph bots looked pretty mean to me, and I was watching from a very close vantage point while wearing stripes.* I saw a lot of very hard hits, and called very few technical fouls.
The results (see two posts above) speak for themselves -- good hard defense was not inhibited, and solidly built robots were rewarded by this style of officiating.
---------
*This was my first time refereeing. As a good volunteer should, I was following the direction set by our Head Ref.
sdcantrell56
30-03-2014, 12:50
However, I think it might get better at State Championships and Worlds. The most exciting matches of Aerial Assist I've seen are ones where the ref crew stands back only calls blatant rules violations. I understand this can't happen often at the regional and district levels because many bots can't handle that style of game play without falling apart. In divisional eliminations and above, hopefully the more passive style of refereeing will become more common.
This has to be one of the most frustrating aspects this year. The stronger competitions with better teams do not have the same picky over zealous technical foul calls whereas the weaker regionals are calling fouls non stop. Its unfortunate when teams don't build a machine that can handle rough contact but that is not a reason to call penalties at a higher rate, yet that is what is occurring this year with the incredibly subjective rules.
Additionally it is truly disheartening that teams pay so much money to compete and then FIRST won't even spend the money on proper electronics to ensure matches run without communication issues or pedestal delays. Its not that hard to light up a trashcan immediately
Arefin Bari
30-03-2014, 13:03
After Palmetto, my opinion of the game wasn't great, but I wasn't complaining too much yet. Now that Peachtree has passed, my patience with this game and the way its officiated is completely gone. Giving the refs so much to do, leaving the gray area for G27 calls, pedestal issues, and the fact that possession of a ball is still a gray area absolutely killed our shot to be in a picking position for alliance selection. (Ask 2415 about inconsistent rulings between regionals, they'd love to tell you about it). One of the finals matches in eliminations had to be stopped and redone due to a pedestal issue, and teams were cheated out of potential assist and teleop points in some quals matches due to 20+ second pedestal delays. I'm almost glad our season's over, so we don't have to deal with the headache that is Aerial Assist anymore.
Anupam, it was a pleasure to meet you and talk to you about different strategies at the peachtree regional. I wish we could have played with you guys again as you guys were sporting a great robot at this event. I am pretty surprised by your post as we dealt with a completely different situation.
In another thread, John V. Neun pointed out how 148 is always at the question box asking questions about the match they were playing in. We did the same. For most of the qualification matches we played, our student was at the question box to ask questions about close calls and possesions as to gain understanding of how the referees at the peachtree regional are going to make the calls. We didnt receive any fouls however we had problems with the pedestal lighting up in couple of matches and the referees took note of that. Unfortunately, referees dont have control over when the pedestal gets lit up. The referees made consistent calls in matches that we played in.
In one of the matches, one of the teams intake got tangled with our robot by mistake and tore apart our radio and some of the wires, they did run into us. This team felt that we were at the question box to complain. We were simply there to ask how the call is being made so our driver knows not to make that mistake. The team came upto us and was very apologetic and we explained to them that it wasnt their fault, it happens and its part of the game; we also encouraged them to play harder defense if needed in future against us. I have outmost respect for this team for coming upto us and clarifying the situation.
Another team attending the regional probably viewed this game as battlebots, they were on us the whole match ramming and pinning. They rode past our bumper perimeter bending our shooter frame and break some lexan covering. We were at the question box again and the head ref told us that she didnt see it so she cant make the call. We moved on and fixed what was needed to be fixed because the head ref made it clear at the driveteam meeting that she simply can not make a call if she doesn't see the incident. We were very surprised by this team's action. In our 20 years of existence, this is the first time our robot was broken after a match and the team responsible didnt approach us. Pretty surprising when you are dealing with a veteran team.
This game is brutal. Referee calls will be different from regionals to regionals. Teams who play this game like battlebots will receive penalties. Teams who know how to properly defend (ex. Team 1683) will do well.
Instead of complaining and picking this game apart, I strongly advise others to find ways to gain understanding of how the refs at the specific regional will make calls.
It took me 15 minutes to write this post which I could have spent watching matches from different regionals to see how the referees made the calls. Our driveteam spent four weeks watching webcasts, hundreds of matches, and collected data.
Play the game how it is meant to be played and I think that teams will enjoy playing the game. Watch matches after matches and strategize to find ways to win instead of going ballistic on opponents robot and receive tech fouls, and then complaining about getting a tech foul.
I am sorry if this post offends anyone but I am so sick of seeing so many negatives and so much drama unfold all over the place over this game.
Anupam Goli
30-03-2014, 14:49
Anupam, it was a pleasure to meet you and talk to you about different strategies at the peachtree regional. I wish we could have played with you guys again as you guys were sporting a great robot at this event. I am pretty surprised by your post as we dealt with a completely different situation.
Arefin,
I'll admit, my comments were marred by the post-regional feeling of defeat. I often get caught up in the heat of the moment and let my emotions affect my posts. Starting today, I will not post about a regional until I get a good night's sleep after the regional. I will maintain that my experience with Aerial Assist has not been as pleasant as with Logomotion, Rebound Rumble, and Ultimate Ascent. Most of my comments were really just issues I saw with the regional, and not really the game, though the game still has many issues.
In another thread, John V. Neun pointed out how 148 is always at the question box asking questions about the match they were playing in. We did the same. For most of the qualification matches we played, our student was at the question box to ask questions about close calls and possesions as to gain understanding of how the referees at the peachtree regional are going to make the calls. We didnt receive any fouls however we had problems with the pedestal lighting up in couple of matches and the referees took note of that. Unfortunately, referees dont have control over when the pedestal gets lit up. The referees made consistent calls in matches that we played in.
This is good advice, and I'll make sure our team's drive coach and drive team understand how to use the question box for more than debating calls. We did have some debatable calls that could've swung a match the other way, but I think the way we approached the question box was in a reactionary manner instead of an inquisitive manner, which definitely did not help our case. The matches we had questionable calls in happened to be one that could've changed the alliances in eliminations alltogether, so I suppose realizing the gravity of that call can also affect the attitude we have when approaching the question box.
For the most part, we didn't have any issues with tech fouls and defense, though other teams definitely had those issues. At the end of the day, our team definitely had a lot of fun, and all of the positive comments on our robot's look and functionality, capped off with an imagery award, definitely inspired all of our students. I suppose our exit in the quarters, while disheartening, is inspiring our students to work harder and better. We promised our juniors that we will get a banner before they graduate, and at the end of the day, this inspiration is what FIRST is all about
Good luck to 108 at South Florida and Championships, your team definitely deserved the win!
I don't "hate" this game at all - I think it's one of the best underlying game designs FRC has had in recent memory, marred by significant problems with implementation.
The reffing at the Greater DC regional was about as good as I've seen anywhere this year, and the result was a game that was intense and fair. Teams with well-thought-out strategies, good drivers, and good robots were very successful.
The change from games mostly consisting of three robots playing in parallel to three robots playing as a team is massive and fundamental, and, in my estimation, a good thing. I see far more strategic depth in Aerial Assist than in any other FRC game I've experienced, and alliance communication and cohesion is absolutely required for any results. This engenders interaction between teams and builds rewarding relationships, and I think that can only be seen as a good thing.
There are still problems with fuzzy rules and ref overload, but (at least at Greater DC) the head ref was open about this and it was not a crippling problem.
A word of caution about repeated visits to the question box. There is a risk involved with repeated visits to the question box, depending on the personality of the head ref involved and a team must weigh the potential results of their post match question box visits. Some referees can't handle repeated questions and may even think you are questioning their authority, resulting in a negative bias against your team. There shouldn't be a risk, but there can be...
Travis Hoffman
30-03-2014, 15:40
This game is brutal.
Understatement.
Referee calls will be different from regionals to regionals.
Understatement. Hurray for consistency in training!
Teams who play this game like battlebots will receive penalties.
Really? The following was called a tech foul against us (blue bot playing offense) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rvUzolCZ-8. We're not the one using our arm as a defensive spear.
