i didnt like this years game....please read

[archiver]

Posted by Travis Covington at 04/10/2001 2:05 AM EST


Student on team #115, MVRT, from Monta Vista High School and 3com - NASA-Xilinx-Hitachi Data Systems.



all in all i had a great time this year at nationals...the game was fun to play and the people were awesome...

i remember posts disussing winning and losing and the mention of failing....when you fail, noone wins. A game with a low score means a game with little applause/cheering/enjoyment.

This years game stunk in that regard. There was always failure, and not always a winner, although there were NO losers, it made it depressing to see teams just flat out do poorly and in return have no support and noone to feel happy for.

This became very evident in finals..and is resulting in my post.

teams who were facing eachother had alot of support for eachother, alot of love, and alot of respect. But there was still that urge to win. This lead to cheering at the wrong times by the wrong alliance.

People would cheer after the other alliances ball would fall off a goal, or if the team would lose hold of a goal. As i heard this cheering it made me wonder how much FIRST thought about the impact of winning. People were cheering when the opposing alliance screwed up!! They would scream as the score was posted..."alliance 4 with 128 points"....."wooohoooo" then it would die out slowly after people realized wht they were doing...but the same thing happened ALL throughout finals

that is no fun at all....this game is an excellent one in the sense that all teams work together and work toward the same score but when you have the situation this year it makes it hard to not wish bad things about the other team.. in this game people WANTED the other team not to lose BUT TO FAIL.

im sorry to rant and rave but i feel very strongly about this situation and i know many people feel the same way. im not trying to piss anyone off, im just writing this to inform people of what i noticed and just how disturbing I thought it was.

i hope FIRST realizes that this happened and that the need to find a solution.

-TC

[archiver]

Posted by colleen - T190 at 04/10/2001 8:54 AM EST


Engineer on team #190, Gompei, from Massachusetts Academy of Math and Science and WPI.


In Reply to: i didnt like this years game....please read
Posted by Travis Covington on 04/10/2001 2:05 AM EST:



I remember Jess posting something about this after the UTC regional.. talking about qualifying and the 'silence after a bad match'... and it's true.. in a competitive game.. there's always a reason to cheer.. there's always a winner, always an underdog, and you can always change your fate by some last minute move to overcome your opponent..

I understand the message Dean was trying to send.. that we were getting 'too much like' the sports teams and such.. and I must say, i beg to differ

Rivalry's have ALWAYS existed in FIRST.. my old team had quite a few.. i never knew why by i was always told 'oh, you have to beat team xx" and so on.. and it wasn't until '99 that things started to change.. where you couldn't have a rivalry really because you never knew when you'd have to count on them to be your partner..

In past years.. the game wasn't over til the buzzer sounded.. and their was always that tension, that chance, until it rang out.. this year though, the second the clock hit 1:00 and was still counting down while roars from the crowd sounded.. not because the alliance on stage did well, but because the fans of the other alliance knew they had one.. in UTC that happen to us... and it is the first time in 6 years on stage that i felt like i didn't want to be there.. as we're struggling to do our thing, right across in the plexiglass was the other alliance jumping and cheering.. and when we were on the flipside of the coin in LongIsland.. i did my best to keep our alliance from doing that.. I don't know that it worked, and maybe i even fell victim.. but i tried..

We need to go back to a game where teams have more control over their own fate.. in '99 and 2000 I walked away with more respect and admiration towards other teams than I did in 2k1.. if we played w/ people and mistakes were made and we did badly because of it.. it's hard to deal with because there is nothing you can do.. if you're the only one that can get across.. you can only get 10pts.. at least in '99 & 2000 you could do very very well and have a shot even if you had to play alone..

So FIRST gave it a shot.. it was fun while it lasted.. but I'm ready to return to a game where I feel like we have more control of our own destiny...

[archiver]

Posted by Matt Ryan at 04/10/2001 7:21 PM EST


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


In Reply to: similar thoughts
Posted by colleen - T190 on 04/10/2001 8:54 AM EST:



Its hard to keep a straight face when you know you've won something. My alliance tried like all hell to keep a straight face when we became champions--we couldn't do it, it is EXTREMELY hard.

The handshake should be done before the eliminations start because animosities might flare because of something.

