Anybody really dis-like the game?

[nevereverregret]

I personly dislike the game.... lol

[Koko Ed]

I personly dislike the game.... lol

Well, someone has to I suppose.
It's an interesting game but it's too early to pass any judgment on the game.
I'm going to hold my opinions til I see the scrimmages to get an idea of how the game is played.

[vivek16]

I'm waiting for update 1 to clear up potential problems but it looks like it should be a good game.

-Vivek

[neoshaakti]

I think this game is pretty cool
we're all in the same position, so all veteran teams have to rethink their "universal" drivetrains
and plus, it has a basketball element to it

[DarkFlame145]

Some parts I like, but some parts scare the crap out of me.............. like the whole low traction thing. All I know is how to build a high torque, high traction drivetrain. It should be a very fun game to watch if teams can figure out how to control the robots.

[NickJames]

This is probably the best game since aim high. imo

[qwertyuiop[]\]

My first impression was shock and confusion. The game animation didnt do the game justice. you really need to read the rules to have an appreciations. also think about the physics of the game. since everyone is in the same boat, friction shouldnt be too much of a problem. Now that i have thought about the game i really like it and the challenge it poses. the only bad game is one with imbalanced scoring *cough,rack and roll, cough*.

[Akash Rastogi]

I don't like it right now.

But games grow on you. I didn't like rack n roll at all at first, but some plays were kinda fun.

[Rich Kressly]

My wife didn't think too much of me in the first 24 hours after we met either... patience grasshopper ... hard to dislike anything you haven't fully experienced anyway.

[Koko Ed]

My wife didn't think too much of me in the first 24 hours after we met either... patience grasshopper ... hard to dislike anything you haven't fully experienced anyway.

My wife thought I came with a label on my forehead in the shape of an L after the first date.

At this same time last year everyone had pre made ideas of how things were going down with Overdrive (mainly how shooters were going to be hard to make and such and the game was going to be boring). Looking back on that and the years before I'll say it again: let's wait and see what people come up with before we pass judgment. If I've learned anything in my years in FIRST it's to never assume that the teams are going to take th estraight and narrow approach to solving a problem. Someone is going to surprise and amaze us this year. Even the worst games bring out the best in the teams.

[KathieK]

My immediate reaction sitting in the bleachers in NH was, wow, this game might actually shake things up this year! And it might also level the playing field between veterans and rookie teams. It will be fun to see what you all come up with.

[Abra Cadabra IV]

*shrug* My first reaction to this year's game was WHAAAAAT!? Then again, that was my reaction last year too, and (the ridiculously overpowered hurdling + line penalties aside) after I got used to it, I thought it was a pretty good game.

I think that it's just too early to judge the game. It's just too hard to say whether a game is good or bad until you've at least been to a scrimmage or two.

[Akash Rastogi]

I do like the fact that its a leveled field for most teams and that penalties won't determine matches. :)

All in all, just wait it out and see. I'm hoping to love it as much as I did when watching matches from 06.

[Raumiester2010]

yes, this game will totally turn the field upside down. for example, i feel bad for 1114's drivers. they probably have been practiceing for sooo long on carpet and now they have to un-learn that and figure out how to drive on ice.
i was kinda bummed when i learned that we cant be "nobody pushes Truck" but im thinking the change is good. this should be an interesting year.

- see you at the competitions!

[Akash Rastogi]

y...i feel bad for 1114's drivers. they probably have been practiceing for sooo long on carpet and now they have to un-learn that and figure out how to drive on ice.

Ha! I'm confident 1114's drivers can get through some icey fields. They're from Canadaland maaaan!!! :D

188 Won't have a problem either :D

25's drivers are also at their peak this year as it is their third year driving. They are good at adapting to situations. Just watch them dominate at NJ again this year. I'd also watch for 816 at NJ...their driver is a known drifter :cool:

[smurfgirl]

Actually, this is probably one of the better initial reactions I've had to a game, but I pretty much end up growing to love all of the games by the end of the season whether I initially liked them or not.

So far, I really like Lunacy- I like games where there's a lot of strategy involved (so last year was a bit more of a disappointment to me). Everytime I re-watch the animation and re-read through the rules, new complexities jump out at me. I know people have mixed reactions to <G14>, but I think it's great, just because of how many layers of complexity surround it. I don't think any of us will truly know what to make of it until we've seen it play out in a few competitions. I also like the change that's been made to the floor from recent years; the whole game has a refreshing feel to it, like it's a new twist on everything. I even like <R06>, because even though it sounds very limiting, it forces you to work within the intent of the game, but you're still going to see so many different and unique robot designs that approach the game very differently. I know the OP is a rookie, so I don't know if they realize this about each year's game. (:

[keen101]

For those of us who are a little rusty on our physics we will have to dig out some old equations and have to think of how things are going to be moving around the field.

It should be a very useful engineering skill to have to redesign our drive trains. It should certainly be interesting.

[JaneYoung]

A key word to keep in mind when participating on an FRC team is: flexibility.

The game changes year to year, creating a large part of the challenge. If you want to think about impact, think about AndyMark. How would a change like this impact them? Think about how important it is to have technical mentors as part of the team and how that impacts through challenges like this. Think about networking and how important that is.

Working as an alliance on the field during competition can be representative/reflective of how to interact/work together as professionals off the field. Chief Delphi is one example, the Blue Alliance is another (and weren't they spectacular yesterday, woo?!), NASA's incredible, amazing support throughout the year. These folks have to be flexible in the real world, real time. Look at the adjustments that Brandon Martus continued to make to the website yesterday so that FIRSTers and guests could continue to share insight, opinions, information.

Flexibility. For second year teams transitioning from a 2008 rookie year, try to keep in mind that 2008 is past and 2009 is present. Stay in the present. Use the past as a reference/resource but not as a rigid mindset that narrows the possibilities/opportunities that the present offers you.

[Dan2081]

The only thing I don't like is that this is going to be like gym class dodgeball. The more athletic kids, like basketball/baseball players are going to have a biiiig advantage over others.

[khemathunder09]

I like the game ok. I think it is going to be different from anything that the GDC has ever done and will probably ever do again. Its going to be a challenge, but in that lies the fun.

I feel really stupid asking this but where is the game animation on the FIRST website?? I can't find it anywhere. I think it might be my computer but I'm not sure. Can somebody give me the link?

[Brandon_L]

I didn't like overdrive at the kickoff last year but as the season went on I grew to love it. Right now I don't like much about the game but eventually I probably will!

[Travis Hoffman]

I feel really stupid asking this but where is the game animation on the FIRST website?? I can't find it anywhere. I think it might be my computer but I'm not sure. Can somebody give me the link?

On the NASA site - http://robotics.nasa.gov/events/2009_frcwebcasts.php

[Jaine Perotti]

Wow! Long time, no post for me. However, I must say that I think this is definitely the best game since 2006 (I'll have to wait and see some matches played before I decide that it's better than the 2004, 2005, or 2006 games).

Last year's game was - quite frankly - unexciting (although some elimination matches got me tensed up). I like this game because it will be easy to judge the progression of the match (i.e. who is winning) as a spectator in the stands, and I like how the GDC decided to shake things up with the slick surface and kit wheel requirement. The idea of trying to score balls into trailers attached to the opposing alliance's robots will certainly make for some exciting plays. Another plus about this game is the fact that there are no penalties which are TOO easy to incur.

I have seen many FIRST games played out over the years, and trust me - every game will grow on you. Give Lunacy a chance! :)

[khemathunder09]

On the NASA site - http://robotics.nasa.gov/events/2009_frcwebcasts.php

Thanks!

[skimoose]

The only thing I don't like is that this is going to be like gym class dodgeball. The more athletic kids, like basketball/baseball players are going to have a biiiig advantage over others.