Please do continue to rip out wires, pop bearings out of sockets, and bend forks with reckless impunity, n'er do wells of FRC - referees won't mind! They might even blame us for your idiocy!
Teams who know how to properly defend will do well.
If only that were true.
Instead of complaining and picking this game apart, I strongly advise others to find ways to gain understanding of how the refs at the specific regional will make calls.
Frequent visitors. The answer to that question is often "Poorly".
Play the game how it is meant to be played.
Tried. Thinking we do a good job since we've had exactly 2 fouls called on us across three regionals. I don't count the "tech foul" called above.
and I think that teams will enjoy playing the game.
Nope. Still waiting for that "pure" competition experience. I'd like to think we'd get that at the CMP, but then, we didn't qualify. Seems some extra roadblocks tossed in our way detoured us off the path to that desired goal. Would we have reached the finish line without those in the way? Not sure, BUT I SURE WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO FIND OUT.
The waitlist remains our last best hope for the season, but I remain unoptimistic in that regard.
Really? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rvUzolCZ-8
To be fair, nothing in that clip even remotely resembles battlebots. All I saw was unintentional entanglement and resulting (unfortunate and nigh-unavoidable without banning defense) damage. Additionally, throwing around words like "idiocy" is not particularly conducive to the sort of atmosphere required for productive discourse.
Edit: It just occurred to me that I might be mis-parsing your response if you intended that as an example of receiving a penalty while not playing "like battlebots." It's really rather unclear; the sentence directly after indicates you think the reffing against overly-aggressive robots is insufficiently strict, not vice-versa.
Arefin Bari
30-03-2014, 16:09
Continous visitation to the question box will become very annoying yes. We only went to the question box twice when we felt that there might have been a close one but ref overlooked or they were fine with it. I am not suggesting to go out there after every match and ask, "hey how did we play?"
Travis, I am sorry that you are having a bad time with this game and I am sure we would be frustrated if we were in your shoes. However, my comments were based on what I have heard from my students and what I saw when I was behind the driver station as well as our experience at the peachtree regional.
The video you posted, I dont know how the ref was calling the match. I would have asked the head ref what they will call this as and as long as they stayed consistant with the call throughout the weekend, I would be happy.
Team 1683 have done phenomenal defense for our alliance (108. 2283, 1683). They knew how they should play their defense based on our strategy and who we were up against. This earned them a blue banner. I suppose I would say a team that wins a regional has done very well for the season.
You are right. Posting back and forth and trying to argue over individuals opinion would get us nowhere. So I will move onto getting our team ready for the South Florida regional. After all we got a whole shooter to build.
Austin2046
30-03-2014, 17:54
I don't hate this game, but I do have a few problems with it and those problems all seem to stem from the fact that the refs are responsible for too much in order to always call a game correctly. The inconsistency of calls for G12 and G28 along with not always properly awarding assist points has been rather frustrating, and frankly disappointing.
Our team was most disheartened by this game this weekend at the Auburn district in match 35. 3393 collects our alliance's ball, drives into the white zone and shoots it out, almost off the field, and no tech foul was given. Here's video of this occurrence http://youtu.be/DjNCiD1QUZw?t=1m48s. Our student went to the question box and the response from the ref was simply that they didn't see it, which was rather unbelievable, as the announcer called it out as it happened, it happened right in front of the head ref, and it seemed to us the ref at the far side of the field had signaled it. If it wasn't that, I'm not sure what it was they were signaling.
I don't mean for this to be a criticism of the refs, I appreciate the fact that they are all volunteers and that they've been given a lot to keep track of in order to be fair and effective. Still though, when so many matches are determined by what the refs see or don't see rather than by robot performance or alliance strategy... it's a bit disheartening.
Please do continue to rip out wires, pop bearings out of sockets, and bend forks with reckless impunity, n'er do wells of FRC - referees won't mind! They might even blame us for your idiocy!
So you're saying you don't enjoy it when people destroy your robot with questionable motives?
Adam Freeman
30-03-2014, 18:37
Really? The following was called a tech foul against us (blue bot playing offense) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rvUzolCZ-8. We're not the one using our arm as a defensive spear.
WOW, this is ridiculous! It's even worse that it's the head ref that is calling the foul.
#1 - Your obviously trussing and trying to retreive the ball.
#2 - It appears your intake was inside your own frame perimeter at the time.
#3 - It wasn't you that decided that "snow fence" was an appropriate material for an FRC robot.
#4 - It was right in front of the head ref. Who is supposed to exactly what was happening and what the right call should be.
I hope the waitlist goes in your favor. Looks like you guys have a good machine that we would love to play with at Champs. If not, hopefully we will see you guys at MARC this summer.
There are many reasons to "like" this game. But, I can understand why many teams could "hate" this game...or atleast the way the refs, rules, scheduling, etc. have played out this year.
I don't hate this game. I think the eliminations are exciting. Qualifications can be a little hard to watch, but that is most years. Overall we often view the quality of the game based on our individual results. I liked playing in 2009 and hated 2006 for a long time. But, looking back 2006 was a great game...just not for us b/c we were never playing it correctly....while '09 is favorable b/c we had a good strategy that worked out really well for us.
Overall the rules, ref consistency, and scheduling are really effecting my opinion of this game. If we can overcome those issues and take advantage of a really good machine this year, I think that Aerial Assist will leave a good taste in our mouths. If we get screwed by assists, poor schedule, refs, etc... I may come to hate this game.
Regardless of how we make out in the end, with a few major tweaks to this game (additional balls and/or less reliance on partners in quals) we could be discussing this game as being one of the best games ever.
Brandon_L
30-03-2014, 19:37
Understatement.
Tried. Thinking we do a good job since we've had exactly 2 fouls called on us across three regionals. I don't count the "tech foul" called above.
We tried too. We learned your robot needs to be made of acrylic to have a chance.
See Lenape Quarter 3 match 1
Travis Hoffman
30-03-2014, 19:37
To be fair, nothing in that clip even remotely resembles battlebots. All I saw was unintentional entanglement and resulting (unfortunate and nigh-unavoidable without banning defense) damage. Additionally, throwing around words like "idiocy" is not particularly conducive to the sort of atmosphere required for productive discourse.
Edit: It just occurred to me that I might be mis-parsing your response if you intended that as an example of receiving a penalty while not playing "like battlebots." It's really rather unclear; the sentence directly after indicates you think the reffing against overly-aggressive robots is insufficiently strict, not vice-versa.
I was unclear. The "tech foul" we received in Pittsburgh was not really the target of my "battlebots" implication. It was, however, the result of careless gameplay on behalf of an aggressor where a robot positioned their claw in a hazardous manner when playing defense. They snagged themselves on our bot during this incursion, and we were penalized for extracting ourselves from this situation to continue to play the game.
To their credit, the team that received the benefit of this penalty apologized to people in our pit, saying they realized they were in the wrong. I hope they learn to translate that remorse into improved gameplay on the field.
To my discredit, I blew up verrrrrrry overtly in the pit over this whole situation, to the point I felt it necessary to leave the venue for an extended period, including Friday closing ceremonies. As I've said elsewhere, this game and my personality are a "toxic combination." The rest of the team handled the situation in a much better manner than I did.
The "battlebots" I was referring to actually occurred in Wisconsin, and went unpenalized all weekend (at least the "ripping wires", etc. stuff that happened to us in multiple matches on Saturday).
I was unclear. The "tech foul" we received in Pittsburgh was not really the target of my "battlebots" implication. It was, however, the result of careless gameplay on behalf of an aggressor where a robot positioned their claw in a hazardous manner when playing defense. To their credit, the team that received the benefit of this penalty apologized to people in our pit, saying they realized they were in the wrong. I hope they learn to translate that remorse into improved gameplay on the field.
To my discredit, I blew up verrrrrrry overtly in the pit over this whole situation, to the point I felt it necessary to leave the venue for an extended period, including Friday closing ceremonies. As I've said elsewhere, this game and my personality are a "toxic combination." The rest of the team handled the situation in a much better manner than I did.