: I remember Jess posting something about this after the UTC regional.. talking about qualifying and the 'silence after a bad match'... and it's true.. in a competitive game.. there's always a reason to cheer.. there's always a winner, always an underdog, and you can always change your fate by some last minute move to overcome your opponent..

: I understand the message Dean was trying to send.. that we were getting 'too much like' the sports teams and such.. and I must say, i beg to differ

: Rivalry's have ALWAYS existed in FIRST.. my old team had quite a few.. i never knew why by i was always told 'oh, you have to beat team xx" and so on.. and it wasn't until '99 that things started to change.. where you couldn't have a rivalry really because you never knew when you'd have to count on them to be your partner..

: In past years.. the game wasn't over til the buzzer sounded.. and their was always that tension, that chance, until it rang out.. this year though, the second the clock hit 1:00 and was still counting down while roars from the crowd sounded.. not because the alliance on stage did well, but because the fans of the other alliance knew they had one.. in UTC that happen to us... and it is the first time in 6 years on stage that i felt like i didn't want to be there.. as we're struggling to do our thing, right across in the plexiglass was the other alliance jumping and cheering.. and when we were on the flipside of the coin in LongIsland.. i did my best to keep our alliance from doing that.. I don't know that it worked, and maybe i even fell victim.. but i tried..

: We need to go back to a game where teams have more control over their own fate.. in '99 and 2000 I walked away with more respect and admiration towards other teams than I did in 2k1.. if we played w/ people and mistakes were made and we did badly because of it.. it's hard to deal with because there is nothing you can do.. if you're the only one that can get across.. you can only get 10pts.. at least in '99 & 2000 you could do very very well and have a shot even if you had to play alone..

: So FIRST gave it a shot.. it was fun while it lasted.. but I'm ready to return to a game where I feel like we have more control of our own destiny...

[archiver]

Posted by Erin at 04/10/2001 9:41 AM EST


Other on team #65, Huskie Brigade, from Pontiac Northern High School and GM Powertrain.


In Reply to: i didnt like this years game....please read
Posted by Travis Covington on 04/10/2001 2:05 AM EST:



If you look at it a different way...

We were all doing the same thing last year, and in 99- praising our teams for kicking another team's butt, and similarly, cheering that the other team messed up and did something wrong (i.e.: falling over, stalling on the field, not being able to get on the puck/ramp/bar). At least this year the violence got factored out. When another team got a lower score, you cheered. Isn't that the way this is?

I remember when my team last year knocked another team off the bar, everyone flipped out cheering like crazy. I mean, super crazy. And whenever our team got beat down, I noticed that the other team cheered at our, what you call, "failure".

It's the same as every other year, you just can't go out there and stop an alliance from doing something- you have to sit back and watch it happen.

Just my two cents..
Erin

[archiver]

Posted by Ernie P at 04/10/2001 10:18 AM EST


Engineer on team #548, RoboStangs, from Northville High School and Robert Bosch.


In Reply to: i didnt like this years game....please read
Posted by Travis Covington on 04/10/2001 2:05 AM EST:



Hi all,
Guess I'll be the one who supports this year's game.

I haven't seen every year of FIRST, but I've been to 4 of the last 6 years and this year's game had more "winners" than I have seen in the past. More winners ... this IS a good thing ... more teams in the finals .... more winners of individual field matches. It helps more of us feel good about ourselves.

It is a competition ... it has to be to keep our interest ..... so some teams will not do as well as others. This year we had more teams working together to acheive the common goal, and LESS rivalry than the 1-on-1 games of past years.

The game commity at FIRST has a very hard job. They work to create a unique, exciting, and interesting competition which conveys the message and vision of the FIRST mission. They need to do this with a game???.... it's got to be tough. I applaud there courage to push back against the high violence, battlebot mentality which is re-enforcing our angry youth.

So, be sure we are all walking the talk. Keep what's important, what's important.

Best of luck to all and thanks for the wonderful year!!!!
Ernie P

[archiver]

Posted by Joel G at 04/10/2001 3:50 PM EST


Student on team #442, Knight Riders, from Lee High School and NASA/ BOEING/ MEVATEC.