What's wrong with that. Invite your school's best athletes to try out.

FIRST is about inspiration and changing society.

One of my favorite mentoring memories was a "jock" who attended a FIRST off-season competition because his girl friend was on the team. He got hooked on FIRST, became one of our better drivers, and went on to tech school after graduation. I don't think he had any real direction besides sports before he joined our team.

If we can get a "jock" to think like a "techie" or "nerd", that's changing society! ;)

[Akash Rastogi]

The only thing I don't like is that this is going to be like gym class dodgeball. The more athletic kids, like basketball/baseball players are going to have a biiiig advantage over others.

Dude that's the total opposite of what is going to happen. The intent of this game was to be fair. If you're that worried about the athletic kids winning over you, go practice scoring balls into the goal. Because I assure you, that's what all those "athletic" players do.

Diversify your team like we and many others have to include those athletes you seem to be so jealous of. Go make your point to them that you could use their help. Break social barriers for yourself.

[usbcd36]

I love the game, but not the game theme, which seems a little more childish than the past few.

On another note, this change makes me loathe the policy I pushed before graduating, which was to not use a drivetrain unless it has been tested before. I assumed the drivetrains would not change much, but I was very wrong.

[Betty_Krocker]

I semi dislike it purely from a driving stand point. Last year it was tough as crap. I am also from NY but reside in VA where nobody (or next to nobody) has ever seen snow/ice let alone driven on it. It is going to be really hard to tech someone how to drive effictively on an ice like surface in less than 6 weeks. I do like challenges though so Im up for anything...

[Fred Sayre]

I like the game concept a lot. It is new, unique and will be very interesting to see the dynamics of 6 players on this field.

I am a bit worried however, that it will decrease the number of unique designs and limit creativity a bit. The size limitations and drive train limitations makes me think we are going to see a lot of aim high machines with new wheels. It is always a little strange when a robot from a previous year will work pretty well (even if with just small modifications) for a new game.

[JohnBoucher]

I spoke with a few members of the GDC in Manchester. They are thrilled that they made such a radical change this year and it's well received.

I always worry the the game will be too tough for the rookie teams. I think they achieved a great balance this year.

[acdcfan259]

Long time since I've posted, wow. I like that they went with something different. As a driver I think it's going to be fun learning how to drive on the new surface. It should be difficult for veteran teams as it breaks from the norm, but easy for newer teams as it's a relatively simple game.

[germanystudent]

i must say this is a pretty good year for us rookies! we have no experience with omni-directionals, or any other fancy drive systems, so this is actually pretty sweet for us. plus living in north Idaho, we're used to driving in icy conditions, so this should be fun!:D

[Andrew Schreiber]

I like the game concept a lot. It is new, unique and will be very interesting to see the dynamics of 6 players on this field.

I am a bit worried however, that it will decrease the number of unique designs and limit creativity a bit. The size limitations and drive train limitations makes me think we are going to see a lot of aim high machines with new wheels. It is always a little strange when a robot from a previous year will work pretty well (even if with just small modifications) for a new game.

This is my only concern with this game. Limiting us to the same wheels and not expanding outside the starting box brings back very bad memories of Aim High. I loved Aim High, awesome game, but I had one issue with it, there were a LOT of similar robots. (Yes I know that we could expand in 2006 just not above 60") I fear we will have robots where the drive trains are all the same and that worries me. There is a quote by Ken Patton about when he saw a team moving sideways it was inspiring to him floating around here somewhere. We more than likely WON'T see that this year, we might see something cooler (I hope we do) but I cannot help but worry if this year is stifling creativity.

Concerns about having a TON of the same robots aside this game presents one other concern to me. The robot that is literally a box on wheels can beat the precision engineered robot, to me that is NOT inspiration. To me that says to do the bare minimum because anything else is a waste of resources. Any game where a box on wheels is a viable strategy worries me.

Aside from those worries I almost like the game. I will wait until 2nd week (Kettering District Event) to pass judgement on this game but as of right now it looks interesting. I am seriously hoping my concerns are wrong because this could be one awesome game, it does throw everything we have ever known to the winds and I like that.

Edit: Plus, being a native Michigander who drives a rwd car on ice all the time I can say that driving on this field is gonna be FUN!

[JaneYoung]

I semi dislike it purely from a driving stand point. Last year it was tough as crap. I am also from NY but reside in VA where nobody (or next to nobody) has ever seen snow/ice let alone driven on it. It is going to be really hard to tech someone how to drive effictively on an ice like surface in less than 6 weeks. I do like challenges though so Im up for anything...

Here in Austin, when it rains after a long dry spell, the conditions are very hazardous because of the oil slick on the roads. We see a lot of accidents on rainy days because of those conditions and the drivers' careless disregard for them.

It is a challenge but some common sense can be applied as well.

[Katie_UPS]

.

Concerns about having a TON of the same robots aside this game presents one other concern to me. The robot that is literally a box on wheels can beat the precision engineered robot, to me that is NOT inspiration. To me that says to do the bare minimum because anything else is a waste of resources. Any game where a box on wheels is a viable strategy worries me.



I think that there is a purpose for that.

The last few years, a box bot could only score a few points, where now it can do a little bit more. This makes things easier on teams that either don't have the experience or resources. Remember, the economy limits sponsors...

[Andrew Schreiber]

I think that there is a purpose for that.

The last few years, a box bot could only score a few points, where now it can do a little bit more. This makes things easier on teams that either don't have the experience or resources. Remember, the economy limits sponsors...

I understand that but if I put a box on wheels out I wouldn't be too inspired by it. I would be inspired by seeing 1114 dominate the field last year though. Frankly I am sick of the argument that FIRST has to cater to the low resource teams and make them equal to the great teams out there. FIRST is an organization for us to SHINE. <G14> is little more than an attack on great teams, it is saying that if you are an elite team against a team that can barely move you are to be penalized for success. Apparently FIRST doesn't want teams to be performing at their best.

And you can do a lot of pretty awesome stuff using nothing more than some hand tools.

[dtengineering]

I'm intrigued by the game. My experience has been that it isn't the game itself that makes things fun and exciting, but rather what the teams do with it. The only year I came away from kickoff going "Yeah.... this is the coolest game EVER" was in '06. I never thought FIRST would let us SHOOT things! I'm not worried about seeing a lot of robots "the same" despite the size restrictions. When we had similar size limits in 06 at the two regionals I attended that year there was a huge degree of variety in the robots, well illustrated in the "Behind the Design" book from that season.

I don't think that teams who are from icy parts of the world will have any advantage over those from sunny places. Driving a robot is completely different from driving a car, not least in the sense that you don't have a "seat of the pants" feel for what your machine is doing.

What I AM concerned about is the availability of the Orbit Balls. I expect FIRST will be providing information on where they may be obtained, because it would be too ironic if FIRST were to ignore the COTS rules that teams have to follow...

Jason

P.S. One further concern is that the robot, at the end of the season, might not be a great demo robot because the first thing everyone will wonder is "why didn't they use good wheels?" Sure, lots of people will ask that and get the answer and learn about how that affected the design, but most will probably walk off thinking "Huh... I could do better than THAT."

P.P.S. And as for G14 being an attack on "Great Teams"... I am sure the truly Great teams will be able to take it in stride and still manage to shine. I'm not sure any team is shown at their "best" when they completely blow out a weak opposing alliance.

[thefro526]

I'd also watch for 816 at NJ...their driver is a known drifter :cool:

Shhhhhhh.......

I like and dislike this game. I really don't like the lack of a definite autonomous mode/ autonomous objective. I think it'll be an OK game if it's played well but then again I fear we'll see a lot of matches with out of control robots going all over the field not scoring.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

I understand that but if I put a box on wheels out I wouldn't be too inspired by it. I would be inspired by seeing 1114 dominate the field last year though. Frankly I am sick of the argument that FIRST has to cater to the low resource teams and make them equal to the great teams out there. FIRST is an organization for us to SHINE. <G14> is little more than an attack on great teams, it is saying that if you are an elite team against a team that can barely move you are to be penalized for success. Apparently FIRST doesn't want teams to be performing at their best.