The "battlebots" I was referring to actually occurred in Wisconsin, and went unpenalized all weekend (at least the "ripping wires", etc. stuff that happened to us in multiple matches on Saturday).
Ah, okay, that makes a lot more sense.
I don't see anything in that video that is even close to what ought to be a foul - clearly, your bot did absolutely nothing wrong, and the other bot caused no damage except to themselves and did nothing malicious so much as careless (though, to their credit, they weren't that far outside of their frame perimeter when the entanglement happened). That you got called for a tech foul there is absurd.
It seems this sort of stuff varies a lot by regional - I was very content with the reffing at Greater DC. We played stiff, aggressive (but not damaging or violent) defense for the vast majority of the competition and had no problems with bad calls.
donkehote
30-03-2014, 19:50
Understatement.
Understatement. Hurray for consistency in training!
Really? The following was called a tech foul against us (blue bot playing offense) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rvUzolCZ-8. We're not the one using our arm as a defensive spear.
Please do continue to rip out wires, pop bearings out of sockets, and bend forks with reckless impunity, n'er do wells of FRC - referees won't mind! They might even blame us for your idiocy!
If only that were true.
Frequent visitors. The answer to that question is often "Poorly".
Tried. Thinking we do a good job since we've had exactly 2 fouls called on us across three regionals. I don't count the "tech foul" called above.
Nope. Still waiting for that "pure" competition experience. I'd like to think we'd get that at the CMP, but then, we didn't qualify. Seems some extra roadblocks tossed in our way detoured us off the path to that desired goal. Would we have reached the finish line without those in the way? Not sure, BUT I SURE WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO FIND OUT.
The waitlist remains our last best hope for the season, but I remain unoptimistic in that regard.
QFT!
Travis Hoffman
30-03-2014, 19:53
Ah, okay, that makes a lot more sense.
I don't see anything in that video that is even close to what ought to be a foul - clearly, your bot did absolutely nothing wrong, and the other bot caused no damage except to themselves and did nothing malicious so much as careless (though, to their credit, they weren't that far outside of their frame perimeter when the entanglement happened). That you got called for a tech foul there is absurd.
It seems this sort of stuff varies a lot by regional - I was very content with the reffing at Greater DC. We played stiff, aggressive (but not damaging or violent) defense for the vast majority of the competition and had no problems with bad calls.
I would have been happy with a simple non call or foul reversal, which is what we argued for.
I hope the waitlist goes in your favor. Looks like you guys have a good machine that we would love to play with at Champs. If not, hopefully we will see you guys at MARC this summer.
Thanks, Adam. That means a lot coming from you.
There are many reasons to "like" this game. But, I can understand why many teams could "hate" this game...or atleast the way the refs, rules, scheduling, etc. have played out this year.
I don't hate this game. I think the eliminations are exciting. Qualifications can be a little hard to watch, but that is most years. Overall we often view the quality of the game based on our individual results. I liked playing in 2009 and hated 2006 for a long time. But, looking back 2006 was a great game...just not for us b/c we were never playing it correctly....while '09 is favorable b/c we had a good strategy that worked out really well for us.
Overall the rules, ref consistency, and scheduling are really effecting my opinion of this game. If we can overcome those issues and take advantage of a really good machine this year, I think that Aerial Assist will leave a good taste in our mouths. If we get screwed by assists, poor schedule, refs, etc... I may come to hate this game.
We've had enough teams being adversely impacted by this game. I'd love for more teams to communicate positive experiences. However, I don't think that is going to happen without extensive short-term intervention and an investment in long-term corrective actions by the core FIRST leadership.
Citrus Dad
30-03-2014, 22:37
To be fair, nothing in that clip even remotely resembles battlebots. All I saw was unintentional entanglement and resulting (unfortunate and nigh-unavoidable without banning defense) damage. Additionally, throwing around words like "idiocy" is not particularly conducive to the sort of atmosphere required for productive discourse.
Edit: It just occurred to me that I might be mis-parsing your response if you intended that as an example of receiving a penalty while not playing "like battlebots." It's really rather unclear; the sentence directly after indicates you think the reffing against overly-aggressive robots is insufficiently strict, not vice-versa.
Here's an example from this weekend of getting away without a penalty. The event occurs with 90 seconds left:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4rf-6eP4dc
Here's an example from this weekend of getting away without a penalty. The event occurs with 90 seconds left:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4rf-6eP4dc
Was this intentional? The video doesn't show how the robots ended up in that position. If it was, that should be a penalty, yeah.
Andrew Y.
31-03-2014, 00:08
this is the consistency problems I have been seeing.
At Peachtree we were given 50 pt technicals for entering another robots frame perimeter...it did not matter if the other robot was damaged, tangled, touched, or even if they initiated contact....entering got us a 50 pt technical. I will admit, there were 2 incidents that I saw that were completely 100% our fault. Seemed like after that everything we did was "intentional"
blaze8902
31-03-2014, 00:42
I really don't think the 3rd point makes any sense. The only way that having two lower ranking alliance members would cause your chances at victory to be zero is if they literally could not move.
Let's Look at Smoky Mountain Regional Q89.
Red Alliance:
5022 (Rank at the time was in the 40s.) No Manipulators.
3856 ( Rank at the time was 48.) No Manipulators.
4265 (Rank at the time was ~12 or 14. Can't remember for sure.)
Blue Alliance:
2614 (Rank at the time was 1.)
2856 (Rank at the time was in the 10s)
2856 (Rank at the time was either 30s or 40s, can't remember for sure.) No Manipulators.
What's your prediction for this match? Obviously Blue.
Final score? 105 to 73, Red.
How did this happen?
Every student giving it their all in an effective strategy.
When it comes to fouls, you can't just assume if you're with a fouling team that there isn't anything you can do about it. You have to speak with the team and figure out what the problem is. Only after you've done your best to make sure it doesn't happen in a match can you really say that you couldn't have done anything.
RallyJeff
31-03-2014, 08:19
There is no consistency between events and matches. On webcasts, I keep hearing the words "technical foul assessed for entering the frame perimeter of a robot". What rule is that? Honestly, when a technical foul is called, a rule should really be cited.
FYI: other head refs may have different systems for this, but the way I normally communicate fouls to the game announcer is to quickly hand them a piece of paper with the rule number, penalty (foul, deactivation, etc.) and the team and alliance who did it. He checks those numbers against a "cheat sheet" with a one-line description of each rule. I've heard plenty of cases where a foul was correctly called during the game, but the game announcer misses some nuance of a rule when announcing it to the crowd. When I hear this, I try to let the game announcer know for next time.
It would be nice if I could spend time discussing each foul in detail with the announcer, but the flow of the tournament usually doesn't allow for this.
This game isn't that bad. It's not my favorite but still a good game.
Fouls have always had the potential to drastically change the match outcome, it's just more frequent this year.
This game was designed so that there really can't be one good team to carry an alliance. You need to be cooperative and work together or you won't get very far. While one bot can hurt you, it doesn't guarantee a loss. If you are a decent team just have the weaker robot touch the ball then take it yourselves if you have to.
My team is very strategic and this year we have excelled because we are the way. All in all the season is almost over anyway
dubiousSwain
31-03-2014, 08:56
From the perspective of a scouter/mascot:
First of all, I like scouting this game. Our paradigm is "follow the ball", and we have two scouters per alliance. Previous games have been hard too scout due to too many game pieces, but that is probably because our team has very little man power available to be applied to scouting. The game is fun to watch and exciting, if you've read the rules (which I have many times).
As a strategist, I LOVE this game. There is a lot of depth to the field, and several different "classes" of robots, at least in MAR. In order to do well, everyone has to work together, and teams have to know their niche. It makes me happy when a strategy is well executed, even if it isn't the one I came up with. It frustrates me to no end when one robot on our alliance decides to go "lone wolf" and doesn't work as a team.