In Reply to: Well ... guess I'm counterpoint
Posted by Ernie P on 04/10/2001 10:18 AM EST:



This years game was a great idea but it had many flaws. I like the ideas of allainces but to certain point it can be unfair(just to much luck involved). The first 4 of our quilyfing matches were low due other teams saying one thing and doing another. I can understand if there was miscommunication or technical falures but we had one match where 2 teams went against the plan agreed upon and it messed up our score. I just think that next year FIRST should concentrate more on a game that has to do with more of ability than luck. Mabye I'm just upset because of how we did, It's just it feels like 6 weeks of work came down to luck instead of time and effort.
anyways. what d u all think
: Hi all,
: Guess I'll be the one who supports this year's game.

: I haven't seen every year of FIRST, but I've been to 4 of the last 6 years and this year's game had more "winners" than I have seen in the past. More winners ... this IS a good thing ... more teams in the finals .... more winners of individual field matches. It helps more of us feel good about ourselves.

: It is a competition ... it has to be to keep our interest ..... so some teams will not do as well as others. This year we had more teams working together to acheive the common goal, and LESS rivalry than the 1-on-1 games of past years.

: The game commity at FIRST has a very hard job. They work to create a unique, exciting, and interesting competition which conveys the message and vision of the FIRST mission. They need to do this with a game???.... it's got to be tough. I applaud there courage to push back against the high violence, battlebot mentality which is re-enforcing our angry youth.

: So, be sure we are all walking the talk. Keep what's important, what's important.

: Best of luck to all and thanks for the wonderful year!!!!
: Ernie P

[archiver]

Posted by Chris Orimoto at 04/10/2001 8:27 PM EST


Student on team #368, Kika Mana, from McKinley High School and Nasa Ames/Hawaiian Electric/Weinberg Foundation.


In Reply to: Well ... guess I'm counterpoint
Posted by Ernie P on 04/10/2001 10:18 AM EST:



Yes, there were a lot of winners this year...but exactly HOW did they win. I mean, high seeds this year didn't really mean too much...all you had to do was be lucky and you'd be in a round with a good goal balancer or big baller or something to that matter. On the flipside of that, there could be a decent robot, that has bad luck (as mentioned in the post below), and gets a robot that falls down. This need not be due to any design problem, but to sheer luck. The other teams in that alliance then receive a low score. This is NOT to say that it was unfair or anything, because this was exactly how the game was designed. It places even more importance on good strategies and consistency.

I mean, don't get me wrong, the teamwork of this year was an excellent aspect of the game. But if we're going to be competitive anyway (hence Travis' original post here), we may as well have a little more control over the final outcomes.

Just my personal thoughts...

Chris, #368

[archiver]

Posted by Kevin at 04/10/2001 9:40 PM EST


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


In Reply to: Well ... guess I'm counterpoint
Posted by Ernie P on 04/10/2001 10:18 AM EST:



This year had more teams on the winning alliance than winning teams in previous years. There were more awards (Divisional and National). And the finals / elimination matches were exciting to watch.

But the qualifying matches were not. In previous years, a low scoring struggle still produced a winner and a loser in each qualifying match, and this made it exciting to watch, similar to the elimination matches this year. After every qualifying match in previous years, there was an explosion of cheering for the winning team(s). This year, there was silence when things didn't go well.

Additionally, Dean made a comment at the Great Lakes Regional about media coverage. He mentioned that he was disappointed that no television stations covered the event. Honestly, this year's competition (qualifying rounds) was a poor event for spectators, and I can not blame the television stations. I heard many people comment on the lack of excitement during qualifying rounds, and I agree. Without the element of head-to-head competition, the excitement did not approach that of sports events, or the like. While the game itself should emphasize the FIRST mission and not be destructive ala battlebots, competition is a key element in today's society, economy, and a fact of life, be it in college admissions, first to market, etc.

I do like how this year's elimination matches ran identically to the qualifying matches though. Last year's competition consisted of two very different games, and this year did not.

Just my thoughts.

Kevin

: Hi all,
: Guess I'll be the one who supports this year's game.

: I haven't seen every year of FIRST, but I've been to 4 of the last 6 years and this year's game had more "winners" than I have seen in the past. More winners ... this IS a good thing ... more teams in the finals .... more winners of individual field matches. It helps more of us feel good about ourselves.

: It is a competition ... it has to be to keep our interest ..... so some teams will not do as well as others. This year we had more teams working together to acheive the common goal, and LESS rivalry than the 1-on-1 games of past years.