And you can do a lot of pretty awesome stuff using nothing more than some hand tools.

Andrew,

I have to disagree with you here.

The game is not won with the best looking machine, nor the best machined machine, not the team with the most money, nor the team with the most mentors.

The game is won by the teams that best understand.
They understand the game, They understand their own machining capabilities, and they only build into their machine what is really required.

A box on wheels will never beat 1114 unless they completely understand themselves, their strategy, and the game at hand. And if they do, then I'll bet that there is a lot more than a box on wheels there if you look real close.

JMHO

[Mike Schreiber]

My Likes:
-The closest thing we will get to a water game.
-It's different and challenging which does give rookies a chance.
-The proven preplanned drive train isn't as effective.
-The game combines the shooting/open field aspect of '06 with the goals from '04 (the trailers).
-Very strategic play.

My Dislikes:
-The rules are VERY limiting to strategy.
-There is no objective on the field other than other robots.
-Rookie teams who can't move will cripple their alliance as they are a sitting trailer.
-G14 is a punishment and despite the fact that it "evens the field" it says to teams "don't do your best and show how good you are." IMO it will have little to no effect on any match because I don't believe that all 4 super cells will be used, but it is a psychological deterrent.
-FIRST picked a game piece that is no longer in production and is (so far) not providing us with any means of obtaining them.
-The human player is a GIANT part of scoring and takes away from the impact of the actual robot performance. Who had their human player practice the most instead of perfecting their machine?
-My biggest problem with the game is the renaming of every position. The names are childish and impossible to remember especially if they are to change it every year. What is the difference between the Coach and the Commander? and how is the payload specialist any different than human player? I understand why they theme FLL, but applying the same concepts to 9 year olds and adults just seems ridiculous.


+$0.02

[Lil' Lavery]

With the exception of the highest levels of play, this game will be boring. And all games are exciting when played by the best.

The floor/wheels will make this game very slow and cumbersome. The acceleration will be dramatically slower, and it will be hard to perform well for a vast majority of teams.
This is compounded by <G14> making many teams lay off the pressure and/or score for oppoenents.

This will likely be the worst game since I've started participatin in 2003. Rather than "levellin the playing field," they simply handicapped everyone. It will take great strides of engineering to make bots that would be only mediocre by previous year's standards.

[RoboMom]

P.S. One further concern is that the robot, at the end of the season, might not be a great demo robot because the first thing everyone will wonder is "why didn't they use good wheels?" Sure, lots of people will ask that and get the answer and learn about how that affected the design, but most will probably walk off thinking "Huh... I could do better than THAT."


Those are the details running through my tired brain at kickoff each year. While everyone else is thinking about robot design, I'm thinking "Ok, how will this game be demonstrated to an audience of educators, potential sponsors, etc after April outside in tents, or in conference rooms? What stuff will need to be hauled around to demo? How can I explain this game in a minute or less, while sitting in the stands with some VIP or prospective mentor? How easy are the game pieces to acquire?
New this year is "that flooring looks pretty important." I do have some concerns about teams carrying robots on/off the field. And there goes the dancing...
And most importantly, "what are my earrings going to look like?" ;) http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/32129

Only have the earring thing answered so far...

[robodude03]

I think this game is pretty cool
we're all in the same position, so all veteran teams have to rethink their "universal" drivetrains
and plus, it has a basketball element to it

I think that is exactly what makes the game interesting. It puts both rookies and veterans on the same level in terms of driving. It will take a lot of practice to get used to the new environment.

[Dan2081]

Andrew,

I have to disagree with you here.

The game is not won with the best looking machine, nor the best machined machine, not the team with the most money, nor the team with the most mentors.

The game is won by the teams that best understand.
They understand the game, They understand their own machining capabilities, and they only build into their machine what is really required.

A box on wheels will never beat 1114 unless they completely understand themselves, their strategy, and the game at hand. And if they do, then I'll bet that there is a lot more than a box on wheels there if you look real close.

JMHO




I don't think FIRST shoudl have gone to even out the playing field either... From experience I can say that people join FIRST because they see some cool robot doing amazing functions, performing in ways unseen before. With Lunacy this year, the actual functionality of the robot will be equal if not less of an effect of the human players throwing balls..

This game doesn't allow for enough creativity imo; however I am still looking forward to competition!!!

[Katy]

The robot that is literally a box on wheels can beat the precision engineered robot, to me that is NOT inspiration. To me that says to do the bare minimum because anything else is a waste of resources. Any game where a box on wheels is a viable strategy worries me.

Any team that can pour resources onto a machine and have it come out nothing better than a box on wheels worries me! If your machine does the same things as a box on wheels but with precision mill-work and expensive sensors and the whole thing is coated in lexan just for the giggles: congratulations that WAS a waste of resources. You want to talk about entrepreneurship? You want to talk about real-life applications? A check book is not an appropriate brute force tactic in real life, and because of that fact it is reasonable to propose that it probably shouldn't be considered one in FIRST.

This is pretty much about the minimums you design your bot for. A robox is a pretty solid minimum. If you design your robot in the abstract of "how much better does our design do the task at hand than showing up to the match with only a human player" that is a very low minimum. A slightly better minimum is "how much better does our design do at the task at hand than showing up with a robox?" Higher still would be "what will an average team do at the competition and how can we blow that out of the water?" and for the truly ambitious "what will a good team be able to do and how can we top that?" What you shoot for depends a whole lot on what your team feels ready to take on, but if you take on a low minimum threshold for what you consider to be acceptable performance in your design, don't be so shocked when your robot works no better than you designed it to. :p

You're totally right! A box has a very high performance this game as a minimum. I guess that means it is probably the lowest benchmark you can safely use when designing a good bot because you can already see how many teams are going to try it.

[screw_in_my_arm]

Im kinda on the fence about this game. I think they could have done a little more, to make it more exciting. I do like the idea that we can pin other bots, and ramming is allowed. I havent really read all the rules yet, so if im wrong about the ramming, could somebody clear that up. Anyway, I guess i just have to wait till the play day to see how it all plays out. It will be interesting. Knowing my luck though, it will probably snow here in Baltimore, and I wont be able to go to the play day

[Drwurm]

I love the game, but not the game theme, which seems a little more childish than the past few.

This is one of my main complaints too. Obviously it's not a huge deal, but this game seems to have more of an FLL-style theme than past games. Now there's nothing wrong with FLL for its age group, but I would like to think FRC is a little more mature.

The shared resources is always a welcome competitive aspect to a game which should provide some great excitement as teams scramble and claw for the remaining balls as time runs down. The only other gripe I really have is the lack of a secondary goal that would require the use of a specialized manipulator. I've always enjoyed games that allow for big, diverse manipulators, which is why I ended up loving last year's game despite my initial wariness. I'm sure Lunacy will grow on me in the coming time, especially as I start to see pre-ship robot videos surface on youtube.

[Tetraman]

I've complained at 2007, and while I still never liked Rackn' Roll, I have to admit that it was not a failure. I was also very much against last year's game to begin, but once the regionals started I fell in love with it.

My first reaction to Lunacy was not that positive...but the more I get involved with it, the more I can't wait to see competition.

The reason why I like it, is probably because it reminds me of my rookie year's game Zone Zeal, and there is nothing better then reliving one's FIRST past.

[Danny McC]

Hmm I have not really decided yet wether I like this game or not. I usually do that when it actually comes time for the competitions. Because I start out saying hmmm this isnt gonna be fun but than by the end of the competitions I realize how fun the game actually is. I think that this game has a lot of potential to be fun.