Basically, it boils down to this. In qualifications, most robots are out for themselves and for rank, so they are more likely to abandon strategies. This is when we get train-wreck matches that look like pee-wee soccer.
In eliminations, its the most intense game I've ever been a part of. (I joined FIRST in the offseason of logomotion)
BBray_T1296
31-03-2014, 12:02
What I love about this game is the exciting matches come eliminations
At Oklahoma there were definitely some "better than others" robots, but there were no powerhouse teams and the alliances were very very well balanced.
In 90% of the eliminations, the score was down-to-the-wire, and the near upset of the #8 seed on the #1 seed were the 2 best matches I have ever seen in my life.
While I was actually disappointed with the lack of penalties (you heard it here), the fact that the game was more relaxed made the scores feel earned and the close matches were actually due to real close gameplay, not a free 50 points tying the game at the last second
Here's an example from this weekend of getting away without a penalty. The event occurs with 90 seconds left:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4rf-6eP4dc
That on is on the margins. G27 I think would be the rule in question. It would have to be seen as intentional for that to apply though. The actual entanglement is not shown. It would depend on who was pushing who & if blues appendage was inside its frame perimeter when the entanglement happened, as it looks like it might well have been.
What I love about this game is the exciting matches come eliminations
At Oklahoma there were definitely some "better than others" robots, but there were no powerhouse teams and the alliances were very very well balanced.
In 90% of the eliminations, the score was down-to-the-wire, and the near upset of the #8 seed on the #1 seed were the 2 best matches I have ever seen in my life.
While I was actually disappointed with the lack of penalties (you heard it here), the fact that the game was more relaxed made the scores feel earned and the close matches were actually due to real close gameplay, not a free 50 points tying the game at the last second
I've gotta say, the eliminations at Greater DC were probably the most intense thing I've ever experienced at a regional FRC event. The standard of play was absolutely fantastic, and the game allows for so much more strategic depth than previous FRC games.
Qbot2640
31-03-2014, 12:26
After Palmetto, my opinion of the game wasn't great, but I wasn't complaining too much yet. Now that Peachtree has passed, my patience with this game and the way its officiated is completely gone.
I won't say that my "patience is completely gone" but I tend to agree...I inspected at Palmetto, and my team attended NC and DC. From one perspective, the gameplay has seemed to degrade throughout the season. It can still be a very exciting game in eliminations, but it is too easy for a match to become a frustrating battle to avoid defense. This is my opinion, of course, but I believe the games are much better when an increasing level of game play is synonymous with increased elegance, finesse, and technical expertise. Too many matches in the elimination rounds become one power house alliance shutting down the offense of the other by blockade. The elimination matches I saw earlier in the season seemed to have quicker, more spectacular scoring cycles...often deciding a match at the buzzer by a two or three assist goal...at the end, there are far fewer of these and many more struggles to break the blockade and score.
sdcantrell56
31-03-2014, 12:39
this is the consistency problems I have been seeing.
At Peachtree we were given 50 pt technicals for entering another robots frame perimeter...it did not matter if the other robot was damaged, tangled, touched, or even if they initiated contact....entering got us a 50 pt technical. I will admit, there were 2 incidents that I saw that were completely 100% our fault. Seemed like after that everything we did was "intentional"
Case in point, watch this video and tell me how exactly we were assessed a 50 pt technical at :17 into the video. We are in the process of scoring our missed autonomous ball and being defended against.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/bfyolu2f71yyyij/drUxY3aLnw?lst#lh:null-QF%20match%201.AVI
I won't say that my "patience is completely gone" but I tend to agree...I inspected at Palmetto, and my team attended NC and DC. From one perspective, the gameplay has seemed to degrade throughout the season. It can still be a very exciting game in eliminations, but it is too easy for a match to become a frustrating battle to avoid defense. This is my opinion, of course, but I believe the games are much better when an increasing level of game play is synonymous with increased elegance, finesse, and technical expertise. Too many matches in the elimination rounds become one power house alliance shutting down the offense of the other by blockade. The elimination matches I saw earlier in the season seemed to have quicker, more spectacular scoring cycles...often deciding a match at the buzzer by a two or three assist goal...at the end, there are far fewer of these and many more struggles to break the blockade and score.
I disagree that scoring-only games are fundamentally better. For one, they effectively prevent participation by rookie robots that can barely do more than drive; that's not particularly conducive to inspiring those teams and keeping them in the organization. Moreover, lack of defense quite simply means lack of strategic depth in this game - there is no point to do anything other than three-assist cycle as fast as you possibly can if the other robots don't do anything to stop you. I think seeing alliances forced to adapt and overcome stiff defense is far more exciting that watching which of two noninteracting teams can perform a task the fastest.
AllenGregoryIV
31-03-2014, 13:39
I want to talk a little about what the GDC did well in Aerial Assist.
The low goals in this game are the best I have ever seen. Scoring in the low goal can be accomplished by a kit bot with ease. They don't have too many false positive, most of the time when the ball enters the goal it stays in. This game would be much worse with out such a simple way to end the cycle. Low goals in the past have basically only been touched during field setup and take down (2012, 2013). This is a very good thing, we are seeing far fewer under 10 point alliance scores. There are still some but not nearly as many as in previous years. We had problems with our launcher at our first event and we were still able to win a lot of matches by using the low goal effectively. In previous years if your shooter wasn't working, you were just out of luck.
Simple way to score in auton, the mobility bonus is a good idea. It's clean and simple and rewards teams for the effort of making an autonomous even if it doesn't work. For many teams just getting driver control is difficult allowing a simple challenge is excellent for those teams.
Truss vs. High Goal - Having two ways to earn points that are very similar but differ in their accuracy requirements is a very good concept. This allows teams that can build a launcher but not one that is as accurate to still have a valuable role. It's sort of like the 2-point goal from last year except you're able to get maximum points per game piece. In 2013 you were at a big disadvantage if you weren't shooting in to the high goal, truss specialists this year are far more useful then 2-point goal scorers last year.
No End Game - I actually really like this. It allows teams to build higher quality robots since they don't have to spread themselves to thin. There wasn't a need to reserve weight or motors for a mechanism that is only used in the last 15 seconds of the match. The last second truss shots and goals are more intense then climbs last year. Points swings in the last second can be up to 40 points. You also get last second defense which we haven't really had in the past for risk of big penalties. This is the same type of drama you see at the end of a good basketball game.
Human player role - I have never liked the idea of human players (and I was one for two years in HS) but I think this is the best implementation we have ever had. They don't get to score points directly but they can have a big impact on matches. The human players have to work well with the robots to get efficient cycles. And we are off the trend of having them heave full court shots at the end of matches. Though they did have a impact on a few matches in 2012 and 2013, I don't think that aspect really made the games any better.
This game absolutely has problems, but the GDC did some innovative things and some of them have made for a better game.
Citrus Dad
31-03-2014, 19:12
That on is on the margins. G27 I think would be the rule in question. It would have to be seen as intentional for that to apply though. The actual entanglement is not shown. It would depend on who was pushing who & if blues appendage was inside its frame perimeter when the entanglement happened, as it looks like it might well have been.
Note that regardless blue is pinning red, but not assessed a penalty. I understand the entire audience was yelling for a foul...
Note that regardless blue is pinning red, but not assessed a penalty. I understand the entire audience was yelling for a foul...
It is not immediately clear that that is a "pin." There seem to be several points where the robots try to disentangle themselves.
Note that regardless blue is pinning red, but not assessed a penalty. I understand the entire audience was yelling for a foul...
At that point they were entangled. Blue was incapable of pulling away. Or when they did, red followed ending the pin.
At that point they were entangled. Blue was incapable of pulling away. Or when they did, red followed ending the pin.
It definitely feels like blue should have had a pinning penalty there, considering their intake was extended for no apparent reason.
What was also lacking from the video was any sort of pinning count, which is a precursor to the calls.
Kevin Leonard
31-03-2014, 20:44
I want to talk a little about what the GDC did well in Aerial Assist.