: The game commity at FIRST has a very hard job. They work to create a unique, exciting, and interesting competition which conveys the message and vision of the FIRST mission. They need to do this with a game???.... it's got to be tough. I applaud there courage to push back against the high violence, battlebot mentality which is re-enforcing our angry youth.

: So, be sure we are all walking the talk. Keep what's important, what's important.

: Best of luck to all and thanks for the wonderful year!!!!
: Ernie P

[archiver]

Posted by s_alaniz at 04/10/2001 1:33 PM EST


Other on team #57 from Houston Regional co-ordinator.


In Reply to: i didnt like this years game....please read
Posted by Travis Covington on 04/10/2001 2:05 AM EST:



: in this game people WANTED the other team not to lose
BUT TO FAIL.


Hey I emphatize but I disagree. Sounds like you took it
all pretty hard and that's not a bad thing, we're all
human and the emotions that follow bad luck, bad
breaks... et al are part of being human. There's no
solution to that (or if there is I wish someone would
share it.)

As for the cheering for your failure. I don't think
that was a universal theme. For those who DID cheer at
a team's "failure" ..why do you think Dean constantly
reminds us about that "gracious professionalism?" I
suppose that message needs to be revisited yet again.

All I can say is that MY team ranked 10th in our
division but was not picked. We were disappointed but
we sat and cheered during the finals and we cheered
loudest for our personal favorites ( and moaned when
they made a mistake).

I know about machine failures. My team has been
there several times in the past 3 years and we know the
feeling. We also know the feeling of having an alliance
partner mess up and cost valuable points. (Just prior
to one of our rounds, there was a
"0" score for an alliance because a coach forgot the
rules and hit the stop button in stead of having thr
drivers do it. and people say this was not an exciting
game!) Our team had 4 disasterous rounds but I'm sure
other teams had similar experiences.

BUT the real point I think I need to make is this:
"Gracious Professionalism" doesn't just apply to the
winners. It applies to second place, third place and on
down the line. If in the heat of the moment someone
loses control ... or even a lot of people lose control
and cheer wildly when an alliance loses, it's not meant
as a slur but as joy in the success of their own team.
If I were on the winning alliance I would have found it
hard to restain myself too.

Alliances... well, if you eliminate alliances.. then
you get back to a one winner system... I like
alliances.. it makes teams have to consider carefully
who they pair with.

Team 115 was a quarterfinalist... my team would have
been uncontrollably happy if we had managed that. We
would be bragging that we nailed fourth place. We
didn't but I'll brag anyway... I had the best team I
could have wanted and I'm very proud of the way we
proformed ... we're looking forward to next year... see
you there.

Best Wishes

Steve Alaniz

[archiver]

Posted by Jason Iannuzzi at 04/10/2001 1:40 PM EST


Engineer on team #11, Marauders, from Mt. Olive HS. and BASF, Rame Hart, CCM.


In Reply to: i didnt like this years game....please read
Posted by Travis Covington on 04/10/2001 2:05 AM EST:



Technicalities aside, the only real difference between this year and last, is that this year, competing teams did not share the same field. There were still "losers", there were still bad machines, there was still bad sportsmanship, it just wasn't as interesting to watch. Effectively, we all had half our our possible solutions (defensive opportunities) to the problem eliminated before we had a chance to consider them and in turn, the audience got a really bad show.

I don't have a problem with people cheering winners and losers, that's life. As long as this is called the FIRST Competition, there will be a winner and a loser. My problem is I really wonder who's feelings FIRST is trying to protect? The teams that don't do well already know they don't do well. The audience knows they don't do well. Other teams know they don't do well. By not showing who won and lost in a particular match, do we really accomplish anything other than depriving the audience of any and all satisfaction? If FIRST really wants to make us all feel like winners, then there shouldn't be playoffs, there shouldn't be a champion, and there shouldn't be a scoring system.

Let's all just get out on the field and hug. We can sit in a circle and discuss how much this resembles the real world of engineering and life. Then we can sprinkle some fairy dust on our heads and live forever too.

[archiver]

Posted by Billy Mallard at 04/11/2001 12:51 AM EST


Student on team #254, the Cheesy Poofs, from Bellarmine College Prep and NASA.