[Lodyev]

Poor Royal Assault (356), we feel for them as fellow users of custom wheels.
Hahaha

[Akash Rastogi]

Poor Royal Assault (356), we feel for them as fellow users of custom wheels.
Hahaha

*clears throat* 357 *clears throat* :rolleyes:

[1t5h1e1o]

My views towards Lunacy have changed vastly.

While watching the animation and for the rest of Saturday I flat-out hated it. I hated the simplicity and the design restrictions. The only thing that seemed cool was the drifting and no ramming/pinning penalties.

One day later while designing the robot and after sleeping on it I am really looking forward to it. I think that it will still be a good game to watch/play and that there will still be plenty of great/cool robot designs out there despite the limitations.

I do however have one thing to say as a team that hosts a pre-ship scrimmage:

120 Wild Time Orbit Balls ................ ~$1200

24'X50' of Regolith ................... ~$1300

Knowing that you will most likely never need these again....... Priceless

[Josh Goodman]

Knowing that you will most likely never need these again....... Priceless

I believe Theo the word used to describe that is PAINFUL.

[notaPINKtruck]

I think the people who are decrying this year's titles like "commander" and "mission specialist" as "too immature for us adults" need to stop taking themselves so seriously.

One, FRC is designed for pre-college students so nobody playing the game can consider themselves a legal adult.

Second, these names are ripped directly from the titles used for NASA astronauts (and they don't seem to mind them).

Third, if the idea is to simulate a real-world challenge (such as moving/mining on the moon, which thousands of "real" engineering are currently working on), then its appropriate to used the correct vocabulary to extend the metaphor.

Fourth (and MOST importantly), I think you'll find that so-called "adults" who are so full of themselves as to think they're "above" a little goofyness like special titles aren't much fun to be around anyway.

In fact, I think the only real criticisms could be that (1) it makes the game less accessible to the general public (since they have to learn vocabulary), and (2) at first it's harder to talk about with teammates (though that will fade quickly).

My $0.02

[RogerHebert]

<G14> is little more than an attack on great teams, it is saying that if you are an elite team against a team that can barely move you are to be penalized for success. Apparently FIRST doesn't want teams to be performing at their best.
I wouldn't worry too much about it. IMO, worst case scenario: Incredible teams and their machines will always be chosen as alliance partners in the end, regardless of whether they managed to finesse the scores in every match. Scouting generally takes those things into account.

[yoshibrock]

I understand that but if I put a box on wheels out I wouldn't be too inspired by it. I would be inspired by seeing 1114 dominate the field last year though. Frankly I am sick of the argument that FIRST has to cater to the low resource teams and make them equal to the great teams out there. FIRST is an organization for us to SHINE. <G14> is little more than an attack on great teams, it is saying that if you are an elite team against a team that can barely move you are to be penalized for success. Apparently FIRST doesn't want teams to be performing at their best.

And you can do a lot of pretty awesome stuff using nothing more than some hand tools.

I agree with you about <G14>. I was wondering if anyone else noticed the correlation between it and Kamen's speech. Both seem/seemed to have very subtle socialist overtones....:cool:
I can easily see discussion of this rule turning into political debate as the season progresses :eek:

[Andrew Schreiber]

Any team that can pour resources onto a machine and have it come out nothing better than a box on wheels worries me! If your machine does the same things as a box on wheels but with precision mill-work and expensive sensors and the whole thing is coated in lexan just for the giggles: congratulations that WAS a waste of resources. You want to talk about entrepreneurship? You want to talk about real-life applications? A check book is not an appropriate brute force tactic in real life, and because of that fact it is reasonable to propose that it probably shouldn't be considered one in FIRST.

This is pretty much about the minimums you design your bot for. A robox is a pretty solid minimum. If you design your robot in the abstract of "how much better does our design do the task at hand than showing up to the match with only a human player" that is a very low minimum. A slightly better minimum is "how much better does our design do at the task at hand than showing up with a robox?" Higher still would be "what will an average team do at the competition and how can we blow that out of the water?" and for the truly ambitious "what will a good team be able to do and how can we top that?" What you shoot for depends a whole lot on what your team feels ready to take on, but if you take on a low minimum threshold for what you consider to be acceptable performance in your design, don't be so shocked when your robot works no better than you designed it to. :p

You're totally right! A box has a very high performance this game as a minimum. I guess that means it is probably the lowest benchmark you can safely use when designing a good bot because you can already see how many teams are going to try it.

Who said 397 would design a box on wheels? Trust me, I had a mentor on 2337 have to explain the KISS (Keep it simple Schreiber) principle to me earlier today. The answer to that is I will push our students to do more than that.

I am saying that I don't want to see a world where doing the bare minimum is rewarded. If you want to compete w/ less resources FIRST just isn't for you. FIRST is for those teams that partner w/ a corporate sponsor. If a team doesn't have a sponsor why is it FIRST's job to design for them? Remember, FIRST is not about teaching students. FIRST is all about partnering students with industry and making kids realize engineers are a hell of a lot better role models than Paris Hilton. Why should FIRST encourage these teams by saying it is ok to not do what FIRST was designed for?

Now, if a box on wheels could be a competitive robot, I am ok with that, but I have to say it is a pretty poor design when a box on wheels can be a competitive robot.

[BenB]

The only thing I don't like is that this is going to be like gym class dodgeball. The more athletic kids, like basketball/baseball players are going to have a biiiig advantage over others.

This is my beef as well. I don't think its fair how much humans will be able to score this year, it's supposed to be about the robots.

I especially dislike the super cells. I think the bonus points idea is great, but they are located behind the alliance station wall. There is no way to get the ball on the field, without throwing it. Unless the balls are thrown in the hopper of an alliance robot, super cells will only be scored by humans, which I predict will be the difference in winning in many games.

I like the challenge of the new surface (I hated it at first), but there is way to much human scoring this year.

[JaneYoung]

I am saying that I don't want to see a world where doing the bare minimum is rewarded. If you want to compete w/ less resources FIRST just isn't for you. FIRST is for those teams that partner w/ a corporate sponsor. If a team doesn't have a sponsor why is it FIRST's job to design for them? Remember, FIRST is not about teaching students. FIRST is all about partnering students with industry and making kids realize engineers are a hell of a lot better role models than Paris Hilton. Why should FIRST encourage these teams by saying it is ok to not do what FIRST was designed for?


Andrew, I can understand your point of view to a point. I'd love to say that in our area of Texas, we have corporate sponsors coming out of the woodwork. That's not necessarily the case. We have teams in the central Texas area who are working very hard to make that ideology a reality, but it takes a lot of effort and hard work. In the meantime, teams are encouraged to find businesses to work with them, obtaining smaller donations/sponsorships, that help add up and help support the teams. There are areas in the FRC communities, globally, that don't have a lot of technical mentor support. The teams work on that but some struggle with it year after year. There are threads in CD that discuss the struggles. Do teams that struggle for corporate sponsorship, that lose corporate sponsorship, that struggle to obtain and retain technical sponsors, fail to belong in FRC? Who decides that? Inspiration is available to everyone. Teams that compete in regionals/competitions and those who are able to go to the Championship, are exposed to incredible mentors. Many of them are the inspectors that work so hard to help the teams qualify. Many are refs, many are field volunteers, coaches, emcees, announcers, pit admins. The teams that are not flush with resources, still have equal access to the experience... to inspiration. To scholarships. To internship opportunities. That's real, that's not ideology.

As far as boxes on wheels... good things happen with boxes on wheels. Ask anyone who was at some of the regionals around the world in 2008. There was a lot of inspiration occurring, a lot of community development going on, a lot of fun happening in a lot of places. I could write a book about OKC's inaugural regional last year and the transformation of some of the teams from Thursday to Saturday. None of the rookies, who formed the majority of teams at that regional, left the competition or the field empty handed. They walked away having gained experience, confidence, a sense of achievement and wonder. Working with mentors like Andy Baker as your head ref can do that.