The low goals in this game are the best I have ever seen. Scoring in the low goal can be accomplished by a kit bot with ease. They don't have too many false positive, most of the time when the ball enters the goal it stays in. This game would be much worse with out such a simple way to end the cycle. Low goals in the past have basically only been touched during field setup and take down (2012, 2013). This is a very good thing, we are seeing far fewer under 10 point alliance scores. There are still some but not nearly as many as in previous years. We had problems with our launcher at our first event and we were still able to win a lot of matches by using the low goal effectively. In previous years if your shooter wasn't working, you were just out of luck.
Simple way to score in auton, the mobility bonus is a good idea. It's clean and simple and rewards teams for the effort of making an autonomous even if it doesn't work. For many teams just getting driver control is difficult allowing a simple challenge is excellent for those teams.
Truss vs. High Goal - Having two ways to earn points that are very similar but differ in their accuracy requirements is a very good concept. This allows teams that can build a launcher but not one that is as accurate to still have a valuable role. It's sort of like the 2-point goal from last year except you're able to get maximum points per game piece. In 2013 you were at a big disadvantage if you weren't shooting in to the high goal, truss specialists this year are far more useful then 2-point goal scorers last year.
No End Game - I actually really like this. It allows teams to build higher quality robots since they don't have to spread themselves to thin. There wasn't a need to reserve weight or motors for a mechanism that is only used in the last 15 seconds of the match. The last second truss shots and goals are more intense then climbs last year. Points swings in the last second can be up to 40 points. You also get last second defense which we haven't really had in the past for risk of big penalties. This is the same type of drama you see at the end of a good basketball game.
Human player role - I have never liked the idea of human players (and I was one for two years in HS) but I think this is the best implementation we have ever had. They don't get to score points directly but they can have a big impact on matches. The human players have to work well with the robots to get efficient cycles. And we are off the trend of having them heave full court shots at the end of matches. Though they did have a impact on a few matches in 2012 and 2013, I don't think that aspect really made the games any better.
This game absolutely has problems, but the GDC did some innovative things and some of them have made for a better game.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to AllenGregoryIV again.
Thank you for articulating much of what I liked about the game without me realizing that's what it was!
I like this game and I think it is exciting.
Because of the magnitude of the fouls it is made over-emotional. When our students complain to us mentors about a scoring issue after the game we point them to the question box. If they are shy we take them to it, then stand nearby. Sure us mentors are just as involved, we are on their side and will support them, but for us this is a chance for us to help our students be more assertive. Taking the kids to the refs was considered mentors approaching the refs at a recent venue and we were later sternly warned in the pit area. We assured them this was not our intent but at the same time they considered our teams forward approach to the refs was challenging their 'decisions which were final'. How true. In our 3 years we have never once had a decision over turned or a possibly uncredited opponent foul considered so I wonder why we still bother. We are human.
I did have one thing cleared up - that of evaporating points. As most of you probably know (but naive me did not), our fouls are being added to the opponents score (or vice-verse) in real time during the match. However, after the match, in the refs huddle, fouls are then fluctuating, coming into existence, going out of existence, or changing value. For example a 50 point foul that had your alliance ahead during the match might be re-evaluated to a 20 point foul now putting the alliance behind. We have learned the hard way to never stop adding points to your score, hardly ever try to rely on denying your opponents goal in the last minute if you are ahead as your sole means of winning. But in a pinch...
However, that being said, in the heat of a match it is incredibly hard to know how much of your score consists of foul points. Who's looking at that? You look up every 30 seconds if even that to view the score. As I told one alliance during qualifications, 'we need more points to stay a fouls width of winning'. If foul points were listed as a second number this would be very helpful.
There is no solution I know of to know if fouls are going to be added on at the end. The only caveat to that is, if there is an outstanding foul call known to the refs during teleop but no points have been added, at least have an indicator that it may happen as it will affect strategy.
That is all I have to say about the 2014 games. We actually had fun. A fond farewell and good luck to all our friends still standing. Volunteers we still love ya. I bid you all adieu.
Citrus Dad
01-04-2014, 00:39
At that point they were entangled. Blue was incapable of pulling away. Or when they did, red followed ending the pin.
Blue had red up against the barrier for much longer than 5 seconds. The ref was failing to count the pin. Of course Blue was entangled, but given the calls this year, blue should have pulled away from the side to avoid the pin call--that didn't happen. It's very difficult to imagine that red which had the ball had engaged with blue while blue had its mechanism down--it almost certainly happened the other way around.
RallyJeff
01-04-2014, 01:45
I did have one thing cleared up - that of evaporating points. As most of you probably know (but naive me did not), our fouls are being added to the opponents score (or vice-verse) in real time during the match. However, after the match, in the refs huddle, fouls are then fluctuating, coming into existence, going out of existence, or changing value. For example a 50 point foul that had your alliance ahead during the match might be re-evaluated to a 20 point foul now putting the alliance behind. We have learned the hard way to never stop adding points to your score, hardly ever try to rely on denying your opponents goal in the last minute if you are ahead as your sole means of winning. But in a pinch...
Also, fouls (or goals) can sometimes happen just as the buzzer is sounding. The ref tablets automatically lock out five seconds after the match ends, so we sometimes have to get the scorekeeper to enter these "buzzer beaters" manually after the fact.
It might help clarify things to explain my own process. Other head refs might have different systems, but this is what I do: during the match, the refs radio fouls to me as they happen. I make a quick note for each of them in my notebook. As a check at the end of the match, I'll tally up the number of fouls and tech fouls I recorded in my notebook and compare it to what the scorekeeper has on his screen. If they match, great. If they don't, I talk to the refs to figure out the reason for the discrepancy. Refs are human, and this year's game is intense. Occasionally, it'll happen that - for instance - a ref accidentally hits the foul button instead of the tech foul button. In these cases where there's a discrepancy, I confirm what the fouls should be and get the scorekeeper to adjust them if necessary.
We strive to be accurate during the match, but if a mistake is made, my approach is that it's better to catch it and fix it than to let it go.
However, that being said, in the heat of a match it is incredibly hard to know how much of your score consists of foul points. Who's looking at that? You look up every 30 seconds if even that to view the score. As I told one alliance during qualifications, 'we need more points to stay a fouls width of winning'. If foul points were listed as a second number this would be very helpful.
I've never been a coach myself, but since this year's game only has one game piece per alliance (most of the time), is this something that the coach could track? If they're watching the ball anyhow, they might be able to keep a mental tally of trusses, catches, assists and goals as they happen.
It'd be a lot to keep track of, and I'm not sure how it fits in the rest of their workload, but that might be a possibility.
There is no solution I know of to know if fouls are going to be added on at the end. The only caveat to that is, if there is an outstanding foul call known to the refs during teleop but no points have been added, at least have an indicator that it may happen as it will affect strategy.
When it comes right down to it, you aren't going to ever be sure that fouls won't be added on at the end. Even when everything's working perfectly, there's still a chance of a tech foul right at the end of the game that suddenly shifts the score by a large margin.
I've never been a coach myself, but since this year's game only has one game piece per alliance (most of the time), is this something that the coach could track? If they're watching the ball anyhow, they might be able to keep a mental tally of trusses, catches, assists and goals as they happen.
It'd be a lot to keep track of, and I'm not sure how it fits in the rest of their workload, but that might be a possibility.
I don't how how this might work, I typically am pretty focused on my teams robot and the areas directly around our robot. It has been shown multiple times that six refs with tablets can't accurately keep track of which balls are auto balls, fouls, or assists. Nothing against them, this is an impressively difficult game to referee. But if they can't do it consistently as a team, how is a coach going to manage it while coaching too?
I showed this game to my friend who officiates football games and every question he had was about how the refs could possibly keep up with all of it.
RallyJeff
01-04-2014, 10:04
I don't how how this might work, I typically am pretty focused on my teams robot and the areas directly around our robot.
Fair enough.
It has been shown multiple times that six refs with tablets can't accurately keep track of which balls are auto balls, fouls, or assists. Nothing against them, this is an impressively difficult game to referee. But if they can't do it consistently as a team, how is a coach going to manage it while coaching too?