In Reply to: Warning: rant inside
Posted by Jason Iannuzzi on 04/10/2001 1:40 PM EST:



: Technicalities aside, the only real difference between this year and last, is that this year, competing teams did not share the same field. There were still "losers", there were still bad machines, there was still bad sportsmanship, it just wasn't as interesting to watch. Effectively, we all had half our our possible solutions (defensive opportunities) to the problem eliminated before we had a chance to consider them and in turn, the audience got a really bad show.

: I don't have a problem with people cheering winners and losers, that's life. As long as this is called the FIRST Competition, there will be a winner and a loser. My problem is I really wonder who's feelings FIRST is trying to protect? The teams that don't do well already know they don't do well. The audience knows they don't do well. Other teams know they don't do well. By not showing who won and lost in a particular match, do we really accomplish anything other than depriving the audience of any and all satisfaction? If FIRST really wants to make us all feel like winners, then there shouldn't be playoffs, there shouldn't be a champion, and there shouldn't be a scoring system.

: Let's all just get out on the field and hug. We can sit in a circle and discuss how much this resembles the real world of engineering and life. Then we can sprinkle some fairy dust on our heads and live forever too.

[archiver]

Posted by Travis Covington at 04/10/2001 6:25 PM EST


Student on team #115, MVRT, from Monta Vista High School and 3com - NASA-Xilinx-Hitachi Data Systems.


In Reply to: i didnt like this years game....please read
Posted by Travis Covington on 04/10/2001 2:05 AM EST:



thanks you guys...

i really needed someone to tell me off..

i wasnt mad that we didnt so well...because we did..

there were just some times that i wanted the other team to win :-)

thanks for the support and understanding

:-D

i still had a blast!!

good luck to all you teams next year...hopefully ill be starting a team whereever i go to college..

[archiver]

Posted by Kevin Sevcik at 04/11/2001 8:27 AM EST


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


In Reply to: i didnt like this years game....please read
Posted by Travis Covington on 04/10/2001 2:05 AM EST:



Personally, I think this year was a refreshing change from the past years. Admittedly, there were still losers and people were still cheering when another team lost, but that was happening in previous games anyways. I don't thnk the point of this new kind of game was to remove that aspect from the competition or to make certain. once and for all, that all the teams are buddies at the end of the day. As was pointed out numerous times during Woody's and Dean's speeches, the whole point was to remove the violence from the game.

Come on, did anyone really LIKE the vague rules we used to have about tipping and pinning? Did anyone like the fact that your strategy depended on how lenient your judge was feeling? While more luck has been put into the competition by adding more robots, a lot of luck has been taken out by giving the judges lots less questionable things to judge. Personally, I like the fact the we didn't have to worry as much about our robot being destroyed by another team. Not worrying about what could happen is a robot ran into, climbed onto our chassis, and started tearing our electronics to shreds is a good thing. And as for the matches being less exciting, is it really exciting to watch a match where a team loses simply because the opposing team runs them into a wall and pins them there? Personally, I never enjoyed it when teams strategies were based on pinning the other guy to keep him from doing anything. Robots sitting on a field spinning wheels is boring.

So in conclusion, stop complaining about the competition still having teams cheering about another team "failing." That was happening before, and it's the nature of a competition for that to happen. I don't think Dean wants to get rid of that, and I don't think he could if he tried. The whole point here is to get teams to stop cheering about beating each others robots up. Sort of insanely restrictive rules in a head to head competition, this is the only way to do that.

[archiver]

Posted by Bill Beatty at 04/11/2001 9:26 AM EST


Other on team #71, Team Hammond, from Team Hammond.


In Reply to: Re: i didnt like this years game....please read
Posted by Kevin Sevcik on 04/11/2001 8:27 AM EST:



Many people say they feel guilty because they found themselves hoping that an opponent would "mess up", but many of these same folks don't feel guilty about pounding, blocking or even tipping an opponant to force a "mess up". Interesting........

[archiver]

Posted by Chris Hibner at 04/11/2001 10:00 AM EST


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


In Reply to: i didnt like this years game....please read
Posted by Travis Covington on 04/10/2001 2:05 AM EST:



Why I don't like this year's game:

1. Too much luck involved. With 4 robots on the same "team", the probability of a disaster is pretty high. I'll never forget the story that someone posted about the team that built their robot on Thursday and were raked 16th out of 60+ teams at the end of Saturday. This is a good sign that the competition doesn't work (in terms of sorting out the teams). Our team seeded as high as 6 out of 85 and as low as 42 out of 45. The difference between the competitions was luck.