I will never be convinced that FRC is for an elitist group of mentors or students with deep pockets in the resources area.
--
As for judging this game so early regarding robot design and strategy - I have a feeling that this game, like the others, is layered with possibilities, and teams who think carefully and consider many options, will come up with lots of surprises and innovative ideas. And, regarding labeling the positions with the appropriate titles given - it is going to make it so easy to help explain the game to fans, guests, and viewers. I think it is great.

[mrnoble]

Andrew, I think you're making a grave error in your assessment of the purpose and structure of FIRST. FRC is broad enough to encompass the well-sponsored and highly organized as well as the rookie team made up of a couple kids and a Literature teacher who got a scholarship from NASA. We should celebrate the achievements of both extremes, and the progress made by those who are moving more towards the model you put forth. For nearly all FIRST teams, it takes (many) years to achieve steady corporate sponsorship and consistent mentoring. As far as I'm concerned, this game, and the way it was presented by Kamen et al, is an acknowledgment and affirmation of this aspect of FRC, and I like it.:D

[The Pre]

at first i disliked the game but i believe it will bring an even playing field upon the regionals. like many have stated the "custom" or "special" wheels that teams with money have and their "universal drivetrains" will be of no use this year and it will be a total rebuild from the ground up (which is how i believe FRC should be played)

then again i come from a team where we have 1 engineer manager and 1 electrical guy from UL and they don't do much besides answer our questions. all is done by the students. looking at some of the other robots i've seen i really wonder how much is designed, manufactured, or assembled by the students.

i left my home team 1652 in Kenosha and when i came to school at UW-Platteville i noticed they had a team 171 but it seemed alot of the engineers (students and faculty) from the campus were involved with it and the university even payed for it. that doesn't seem like highschool stuff to me but then again i never went to any of their meetings so its all my speculation.

this year will be a big toss up taking away the advantages (wheels) that some (elite) teams had before and put everyone on an even (slick) playing surface which should definitely test who builds the strongest most durable robot which always seems to be a problem. i see lots of creativity coming out of this constraint filled competition

~jp

[Zach Purser]

I won't know if I like or dislike this game until the first round of regionals is over.

My first impression is that this years game will be won or lost by the programmers. The constantly moving goals means that dead reckoning will only be useful as a defensive strategy for automode. And you better start moving when the auto mode begins or you're going to get scored on. Consistently scoring on the opponents goals will be extremely difficult for the drivers without some help from sensors and good programmers.

I like the low friction floor, it's a great distraction. I think the bigger challenge is deciding how to pull a 40 pound trailer efficiently. The ability to drive sideways would be nearly useless when you're attached to a trailer that can't move sideways with you.

After last year I'm thrilled that there will be far fewer penalties. It was so frustrating trying to figure out your last second strategy when you didn't know if you were ahead or behind.

<G14> socialist? You have to outscore the opposing team by 2x before you have to worry about this. This rule just prevents teams from destroying their opponents. If you're worried about your score being more than 2x your opponents, then pull your robot over to your human player and start scoring for the other team, you can both have high scores then, but you still get to win.

A box on wheels? Maybe, but it's what's in the box that matters. Most of the Aim High robots could be described as a box on wheels, but some designs were clearly better than others.

[ChuckDickerson]

I am saying that I don't want to see a world where doing the bare minimum is rewarded.

Your bare minimum may just be some other team's best effort. Everyone deserves to be rewarded when they work hard and do the best they can don't they?

If you want to compete w/ less resources FIRST just isn't for you.

Really? That sounds pretty elitist to me. I feel the opposite. FIRST is for everyone. You do the best you can with what you have and hopefully everyone leaves with more than they came with.

FIRST is for those teams that partner w/ a corporate sponsor.

Easy for a Michigan team to say I suppose. Anytime you want to come on down to a small Mississippi town and bring some big corporate sponsors with deep pockets with you we would be happy to have you. We are known as the Hospitality State.;)

If a team doesn't have a sponsor why is it FIRST's job to design for them?

Because every student deserves the opportunity to experiance FIRST, not just the students that live in areas flush with big corporate sponsors.

Remember, FIRST is not about teaching students.

You are kidding right? FIRST is all about teaching! Professional mentors teaching students how to solve a problem to the best of their collective ability given the tools available and within the constraints placed on the solution. It is not about who can build the shiniest, fanciest, most sophisticated robot using the most expensive CNC equipment they can find. If you have that resource great, if not that's fine as well. FIRST should be for everyone. I could have sworn that I had seen one or two of the hundreds of thousands of FIRST students over the last (almost) two decades learning something useful. I'm sorry you fell you weren't one of them. I suspect your corporate sponsors would be sorry to hear the money they invested in you must have been wasted as well because I'm pretty sure the whole reason corporations invest in FIRST is because they fell it better prepares their future work force by TEACHING students real world lessons.

FIRST is all about partnering students with industry and making kids realize engineers are a hell of a lot better role models than Paris Hilton.

Agreed but that is just one of many things that FIRST "is all about".

Why should FIRST encourage these teams by saying it is ok to not do what FIRST was designed for?

FIRST = For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology. Inspiration and Recognition comes in many forms and on many levels. If a team (rookie or vet) can only build a box on wheels but they learned even a little something along the way why is that a bad thing? At least they built SOMETHING. I have run across many people that couldn't figure out how to get themselves out of a hole in the ground if you gave them a pile of 2x4s, handsaw, hammer, and a box of nails.

As far as the main thread topic, I love the game and thank the GDC for leveling the playing field in such a elegant way. I also love the Moon theme and the tribute to the 40th anniversary of the FIRST lunar landing!

[Alex.Norton]

My vote is still really far out on this game. I like games that level the playing field so that rookies and lower budget teams can really easily compete with the big name teams. Also regardless of my opinion of the game at the start I seem to always warm up to it in the end. Although I have noticed that my opinion at the end is usually the opposite of that at the beginning (I didn't like 07's game at the start and love it now, and I really liked 06 at the start and its perhaps my least favorite now).

I really like the idea of low traction. I have never been a fan of defense, especially playing it in a very pushy way. I love seeing a team stretch to be something amazing and felt that this strategy caused teams to play it too safe and not reach for the stars. This year even if a team is playing defense they're going to have to be really creative. Plus I'm a little gratified that FIRST has been discouraging this type of defense the last couple of years.

The main reason that I dislike the game however is currently winning in my mind. one of the things that I love about FIRST is getting to run around the pits and look at all the solutions that teams have provided for the game. All the different solutions to building the drive train and the manipulator. How the machines expand and work and do everything that they do. This year with the rule limiting the use of different wheels and the rules limiting the size of the robot during the entire game I'm worried about the diversity of the machines.

I'm confident and hoping that my concerns won't be realized but that's why they call them worries isn't it...

[Nawaid Ladak]

I don't like it right now.

But games grow on you. I didn't like rack n roll at all at first, but some plays were kinda fun.

07 was great, the end game was so much better than 08, 06, or 05, robots lifting each other up, a spoiler going up at the last second, 2007 was my second favorite game for as long as i've been in FIRST (04 tops the list, you can't beat bots hanging from a bar.... or 61 trying to block bots hanging while hanging themselves...)

Your bare minimum may just be some other team's best effort. Everyone deserves to be rewarded when they work hard and do the best they can don't they?



Really? That sounds pretty elitist to me. I feel the opposite. FIRST is for everyone. You do the best you can with what you have and hopefully everyone leaves with more than they came with.