The refs aren't actually keeping track of all this. Not directly, anyhow. A lot of it is built into the ref tablets and the field management system. For auto balls vs. balls in the cycle, the tablets switch modes when the last auto ball is scored. The refs don't actually track assists directly - they just punch in possessions as they happen and the FMS does the computation to figure out how many assists those possessions work out to.
But you do raise a good point: the refs have the benefit of a screen in front of them showing how many auto balls are remaining on the field for whichever alliance they're tracking. Without that, I can understand how someone could lose track of whether they're on their last ball from auto or their first cycle, especially if they're focused on just one robot. Judging by the number of teams I've seen try to score truss points with an auto ball, I guess that sort of confusion happens a lot. :)
Okay, having gone through a second regional, I'm definitely the line that this game is a good idea that was terribly executed. The refs were completely overwhelmed, and we actually lost a match because a possession wasn't counted. Not that it really mattered in the end, but it's incredibly frustrating to have your last match end on such a sour note.
The subjective nature of the game also makes ranking by win/loss a complete joke. I think FIRST should have made Assist points the primary determining factor for ranking, and then made win/loss a tiebreaker. In spite of the name there wasn't a lot of assisting going on during the qualifiers, with far too many teams just taking the ball and playing it themselves.
Still a lot of fun to watch though, especially in eliminations.
Dunngeon
06-04-2014, 02:41
Okay, having gone through a second regional, I'm definitely the line that this game is a good idea that was terribly executed. The refs were completely overwhelmed, and we actually lost a match because a possession wasn't counted. Not that it really mattered in the end, but it's incredibly frustrating to have your last match end on such a sour note.
The subjective nature of the game also makes ranking by win/loss a complete joke. I think FIRST should have made Assist points the primary determining factor for ranking, and then made win/loss a tiebreaker. In spite of the name there wasn't a lot of assisting going on during the qualifiers, with far too many teams just taking the ball and playing it themselves.
Still a lot of fun to watch though, especially in eliminations.
I would argue that making the game scored primarily with assists would further the dependence on a good alliance in Qualifying. Some teams (not always the best) would get lucky and have a good alliance where all 3 robots work. Or you could have a bad schedule where none of your alliance robots work, your robot carries the match and you would still lose because you have no assist points.
With assists, this game is already very dependent on your teammates working. Making assists the primary method of scoring for seeding would incorrectly reward teams for winning the proverbial lottery and having good alliances.
DampRobot
06-04-2014, 02:44
After competing in our second regional with a bot that could actually play, I never again want to play a game where qualification matches are essentially a test of who got luckier with their partners.
pfreivald
06-04-2014, 09:33
After competing in our second regional with a bot that could actually play, I never again want to play a game where qualification matches are essentially a test of who got luckier with their partners.
Better quit FIRST, then.
I would argue that making the game scored primarily with assists would further the dependence on a good alliance in Qualifying. Some teams (not always the best) would get lucky and have a good alliance where all 3 robots work. Or you could have a bad schedule where none of your alliance robots work, your robot carries the match and you would still lose because you have no assist points.
With assists, this game is already very dependent on your teammates working. Making assists the primary method of scoring for seeding would incorrectly reward teams for winning the proverbial lottery and having good alliances.
Teams are already rewarded for winning the alliance lottery. The issue I have is teams essentially ignoring their fully functional alliance partners to do everything themselves. Even a box bot can get an assist, but there were multiple times I saw human players ignore their partners and wait for their own bot to get to them.
Qbot2640
06-04-2014, 10:15
I, like many, have been reluctant to jump into this conversation - but finally decided to add my two cents:
While all FIRST games have a measure of dependence on good qualifier alliances, this one was extreme because of the one ball at a time feature. The damage done to an entire alliance by one robot that took forever to perform their part of the cycle was typically not reparable. And because the opposing alliance only needed one robot to control the ball at any given time it was too easy to deploy the other two on the one good robot.
I think the game needed a mid-field protected zone, or a protected travel strip along the borders to make it possible for a good robot on a bad alliance to generate some offense.
Unrelated to my central point - I think the catch should have been valued much higher relative to the truss (throw). That could have significantly changed the dynamic as well.
Kevin Ray
06-04-2014, 10:38
I want to talk a little about what the GDC did well in Aerial Assist.
Human player role - I have never liked the idea of human players (and I was one for two years in HS) but I think this is the best implementation we have ever had. They don't get to score points directly but they can have a big impact on matches. The human players have to work well with the robots to get efficient cycles. And we are off the trend of having them heave full court shots at the end of matches. Though they did have a impact on a few matches in 2012 and 2013, I don't think that aspect really made the games any better.
I agree completely with all of your other points but disagree with this one point. (A) Many if not most of the major foul points have been accrued by human players, thus nullifying thousands of man hours which an entire team has devoted to the construction of the robot, not to mention the strategic planning of the game play.
(B) At the two regionals we've attended I (along with hundreds of others I'm sure) thought I'd pop a blood vessel in my head from screaming for the human player (on our alliance) to "JUST INBOUND THE BALL!!!". There were MANY times when a human player ambled over to input the ball or held on to it until the absolute perfect positioning of the receiving robot. In one of our matches he remained behind the driver station getting caught up in the action on the other side of the field while we were waiting for the inbound. --WAY TOO MUCH input/game control on the human player this year. Hopefully this never happens again. A single human player has adversely affected many dozens of match outcomes this year--and that translates into not just affecting his team, good or bad, but the entire 6 teams on the field and, ultimately the overall standings of all teams in the competition.
Jay O'Donnell
06-04-2014, 11:09
I agree completely with all of your other points but disagree with this one point. (A) Many if not most of the major foul points have been accrued by human players, thus nullifying thousands of man hours which an entire team has devoted to the construction of the robot, not to mention the strategic planning of the game play.
(B) At the two regionals we've attended I (along with hundreds of others I'm sure) thought I'd pop a blood vessel in my head from screaming for the human player (on our alliance) to "JUST INBOUND THE BALL!!!". There were MANY times when a human player ambled over to input the ball or held on to it until the absolute perfect positioning of the receiving robot. In one of our matches he remained behind the driver station getting caught up in the action on the other side of the field while we were waiting for the inbound. --WAY TOO MUCH input/game control on the human player this year. Hopefully this never happens again. A single human player has adversely affected many dozens of match outcomes this year--and that translates into not just affecting his team, good or bad, but the entire 6 teams on the field and, ultimately the overall standings of all teams in the competition.
Thats not the games fault though. Train your human players better and get on other teams' human players to run and inbound quickly. These are things that can be fixed, they are not faults with the game (however I do agree with your point about how many slow/incompetent human players there are this year).
Bmarshall645
06-04-2014, 12:28
We enjoyed the game this year and it was fun to play. The only thing bad was that we kept being paired up with broken robots. We were the only functional robot on our alliance most of the time.
evanperryg
06-04-2014, 12:41
I love this game on the game side but the fouls and inconsistent reffing are driving me crazy. The "new Thursday rules" were reffed seemingly completely opposite on Friday and Saturday at the Wisconsin regional from my estimation, giving teams an incorrect idea of how they would be called in eliminations.
Exactly. The game itself is really good and introduces a very new style of gameplay to FRC, but at the same time the game is extremely subjective and there are grey areas in many of the most basic rules. Some of the poor reffing is caused by how different referees interpret the rules. At midwest, we found that inbounding from the human player on one side of the field almost always resulted in a foul from the referee on that side, whereas inbounding from the other side was fine.
I dont remember the match or teams involved, but at wisconsin, the outcome of an elimination match was changed by 100 points in fouls. In my opinion for there to be 100 points in fouls, there should be no doubt in anyones mind what happened.
This certainly isn't the only instance of this occurring, either. At crossroads, my team had a qualifier against many of the best robots at the event and we ended up winning because of 150 foul points. Although it is a little amusing to be on the receiving end of this issue, it certainly did screw over a couple of great robots.
unless you are top three, qualification wins and losses really don't matter. Who cares if you have a partner who fouls a lot? Do you think scouts will actually blame your team?