2. No winners or losers. The qualifying matches were like watching batting practice before a baseball game. You watch and say, "whoa, that one almost made the fences," or, "oooh, a *home run*". That's about as exciting as it gets from a spectator standpoint.

3. Too much dependence on other teams (similar to #1). I worked like crazy for 6 weeks on our robot. I would like to have a little more control over how we do in the competition. There's nothing worse than working that hard only to have your fate determined by other teams (this is not aimed at any teams in particular, but I've talked to a number of teams that agreed with this). This brings me to the next one ...

4. The wrong lessons learned. I think it is obvious that in order to get extremely high scores, the alliances needed to work together. However, it became obvious that what a lot of teams said they could do and what they actually could do were different things. This lead a lot of teams to rediscover the old saying "if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself". This is completely against what this year's game is supposed to be about, yet I feel that this is what a lot of teams got out of it.

I think the goal of trying to teach teamwork is noble, but I think all of the teams learn that lesson long before the robot ships.

If FIRST wants to continue to to have no winners or losers, I have two suggestions:

1. Limit it to 2 (or 3 at the VERY most) robots per alliance. The more robots, the greater the chance of a disaster. Thus, more luck enters the competition.

2. Publish the match list at the beginning and give teams time to develop a strategy. Giving teams less than two minutes to decide how to work together is not conducive to working together.

[archiver]

Posted by Kevin Sevcik at 04/11/2001 10:49 AM EST


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


In Reply to: Why I don't like this year's game
Posted by Chris Hibner on 04/11/2001 10:00 AM EST:



First off, are you absolutely sure you were at Nats? I don't know what you're talking about with the batting practice thing. I'll grant that things were kind of quiet after a match when a team did poorly. But after a match when a team did well, it got REALLY loud. And during a match when a team scored a big ball things got loud. And you could almost feel the audience trying to will the bridge to balance. I think that while pattern of cheering may have been different, the cheering was still as enthusiastic. Frankly, I think this whole cheering thing is just another excuse people use because they just feel uncomfortable about the game. On that note...


I'm gonna try t explain just why I think people feel weird about this game, and try to answer a few points those people have. :^) Be prepared, cause I'm bound to be long-winded.
First, about the whole luck thing. Luck has almost always played a part in competitions, and it always will. In any previous game, who you competed against was still a matter of luck. A fairly bad team could still move high in the rankings if they were paired against other bad teams, or more recently, teamed with really good teams. I don't think this has changed all that much. I think the facts are that FIRST is just bigger, and there's bound to be bigger statistical variances. I think peoples real problem with the luck factor is that it's affecting them more directly and obviously than it was before, because all the robots are now on their side.
As for depending on other robots, no one said you had to depend on other robots. The lead robot of the alliance that won could do just about everything themselves. You also had the option of designing a modular robot that could adapt so it'd fit other teams better. And again, in the head to head competitions, you were still depending on the quality of the other robots. The only difference is that then you were depending on them to be worse than you.
About the wrong lessons learned thing. While it does appear that this years competition was all about teamwork and a warm and fuzzy "everybody wins" scoring system, I'd like to restate my claim that I really think it was more about putting an end to the violence. Basically, the only way to do that was to force everyone to work together. Violence is inherently part of almost any head to head competition. I know I can't think of a way to keep head to head while stopping robots from pinning, bashing, etc. So I think this is a sort of "chicken and the egg" kind of thing. My belief is that the non-violence stance lead to a game with lots of teamwork, but it could be the other way around.
And on a more philosophical note, I'd like to comment on a reply to an earlier post of mine. Bill Beaty noted that while people feel bad about cheering for another team's failure, the don't feel bad if they're directly causing that team to fail. I think this points out the whole problem that people have with this year's competition. People just don't feel right about beating another team unless they directly take a hand in it. I imagine this is just some weird quirk of most people, but it sure seems to explain most people's problems with the competition. All the complaints seem to boil down to the fact that we're just plain not competing directly against other teams, and it just doesn't seem right. I'm hoping that this is just a bout of growing pains, and that we'll all eventually embrace the new kind of competition. Like I said before, I know that I enjoy not having to design a robot like a tank to have any hope of winning. And I know that a sport without direct competition can succeed. There's all kinds of examples. Golf, Bowling, Drag Racing, almost all of the olympics, junkyard wars.... :^) So I know it can be done, the only question is if we're brave enough to make the switch.