Easy for a Michigan team to say I suppose. Anytime you want to come on down to a small Mississippi town and bring some big corporate sponsors with deep pockets with you we would be happy to have you. We are known as the Hospitality State.;)



Because every student deserves the opportunity to experiance FIRST, not just the students that live in areas flush with big corporate sponsors.



You are kidding right? FIRST is all about teaching! Professional mentors teaching students how to solve a problem to the best of their collective ability given the tools available and within the constraints placed on the solution. It is not about who can build the shiniest, fanciest, most sophisticated robot using the most expensive CNC equipment they can find. If you have that resource great, if not that's fine as well. FIRST should be for everyone. I could have sworn that I had seen one or two of the hundreds of thousands of FIRST students over the last (almost) two decades learning something useful. I'm sorry you fell you weren't one of them. I suspect your corporate sponsors would be sorry to hear the money they invested in you must have been wasted as well because I'm pretty sure the whole reason corporations invest in FIRST is because they fell it better prepares their future work force by TEACHING students real world lessons.



Agreed but that is just one of many things that FIRST "is all about".



FIRST = For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology. Inspiration and Recognition comes in many forms and on many levels. If a team (rookie or vet) can only build a box on wheels but they learned even a little something along the way why is that a bad thing? At least they built SOMETHING. I have run across many people that couldn't figure out how to get themselves out of a hole in the ground if you gave them a pile of 2x4s, handsaw, hammer, and a box of nails.

As far as the main thread topic, I love the game and thank the GDC for leveling the playing field in such a elegant way. I also love the Moon theme and the tribute to the 40th anniversary of the FIRST lunar landing!

excelent points

im not sure how i feel about the game, im teamless right now (well, semi-945ish but thats a 2-hr bus ride for me :( ) I think i'll have to wait until week one of the regionals to decide if truly do like this game (scrimmages are on valentines day if im correct and i might be busy that day...)

P.S. DeepWater, what are these "deep pockets" you speak of, last time i checked, some companies from MI were in DC asking for some $$$ ?

[Andrew Schreiber]

Your bare minimum may just be some other team's best effort. Everyone deserves to be rewarded when they work hard and do the best they can don't they?

Really? That sounds pretty elitist to me. I feel the opposite. FIRST is for everyone. You do the best you can with what you have and hopefully everyone leaves with more than they came with.

Easy for a Michigan team to say I suppose. Anytime you want to come on down to a small Mississippi town and bring some big corporate sponsors with deep pockets with you we would be happy to have you. We are known as the Hospitality State.;)

Because every student deserves the opportunity to experiance FIRST, not just the students that live in areas flush with big corporate sponsors.

You are kidding right? FIRST is all about teaching! Professional mentors teaching students how to solve a problem to the best of their collective ability given the tools available and within the constraints placed on the solution. It is not about who can build the shiniest, fanciest, most sophisticated robot using the most expensive CNC equipment they can find. If you have that resource great, if not that's fine as well. FIRST should be for everyone. I could have sworn that I had seen one or two of the hundreds of thousands of FIRST students over the last (almost) two decades learning something useful. I'm sorry you fell you weren't one of them. I suspect your corporate sponsors would be sorry to hear the money they invested in you must have been wasted as well because I'm pretty sure the whole reason corporations invest in FIRST is because they fell it better prepares their future work force by TEACHING students real world lessons.

Agreed but that is just one of many things that FIRST "is all about".

FIRST = For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology. Inspiration and Recognition comes in many forms and on many levels. If a team (rookie or vet) can only build a box on wheels but they learned even a little something along the way why is that a bad thing? At least they built SOMETHING. I have run across many people that couldn't figure out how to get themselves out of a hole in the ground if you gave them a pile of 2x4s, handsaw, hammer, and a box of nails.


Sigh, I really stirred up a hornet nest with my comments. Oh well, open discussion is always a good thing. I apologize to the person who started this thread for thread jacking.

First off, I suggest reading http://www.huskiebrigade.com/DEKA1998.html which is a speech from Dean himself. Thank you to the Huskie Brigade for making that available. If the goals of FIRST have changed in that time then so be it but I feel he very adequately describes them there.

If a team does their best that is great, teams should always do their best and not get discouraged when they lose.

I admit my comment about FIRST not being the right place for some teams does sound elitist but frankly I don't feel that FIRST is for everyone. There are other competitions out there for groups with fewer technical resources. Vex is an excellent example of one. If a person decides FIRST is for them, then they bring what they can to the table and hopefully get something out. Im not saying that we should raise the price of FIRST so that small teams die out, in fact FIRST in Michigan is about trying to lower the costs so that teams without major monetary sponsors can compete. I believe and support FiM but feel that the teams complaining about the "elite" teams need to stop, these teams started as rookies just like everyone else.

About Michigan being "flush with big corporate sponsors" I apologize but if we are so flush with corporate sponsors why is our unemployment rate so high? In fact Michigan posted the highest jobless rate in the nation in November. I still stand by my statement that FIRST is about partnering with industry to inspire kids though.

Your argument about how every kid deserves FIRST makes sense, honestly it does, but there is one problem. Every student deserves an education too. Does that mean that teachers have to start testing so that even the worst students can pass? In a class room if I get 28% on a test and you get 90% what do you want the teacher to do, adjust my score so that is a 90% too? Because, you know, every student deserves to graduate. And you know what, while we are at it, everyone deserves a Mercedes Benz, and paid vacation, and a million dollar home right? You know why people can buy those things? You know why teams pay Michael Jordan millions of dollars to throw a ball in a hoop? Because he worked his butt off. If you want to score that 90% on the test you better study. If you want to build that winning robot you better be willing to put in the time it takes. 217 can build a stellar robot every year, you know why? Because they have dedicated students and mentors. I would be willing to bet you that if you told 217 that they could only spend $800 on a robot this year they would STILL put out a stunning machine. How do I know that? I know the team, I know that their quality doesn't come from money, it comes from their passion for FIRST, their desire to win. How do you think RUSH won its Regional Chairman's award? Do you think they bribed the judges? Do you think that the judges thought, "Oh hey, this is RUSH they deserve to win because they have a long history"? No, they won out of sheer determination, they won because students and mentors on that team dedicated 6 solid weeks of their lives to that presentation, they won because a decade of people like me dedicated ourselves. The teams that win don't win because they build complex robots or because they spend thousands of dollars, they win because they have dedicated people involved.

And no, I am not kidding about FIRST not being about teaching students. FIRST is often compared to the Super Bowl, does the Super Bowl teach you how to play football? No, it is a high profile event that gets kids hooked. FIRST is the same way, it is not our job to teach the students how to program some advanced algorithms or to use a 5-axis cnc mill. We are here to say, "Look, you have other options other than working at Pop's used car dealership for the rest of your life." You said it yourself, For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology. Nowhere is the word education mentioned. We are here to inspire these kids, make them recognize that Science and Technology are options for them, we need to show them their lives can be better than, "Would you like fries with that"

In response to the impression that I learned nothing in FIRST, well, actually, I'm not sure how to reply to that. FIRST gave me everything I am today, it is the reason I am at the college I am at. It is the reason I am majoring in Computer Science. It is the reason I actively mentor a team in inner city Flint. No, FIRST is a wonderful program but it isn't what taught me about engineering, it taught me about following my passions. It showed me a path I may not have considered. Why else would I give the time I do trying to give other kids the same chances I had? And about 397, we are by no means an elite team. We build out of our shop in our school, we have between 6 and 15 students, most of whom have never touched a mill in their life prior to FRC. We have a handful of college mentors and some Delphi engineers. We receive very little money from Delphi and community fundraising is hard because we are based in Flint, MI.

If I come across as elitist or a jerk I apologize, that is not my intent. I merely have a problem with some very specific rules that I believe are punishing "elite" teams for doing well.

Sorry for the somewhat disjointed post, I was trying to respond point by point as best as I could. I also apologize for the novel I just wrote.