Coming from a second year lead scouter, a lot of teams either don't scout, or do really bad scouting. This should be especially evident with this year's game where certain things are very confusing to track (we actually had to write up definitions for "low-goal attempt" and "floor pass").
evanperryg
06-04-2014, 13:31
More on the topic of the game itself, I absolutely love it. No other game has ever been as effective in displaying FIRST's theme of coopertition, and it presents an entirely new style of play that has never been seen before. In games past, an awesome robot could carry their entire alliance without a problem. This year's game makes carrying next to impossible. Instead of 6 robots in colored bumpers scoring points individually, there are two clearly defined alliances playing the game together, in a group effort to score. Compared to previous games, strategies are extremely varied, and can be really unique. That is what makes this game really special, and if penalties weren't so bad, I would argue that this is by far the best game in the history of FRC.
scooty199
06-04-2014, 13:57
Coopertition in this game would be great, if true alliances during quals were to actually work.
I joke about this sometimes with friends, but deep down I know it's not funny. There may be matches where teams with kitbots or a functionally limited robot can be told by their alliance partners to either disregard their own strategy or not have any input into how a match should go.
I'm sure there's been occasions this season where a team may tell another "Get of our way, don't mess things up". That's something that isn't inspiring and doesn't help this game's case.
This has been said multiple times before, but conceptually FIRST did a good job with this game. Somewhere between concept and actually implementing and executing this game it got all weird and the game is poor on that front.
Thats not the games fault though. Train your human players better and get on other teams' human players to run and inbound quickly. These are things that can be fixed, they are not faults with the game (however I do agree with your point about how many slow/incompetent human players there are this year).I'm all for training HPs, my own and my allies' (no fouls yet, knock on wood). That said, I think we sometimes forget who these HPs are. Some of them are fantastic, smart, Johnny-on-the-spot players that work this game like variety athletes. And some are good kids that just freeze or crack under the pressure. They stand with a ball for 20 seconds and the entire stadium screams at them. I've lost track of how many times I've seen this, not to mention other errors. It's frustrating for all parties, but I can't imagine what it's like for the HP. I feel terrible about what's happened to some well-meanig kids this year.
I don't know how some teams pick their HPs, and while I personally would want to spare someone of that, I understand there must be other considerations that get them out there in the first place. Yes, HPs have always been able to ruin matches for their alliance, but usually it's harder and less public than this. I know the mistakes aren't on the GDC, but the publicity of it is painful. At least in Lunacy people understood how important and difficult the role was.
This game puts to much in the refs interpretation of the rules. This plus the fact the the fouls this year are so large that if you get 1 it is hard enough to come back let alone multiple. This year we have seen multiple calls made against us or not against others while the very next match the same thing will happen and we get penalized for it. At the western Canada regional we were given a 50 point foul for high speed ramming and intentional damage of another robot on the field. In this call we did go across the field and hit a dead robot bumping them. This robot though was on our alliance and also the hit was much less violent than many of the hits we had given out before. Finally to top it all off, the intentional damage seen by the ref was from the clear plastic cover off our pneumatic gauge. This was shown to the ref who said he did not see it as we had when he was clearly shown where the piece had come from. Also as clearly shown in this game. Every team no matter how good can be ruined by a human player who doesn't know the rules. In the same match as above we did 3 cycles each one the human player cross little line. After the first i told him to watch his hands and he just smiled at me. There is also a ton of error in the calling of assists and also on the reset, we waited for almost 20 seconds on the light up for a new ball. There is to much left to interpretation in this years game. Last year the rules were definitive. Either you did something or you didn't. It had no maybe. For the amount of money all the teams put in to do this. Either the game creators need to be able to think ahead to see potential issues with their game or make more decisive rules which are easily interpreted.
Probably already been said but:
1. I hate that the tie-breaker points(assist and auto points to name a few) are scored for each team on an alliance basis(our team would get the points for the whole alliance).
2. One great robot will not outscore three semi-competent robots.
3. The lower seeded alliances at the regional level(if they scouted correctly), have a better chance of putting together alliances that can do 3 assist cycles than the higher seeds do just due to the quality of bots by the time the selection gets back to the higher seeds(other than our case at Chesapeake)
Alpha Beta
06-04-2014, 23:04
After competing in our second regional with a bot that could actually play, I never again want to play a game where qualification matches are essentially a test of who got luckier with their partners.
Looking back on our experiences this season... We actually had more success involving low capability robots in the offensive part of the game than we ever have had in the past. You'll see several examples of wall press assists that are closely controlled by our robot in the following GoPro (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=128565) Montage (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0LFdVrL54o). You'll also see some shots of us directly spitting into another robot. Sometimes we refer to the robot as the "Mother Bird" regurgitating worms for the youngins.
All in all, I think this game has done an excellent job of asking alliance partners to work together. There is still plenty of luck in the alliance pairings, but as long as a robot can drive, we found a way to use them.
3. The lower seeded alliances at the regional level(if they scouted correctly), have a better chance of putting together alliances that can do 3 assist cycles than the higher seeds do just due to the quality of bots by the time the selection gets back to the higher seeds(other than our case at Chesapeake)
3 assist cycles, who needs em?
http://youtu.be/lFN73SVZr6o
3 assist cycles, who needs em?
http://youtu.be/lFN73SVZr6o
http://watchfirstnow.com/archives/88598727
Week one. ;)
Dunngeon
07-04-2014, 01:58
Teams are already rewarded for winning the alliance lottery. The issue I have is teams essentially ignoring their fully functional alliance partners to do everything themselves. Even a box bot can get an assist, but there were multiple times I saw human players ignore their partners and wait for their own bot to get to them.
Sometimes giving the ball to a box robot will take too much time from the cycle, rendering it inefficient. However, if the alliance is full of robots that all work well and in a timely manner, then shame on a team for ignoring that. Our general strategy is to see how the first cycle ends up, then adjust strategy from there.
The other Gabe
07-04-2014, 03:16
I was chatting with one of our Alumni on the way back from our event today and we agreed this game is a lot like watching college basketball. Watch a good match up and its an elegant display of coordination and strategies that adapt and flow over the course of the math. Alternatively it can be a jumbled mess of that doesn't appear to be accomplishing much at all.
After watching the progression of our regional event this weekend the more I look forward to district play and the ability to give my students more time behind the glass in a competition environment.
Not my thought but one of our team member's parent likened some matches to small children playing soccer, all the robots in a herd around the ball with no real coordination or play calling.
I didn't know little kid soccer was the perfect way to describe bad matches until now. Thank you for enlightening me this is fantastic
I agree completely with all of your other points but disagree with this one point. (A) Many if not most of the major foul points have been accrued by human players, thus nullifying thousands of man hours which an entire team has devoted to the construction of the robot, not to mention the strategic planning of the game play.
(B) At the two regionals we've attended I (along with hundreds of others I'm sure) thought I'd pop a blood vessel in my head from screaming for the human player (on our alliance) to "JUST INBOUND THE BALL!!!". There were MANY times when a human player ambled over to input the ball or held on to it until the absolute perfect positioning of the receiving robot. In one of our matches he remained behind the driver station getting caught up in the action on the other side of the field while we were waiting for the inbound. --WAY TOO MUCH input/game control on the human player this year. Hopefully this never happens again. A single human player has adversely affected many dozens of match outcomes this year--and that translates into not just affecting his team, good or bad, but the entire 6 teams on the field and, ultimately the overall standings of all teams in the competition.