Told ya I can be long winded. I think I just like to hear myself talk. Or type, as it were....

[archiver]

Posted by Kevin at 04/11/2001 4:10 PM EST


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


In Reply to: More thoughts..
Posted by Kevin Sevcik on 04/11/2001 10:49 AM EST:



I watched a number of matches at nationals, and when a 400 - 700 point match was played (not all that frequent) the crowd cheered wildly. When a 0 - 200 point match was played, there was no cheering, despite big balls being placed. There was no winner and no loser. Again, in previous years when teams went head to head, even in a 3-0 scoring match, the crowd would cheer for the winning team. The crowd would be involved in every match, and there was cheering every match. While it's true this year's match might be closer to golf or bowling, it was as exciting as watching golf and bowling on television. The crowd responded similarly to that of players making a birdie / strike or a double-bogey / double gutter.

When it was every team for themself, a great team would advance through the double elimination tournament, regardless of opponents. At least with bowling and golf, each player completely controls their own destiny, and the best bowler / golfer will necessarily rise to the top. With 2 team alliances, this was not quite guaranteed, but very probable. With 4 team alliances, when one team falls down on the bridge, or when one team knocks the bridge off the 4x6, all 4 teams were negatively effected. The point is that the best robots (even if they could do everything on their own) had to depend on luck to survive, and that robots that would have been eliminated in two consecutive rounds of a double elimination tournament would likely do much better in this year's game.
As a result, I believe there was a much better correlation of robot design to ranking in prior years than in this year's competition.

I honestly don't believe the problems with this year's game resulted from a lack of a destructive / defensive nature, and hope that a better team-work game concept can be derived, but use less teams such that luck is not as big a factor.


: First off, are you absolutely sure you were at Nats? I don't know what you're talking about with the batting practice thing. I'll grant that things were kind of quiet after a match when a team did poorly. But after a match when a team did well, it got REALLY loud. And during a match when a team scored a big ball things got loud. And you could almost feel the audience trying to will the bridge to balance. I think that while pattern of cheering may have been different, the cheering was still as enthusiastic. Frankly, I think this whole cheering thing is just another excuse people use because they just feel uncomfortable about the game. On that note...

:
: I'm gonna try t explain just why I think people feel weird about this game, and try to answer a few points those people have. :^) Be prepared, cause I'm bound to be long-winded.
: First, about the whole luck thing. Luck has almost always played a part in competitions, and it always will. In any previous game, who you competed against was still a matter of luck. A fairly bad team could still move high in the rankings if they were paired against other bad teams, or more recently, teamed with really good teams. I don't think this has changed all that much. I think the facts are that FIRST is just bigger, and there's bound to be bigger statistical variances. I think peoples real problem with the luck factor is that it's affecting them more directly and obviously than it was before, because all the robots are now on their side.
: As for depending on other robots, no one said you had to depend on other robots. The lead robot of the alliance that won could do just about everything themselves. You also had the option of designing a modular robot that could adapt so it'd fit other teams better. And again, in the head to head competitions, you were still depending on the quality of the other robots. The only difference is that then you were depending on them to be worse than you.
: About the wrong lessons learned thing. While it does appear that this years competition was all about teamwork and a warm and fuzzy "everybody wins" scoring system, I'd like to restate my claim that I really think it was more about putting an end to the violence. Basically, the only way to do that was to force everyone to work together. Violence is inherently part of almost any head to head competition. I know I can't think of a way to keep head to head while stopping robots from pinning, bashing, etc. So I think this is a sort of "chicken and the egg" kind of thing. My belief is that the non-violence stance lead to a game with lots of teamwork, but it could be the other way around.
: And on a more philosophical note, I'd like to comment on a reply to an earlier post of mine. Bill Beaty noted that while people feel bad about cheering for another team's failure, the don't feel bad if they're directly causing that team to fail. I think this points out the whole problem that people have with this year's competition. People just don't feel right about beating another team unless they directly take a hand in it. I imagine this is just some weird quirk of most people, but it sure seems to explain most people's problems with the competition. All the complaints seem to boil down to the fact that we're just plain not competing directly against other teams, and it just doesn't seem right. I'm hoping that this is just a bout of growing pains, and that we'll all eventually embrace the new kind of competition. Like I said before, I know that I enjoy not having to design a robot like a tank to have any hope of winning. And I know that a sport without direct competition can succeed. There's all kinds of examples. Golf, Bowling, Drag Racing, almost all of the olympics, junkyard wars.... :^) So I know it can be done, the only question is if we're brave enough to make the switch.
:
: Told ya I can be long winded. I think I just like to hear myself talk. Or type, as it were....