[Doug G]

I agree that for the most part, a lot of robots this year will just be mediocre '06 robots. True the powerhouse teams will have some amazing bots, but for the most part, it will be disappointing to watch compared to games of the past (a pure spectator point of view). For my team, I think this is the year we try some amazing new techniques, because in the end, it may not give you a big advantage or disadvantage on the field but more importantly shoot for some of the other awards offered by judges.

[Adam Y.]

If I come across as elitist or a jerk I apologize, that is not my intent. I merely have a problem with some very specific rules that I believe are punishing "elite" teams for doing well.

Let's be honest with ourselves here. The FIRST competition was never an accurate representation of real life engineering. It always placed emphasis on the mechanical aspect. Without some fancy doodad mechanical widget you were really never going to score a lot of points.The problem is that in real life engineering designs are always more rounded. The fancy mechanical widget might receive less emphasis than the programing, electronics, or even the control system. I like it because I always thought that it was odd that the fancy mechanical widget was getting so much emphasis when in actuality there are five other engineering disciplines that should be introduced to kids.
This is one of my main complaints too. Obviously it's not a huge deal, but this game seems to have more of an FLL-style theme than past games. Now there's nothing wrong with FLL for its age group, but I would like to think FRC is a little more mature.

Ooo for crying out loud. This is FIRST. My fondest memory was asking questions about Spirit and Opportunity to a NASA scientist while dressed up in a lion suit.

[Mike Schreiber]

Ooo for crying out loud. This is FIRST. My fondest memory was asking questions about Spirit and Opportunity to a NASA scientist while dressed up in a lion suit.

But you must also consider that while you enjoy dressing up in a lion suit it is still viewed as informal and unprofessional. My problem with the theme of the game is that it comes off as a child's game when presenting to companies or describing it to any one and the names of the game pieces are somewhat difficult to associate with the objects. Which would you rather say to a CEO of a company who is considering donating money? Which is he more likely to understand. "The payload specialist throws the moon rocks into the crater" or "The human player throws the orbit balls onto the field?"

[Alan Anderson]

...I don't think its fair how much humans will be able to score this year, it's supposed to be about the robots.

I disagree with you. It's about partnerships. I've always mentioned the education/industry, teams/communities, and mentor/student partnerships in my FIRST "elevator speech". I might start listing the human/robot partnership as well.

I liked 2004's game a lot -- where all the scoring of balls in goals was done by the Human Player, and robots were prohibited from doing it.

[JaneYoung]

I might start listing the human/robot partnership as well.


You made me think of the work that is being done on the International Space Station. (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/main/index.html)

[Mike Schreiber]

Yes but which would you rather have a robot that goes and gets your beverage out of the refrigerator without bringing it to you and you have to go get it? or one that brings it to you? Partnerships are overrated I'd rather have the robot do it all :p

[Drwurm]

Which is he more likely to understand. "The payload specialist throws the moon rocks into the crater" or "The human player throws the orbit balls onto the field?"

Agreed. This is a bit of a departure from what I feel the past few years have done. The game rules are confusing enough every year, why try to force a theme into it and apply these silly names?

I disagree with you. It's about partnerships. I've always mentioned the education/industry, teams/communities, and mentor/student partnerships in my FIRST "elevator speech". I might start listing the human/robot partnership as well.

I liked 2004's game a lot -- where all the scoring of balls in goals was done by the Human Player, and robots were prohibited from doing it.

Indeed. This is much similar to what a real world scenario is. Who sees robots accomplishing complex tasks all on their own in 5 years? Who sees robots working in conjunction with humans to ease complex tasks in 5 years? I believe the latter is the more plausible scenario.

[EStokely]

I like it for all of the reasons already stated.

It really levels the playing field , Team s with already engineered drive trains are like rookies, that is good for all. Teams that have already engineered arms are also like rookies.

Its like we are ALL rookies.

And I like that.

[Andrew Schreiber]

I like it for all of the reasons already stated.

It really levels the playing field , Team s with already engineered drive trains are like rookies, that is good for all. Teams that have already engineered arms are also like rookies.

Its like we are ALL rookies.

And I like that.

I fail to see why everyone being like rookies is a good thing. Eric I noticed you are a teacher, I will assume you have a decade of experience teaching (could be more or less either way). If I were to apply the same idea to your pay as you are applying to the veteran teams you would be paid the same as a new teacher, is that fair? These teams started somewhere didn't they? They had to start as rookies too. This groaning about successful teams has to stop. I could care less if Dave Lavery, Dean Kamen, and Woodie Flowers all approve of it. If we are not rewarded for doing great, if everyone gets the exact same, why would anyone ever push the envelope?

Again, I digress from the thread topic. This game is growing on me, I like the surface, and the constraints are interesting. The only rule I have a deep seated disagreement with is <G14>.

[Adam Y.]

But you must also consider that while you enjoy dressing up in a lion suit it is still viewed as informal and unprofessional.
I don't know about you but unless things really changed in five years you can count 95% of the people who participate in first as "informal and unprofessional".
I fail to see why everyone being like rookies is a good thing. Eric I noticed you are a teacher, I will assume you have a decade of experience teaching (could be more or less either way). If I were to apply the same idea to your pay as you are applying to the veteran teams you would be paid the same as a new teacher, is that fair? These teams started somewhere didn't they? They had to start as rookies too. This groaning about successful teams has to stop. I could care less if Dave Lavery, Dean Kamen, and Woodie Flowers all approve of it. If we are not rewarded for doing great, if everyone gets the exact same, why would anyone ever push the envelope?

Uhhhhhh.... It's happened to two of my professors who have their PHDs in electrical engineering. They've both admitted that they have been positions where they were complete novices in some regard. My one professor had to figure out how to keep embryos alive. My other had to teach himself about system modeling after he discovered that an image tracking system affects the dynamics of a robot he was working. Consider this a harsh facet of engineering. There is a good chance that the same scenario that happened to these teams will happen to you.

[JaneYoung]

I don't know about you but unless things really changed in five years you can count 95% of the people who participate in first as "informal and unprofessional".

Here's an interesting thought:
I've sat in on different judges' panels during the off-season, in different parts of the US, in different years, and judges who are not members of FRC teams but rather, guests, often representing sponsors of the competition, start talking about a participating team, FRC 1902, Exploding Bacon. The name, the cheer - could be perceived as informal and unprofessional. Not a chance. The name is always seen as fresh, exciting, eye-catching. The cheer - fun, enthusiastic, infectious. The team - professional.

I've sat in the stands at many events and talked with VIPs - potential sponsors, politicians, school board members. Their eyes are focused on the competition and the attitudes of the partnerships between the students/mentors, the alliances, the teams working with/listening to the refs. For the most part, the teams represent themselves and the FRC program well at the event they are competing it - having a great time and showing respect for the game. The respect shown is the key towards reflecting professionalism.

--
I'm not so sure that this game makes everyone a rookie. It poses a challenge and it is different in many ways but it does not detract from the experience of the veteran teams. As for the rookie teams in 2009 - unless the same materials are used in 2010, does this mean they will be repeat rookies? Or does it mean that in 2010, they will have had a year's worth of experience in FRC and that will help them adjust/adapt to the 2010 game challenge?

[Drwurm]

I don't get why everybody says all teams are rookie teams this year. The great teams of past years will still be great. The rookie teams will still be.... well, rookie teams :).

[Moreau]

Meh, I'm an eternal pessimist... but I initially liked this game. Interesting concept of a super low friction course with the only goals being attached to robots.

However, the more I look at it, the more I think I see how it will work out. And, of course, I have a lot of suspicions. First I'll just gripe a bit...

I don't like the idea of the human player being so vital (if you want human involvement, look at the drivers. Yeah, keep looking.), although I did like in rack and roll how a human player technically could score, but it was very difficult and luck based. Here, it looks like human players will get at least 50% of the points in the average games.