One thing I have noticed in my travels to FIRST competition is you can tell a good team from a poor team is how well the human player is trained. Good teams make sure the human player understands the rules and do everything to a teams chances of victory. Bad teams human players do not understand the rules (If they are asking volunteers before the match "What do I do?" that is a very bad sign) do not have a sense of urgency and seem commit alot of penalties. A human player may not win you a match but they can sure lose you one and there is no excuse to have a bad one if you take the time to train one by having them read and understand the rules and teach them simple tactics to avoid penalties (G40 can be avoided by pinning your elbows to your side when you pitch the ball out).
scooty199
07-04-2014, 05:48
^ While pinning elbows to the side while being a HP does not feel natural in anyway whatsoever and I think G40 can be unreasonable at times, it's the way it has to go if you don't want to be blasted by G40 penalties.
I wonder how my former team's drive coach would've been if our human player made some silly mistakes. Granted this was all their 1st year behind the glass.
GearsOfFury
07-04-2014, 07:23
Probably already been said but:
1. I hate that the tie-breaker points(assist and auto points to name a few) are scored for each team on an alliance basis(our team would get the points for the whole alliance).
This is the way it's always been since auto / coopertition / teleop / whatever points have been used as tiebreakers. It's just not practical to have refs keep track of which specific robot is scoring which points... it's hard enough to get the points for an alliance correct.
I suppose you could use some form of OPR solution to solve for team contributions, once all the matches were complete, but you'd have no accurate way to track tiebreaker rankings until then.
ElvisMom
07-04-2014, 10:37
Good teams make sure the human player understands the rules and do everything to a teams chances of victory. Bad teams human players do not understand the rules (If they are asking volunteers before the match "What do I do?" that is a very bad sign) do not have a sense of urgency and seem commit alot of penalties. A human player may not win you a match but they can sure lose you one and there is no excuse to have a bad one if you take the time to train one by having them read and understand the rules and teach them simple tactics to avoid penalties.
Attended Midwest, a Week 6 event. On Friday, right before matches started, a student asked one of our adults "What does the human player do?" Later found out that our human player was asked to explain the basics of the role to at least two different teams on Friday. I'm sure this was not an isolated incident for our team or the volunteers.
Then on Saturday (Day 2 of a Week 6 event) in what I believe were teams' 11th or 12th quals matches I observed:
Human player being instructed from stands where she needed to locate herself. She stood outside the box and immediately got a penalty.
Human player being instructed by an alliance partner where the human player needed to stand. Student did not move to the box. Eventually his own mentor gently pushed him down the sideline and he walked slowly to the human player box as the match started. No one noticed and he did not get a penalty.
Two human players occupying the same human player box for the duration of the match, leaving the box on the opposite side of the field empty.
Another entire match played without a human player in one of the human player zones. This time no one doubled up though. No idea where the third human player was.
Unfortunate for students to find themselves in these situations as they could easily be avoided.
Some teams bring bumper supplies and build bumpers for rookie and other teams. Perhaps a few teams could also "build human players" on practice day - just checking in with teams to make sure they have someone assigned the role and understand the basics of the role. Certainly should be on teams' pre-match checklists - Do your alliance partners have a human player? Do they at least understand where to stand? Something we'll discuss during prep for next season.
Jay O'Donnell
07-04-2014, 11:05
To add on to the post above of bad human playing, I also saw a coach inbound the ball when he realized that there was no human player in the inbound area, but then I also noticed another teams human player acting as a second coach for his team. I don't understand how either team could do that if they even looked at the rules once.
Two human players occupying the same human player box for the duration of the match, leaving the box on the opposite side of the field empty.So no one gets too confused, this isn't actually illegal. I've considered it as a way of training other HPs in practice matches. I'm not sure of any uses other than that, but they can pass to each other within the island as well. There's also nothing that prevents an alliance station human player (or even one of the many animatedly-gesticulating island HPs) from offering coach-like advice to theirs or another team.
That said, I've reffed events where is seems like fully half or more of the HPs don't have a clue what they're doing the first time they come out. If I had a nickle for every "so what do I do?" question right before auto starts (and a penny for every delayed start, and a dime for every "where do I stand?", and a dollar for every mid-match "can I throw this in?"*...) By my count, I'd be uniquely rich this year vis-a-vis the rest of my reffing history. Haven't figured out why yet.
*"You can correctly re-enter an out of bounds ball whenever you think it's appropriate." "...So, Now?" "...Whenever you want" "...But now?" "...Wheneveryouwant(!)" ..."uhh" ...Well, not now, the match is over.
As I said, stressful for all parties.
ElvisMom
07-04-2014, 13:54
So no one gets too confused, this isn't actually illegal. I've considered it as a way of training other HPs in practice matches. I'm not sure of any uses other than that, but they can pass to each other within the island as well.
True. I just cannot figure out why you would use that approach during an actual match - training makes a lot of sense, but a live match not so much. Leaving a zone empty opens up even more chaos if a ball is ejected in that area and field reset has no one to give the game piece too.
Another tip, for teams with decorative accessories - be sure to make sure they are fastened securely to your human player (or removed entirely). One human player got bonked by a game piece and his toy hat almost fell into the field of play. Pretty sure that would have been a foul.
After our 2nd event where we were easily one of the top 5 offensive-style robots, I'm mixed about this game. If your partners are bad - literally won't push the ball right in front of their robot - your match is toast. The main offensive robot will get double-teamed by defenders, effectively making the match won or lost by autonomous & defense.
It's also quite the p.i.t.a. when teams who are pretty good have different philosophies on how the game is "supposed" to be played (triple-assist vs double-assist+defender) when either is a viable option against the right opponents.
All in all ref'ing was much better in Week 6.
Attended Midwest, a Week 6 event. On Friday, right before matches started, a student asked one of our adults "What does the human player do?" Later found out that our human player was asked to explain the basics of the role to at least two different teams on Friday. I'm sure this was not an isolated incident for our team or the volunteers.
Then on Saturday (Day 2 of a Week 6 event) in what I believe were teams' 11th or 12th quals matches I observed:
Human player being instructed from stands where she needed to locate herself. She stood outside the box and immediately got a penalty.
Human player being instructed by an alliance partner where the human player needed to stand. Student did not move to the box. Eventually his own mentor gently pushed him down the sideline and he walked slowly to the human player box as the match started. No one noticed and he did not get a penalty.
Two human players occupying the same human player box for the duration of the match, leaving the box on the opposite side of the field empty.
Another entire match played without a human player in one of the human player zones. This time no one doubled up though. No idea where the third human player was.
Unfortunate for students to find themselves in these situations as they could easily be avoided.
Some teams bring bumper supplies and build bumpers for rookie and other teams. Perhaps a few teams could also "build human players" on practice day - just checking in with teams to make sure they have someone assigned the role and understand the basics of the role. Certainly should be on teams' pre-match checklists - Do your alliance partners have a human player? Do they at least understand where to stand? Something we'll discuss during prep for next season.
To be fair I've witnessed Stupid Human Player Tricks other years. My all time favorite was the 2010 GTR West when a rookie team human player was manning the trident and received several balls while standing outside the player zone. A ref was watching him the whole time and gave him a penalty for every ball he received. After about five or six he walked up behind the kid and nudged him back into the player station and went back to watching the field. After the match the team removed the student from being human player and made him driver instead.
scooty199
07-04-2014, 14:25
After our 2nd event where we were easily one of the top 5 offensive-style robots, I'm mixed about this game. If your partners are bad - literally won't push the ball right in front of their robot - your match is toast. The main offensive robot will get double-teamed by defenders, effectively making the match won or lost by autonomous & defense.
It's also quite the p.i.t.a. when teams who are pretty good have different philosophies on how the game is "supposed" to be played (triple-assist vs double-assist+defender) when either is a viable option against the right opponents.
All in all ref'ing was much better in Week 6.
Wouldn't it be more advantageous for teams to be able to implement different playing philosophies?
The floor of robot ability for this game is a contributing factor to the drop in quality in my opinion, for situations that you described.
Citrus Dad
07-04-2014, 18:17
3 assist cycles, who needs em?
http://youtu.be/lFN73SVZr6o
When you're opponent can break 200, then you need 3-assist cycles. Watch SVR Final 1-1 and watch us rapidly close the gap on 971/254/1662, just missing catching them after missing an auto shot.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.