[archiver]

Posted by Ryan McElroy at 04/15/2001 12:05 AM EST


Student on team #492, Titans, from International School and KPCB.


In Reply to: More thoughts..
Posted by Kevin Sevcik on 04/11/2001 10:49 AM EST:



I think you are wrong concerning the cheering at other's failures subject: When the failure is due directly to another robot, then what has really happened is that one team did well while another did not as well. Therefore, cheering is justified. But when failure is due only to an error, it is very lackluster, and cheering can only be taken in a hurtful way.

On another note, it is very possible to have head to head competition without violence. RoboCup (Robot soccer), for example: Robots are not allowed to run into each other, or it is a penalty.

However, I'm not sure about FIRST's thinking on the future of the competition. On one hand, they want to grow it into a nationally recognized sporting event, as Dean said at nationals, and as is evident in getting National Beverage to put the FIRST logo on one of its products. On the other hand, they seem unwilling to do what makes the really successful sports really successful: and that is violence. Its not all-out violence, but what makes sports successful is controlled violence.

Take baseball, for example. Its not violent, right? Wrong. Pitchers throw a hard ball at almost 100mph very close to the batter, who swings a big peice of wood to try to accelerate the ball in the oppisite direction to 200mph+. Its very violent, but its a controlled violence. No one likes to see a batter hit, for example. Football is the same way: No one wants an injured player, but everyone loves how physical the game is.

I think that if FIRST is to be successful as a *sport*, it needs an element of head to head competition. Probably, it'll need to turn into more of a sport as well, with more frequent meetings between fewer teams. I think that this is a long way off, if it ever heappens, but its something to think about.

~Ryan

[archiver]

Posted by Jason Iannuzzi at 04/11/2001 3:38 PM EST


Engineer on team #11, Marauders, from Mt. Olive HS. and BASF, Rame Hart, CCM.


In Reply to: Why I don't like this year's game
Posted by Chris Hibner on 04/11/2001 10:00 AM EST:



>I think the goal of trying to teach teamwork is >noble, but I think all of the teams learn that lesson >long before the robot ships.

Exactly!!!! I've been thinking this since day one. I'm glad I'm not alone.

[archiver]

Posted by Ken Patton at 04/11/2001 4:54 PM EST


Engineer on team #65, The Huskie Brigade, from Pontiac Northern High School and GM Powertrain.


In Reply to: i didnt like this years game....please read
Posted by Travis Covington on 04/10/2001 2:05 AM EST:



Complaints, in no particular order:

1. The correlation between robot capability and ranking was not very good. Many "less capable" machines had high rank due to good pairings, and many "more capable" machines had low rank due to "bad" pairings or bad luck that was not their fault. Granted, there will always be some of this, but there was more of it this year than in any other year I've been in FIRST.

2. You had a pretty darn good idea who was going to win before nationals even started. (Way to go Bill,Brian, et al. You guys were awesome.) This was not the case in previous years.

3. Alliance meetings were not always the warm fuzzy events that they ideally could have been. Ever had an ally tell you they were going to do "X" whether you liked it or not? Ever had to tell an ally that they should do "Y" because someone else was better than them? Nobody loses, huh? I'll bet some teams didn't feel that way after an alliance meeting... Better to let teams play more of their own game.

4. Defense isn't a bad thing. I agree that there should be limits to prevent the boring defensive elimination tournaments we had in some previous years, but eliminating head to head action takes excitement out of the game, imho.

5. Sometimes the eliminations were anticlimactic. If an alliance failed to beat their opponent's score, the round just ended on a negative note. This game would never make it on TV.

6. The idea of teamwork triumphing over individual effort did not really come through. There may have been some matchup that could beat the Beast from Hammond, but they probably never got to play together because they were in different divisions, or were already matched up automatically as seeds 5-8.

Ken