I dislike the no expansion rule. Make it so that we can't interfere with our own trailer (blocking points going into it), but please don't prevent us from going outside of the box... Honestly, I can't imagine any effective design that needs to go very far outside of the starting configuration, but even just a foot out of the box allows much more accurate dumping of balls into a trailer. And this game looks like it will need all of the points it can allow to be interesting.

I don't really like the low friction this year all that much. I don't hate it, but it's not really an engineering challenge. It's a limitation... sure, you can do some things to compensate for it, but its not a very interesting challenge in itself. The real challenge is the fact that the robots will all be moving like drunken ice skaters with their arms duct taped to their sides, trying to throw balls into other ice skaters' backpacks while everyone moves around in a big mess. And with a lot less acceleration than ice skaters.

As others have said, this year's robots will be very poor demonstration bots, so keep those 2008 bots together.

Now, game play issues that I foresee:

Wheel scuffing. With the absurdly low friction between the wheels and the floor, the slightest difference in surface of the wheels could provide a huge boost in traction. The rules allow for wheels to have normal wear and tear from running them on floors, but disallow deliberate modification to improve traction. Well, in the whole 10 minutes of dinking around with the wheels on a robot frame that we did, the wheels look like they've been sandpapered and scuffed severely just from running on some slightly (haha) dirty tile. And even a tiny gain in friction can provide a massive increase in power to the ground (a .02 increase in the coefficient of friction is between a 30% and 40% gain in friction), and it will be very noticeable. How is this going to be policed? Must we have pristine wheels to be allowed to compete (and thus never let them touch anything but super clean and smooth competition-like floors?), or will some scuffing be allowed? And if it is, how much is the cut off? Just run the robot over concrete for 10 seconds and you probably doubled your traction on the "regolith."

Anyways, in looking and the time allowed for supercells to be in play and the maximum acceleration of a robot (without a fan), I found that it would be almost impossible to grab a supercell from the far back and run all the way to the other side to find a robot and dunk it within 20 seconds. Instead, you would have to use the carpet along the walls.

I think this game will devolve into carpet scooting, with the "regolith" being a no-go zone for most of the match unless you get pushed out into it. People will vie for position on the carpet and use it to move around, coming off of it to perhaps try and coerce someone else near a friendly human player. Basically, a race track with an ice rink in the middle. You won't want to come off of the carpet unless you want to make a move on someone because you would become an easy target. If you're on the carpet, you're essentially immune to anyone pushing from the ice unless they get to the carpet and gain footing. You would also be able to wiggle your trailer out of the way easily enough if you're on carpet.

Interestingly, a carpet strategy will require a car-style driving system since only one set of wheels can be in contact with the tiny strip of carpet. That is, unless you like sliding along the walls for the entire match until someone bumps you out of your rut.

I do like that the best strategy on the regolith will probably be a coordinated push by one alliance against a straggler of the opposing alliance in the effort to get them into a corner near a human player, and perhaps dump a few balls into the trailer if possible. Two or three robots will always win a pushing contest against one in this game as long as the two push in a similar direction.

Bah, I'm rambling a bit at this point and I've lost any cohesive conclusion that I might have had in mind, but there are some of my thoughts. I think this will be a very defensive game with most robots sticking close to the carpet and their "safe zones" near their alliance human players, since that nearly eliminates any potential loss of control and scoring against you.

*edit* Oh yes, and I hate how a practice field is out of reach for the vast majority of teams. Over $1000 dollars for a reasonable recreation of the field is ridiculous, so very well financed teams (or teams near very well financed and nice teams) will be the only people coming in with real driving experience. Everyone else is going to be scuffing up their tires practicing on much higher friction surfaces, or getting somewhat closer experiences off of waxed tile. No real drive experience is bad enough, never mind how hard robot on robot scoring is going to be in general due to positioning...

[Akash Rastogi]

If I come across as elitist or a jerk I apologize, that is not my intent. I merely have a problem with some very specific rules that I believe are punishing "elite" teams for doing well.

Haha, Andrew. I don't think you should apologize. Your posts are great because of your support and that is why I love reading them.

Opinions differ but respect those of others you guys. Andrew is well respected on here and his arguments shouldn't just be opposed by an opposite opinion. Do what he does and use facts from a source and cited articles such as his link to Dean's speech, not assumptions and more opinions. That is the only way to get through to a good debater.

Veteran team or not, I don't like the game because of the way Andrew has described. Funny thing is, mentors on my team like it! Just goes to show how your opinions don't have to match but you can still work on a common goal!

[EROCK]

I don't like how humans can throw balls at the robots to score points. Jeez all you have to do is get the future NBA star at your school to throw and you can stack the game towards you.

Does anyone else see this as a threat?

[Koko Ed]

I don't like how humans can throw balls at the robots to score points. Jeez all you have to do is get the future NBA star at your school to throw and you can stack the game towards you.

Does anyone else see this as a threat?

Wasn't a problem in 2001,2002 or 2004.

[Boomer]

Me too. I understand trying to have more human involvement during the game, but seriously, it seems that they have cut the actual robots role down to just about nothing. It will be interesting to see what people do to overcome this, but with the human scoring option, it will not have a high priority on teams schedules, and if they really do much it will be something minor right before shipping.

Also, another thing I don't like is the fact they changed some of the rules so much. Especially the expansion rule, and the fix-it window rule. What do they expect us to do, compete with robots that has something seriously wrong with it that does absolutely nothing much anyway?

Well, at least we know why this game this year is called lunacy.

[Adam Y.]

Me too. I understand trying to have more human involvement during the game, but seriously, it seems that they have cut the actual robots role down to just about nothing. It will be interesting to see what people do to overcome this, but with the human scoring option, it will not have a high priority on teams schedules, and if they really do much it will be something minor right before shipping.

You apparently were not around for 2001. It was almost the same exact game only on carpet.

[EROCK]

Maybe I am just crazy but I still think that anybody with a basketball player on their team will get some serious points. This is a robotics competition and when you have a human side by side of a robot trying to score doesn't it kind of defeat the purpose of a robot?

[Adam Y.]

Maybe I am just crazy but I still think that anybody with a basketball player on their team will get some serious points. This is a robotics competition and when you have a human side by side of a robot trying to score doesn't it kind of defeat the purpose of a robot?
This isn't the first game where people could toss objects into goals.

[JaneYoung]

Me too. I understand trying to have more human involvement during the game, but seriously, it seems that they have cut the actual robots role down to just about nothing.

Well, here's a couple of questions:
1. when was the last time your robot pulled a trailer?
2. when was the last time your robot pulled a trailer on ice?
3. when was the last time your robot pulled a trailer on ice with the other robots also pulling trailers on ice?

I think the robots are going to be a wee busy this year but then again, I might be wrong, I've only pulled a trailer with my truck on the road in slick conditions.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Me too. I understand trying to have more human involvement during the game, but seriously, it seems that they have cut the actual robots role down to just about nothing. It will be interesting to see what people do to overcome this, but with the human scoring option, it will not have a high priority on teams schedules, and if they really do much it will be something minor right before shipping.

Also, another thing I don't like is the fact they changed some of the rules so much. Especially the expansion rule, and the fix-it window rule. What do they expect us to do, compete with robots that has something seriously wrong with it that does absolutely nothing much anyway?


Human scoring is nothing new, my rookie year humans did all the scoring with the exception of hanging and a 2x multiplier. I would not agree that the robots won't be doing much, humans can't retrieve the balls themselves. Plus, pulling a trailer on ice is not fun. Heck, driving on ice is not fun trust me, I just had a real fun experience getting out of a friend's driveway 3 hours ago. Adding a trailer on makes life even worse, I think that building a trailer and practicing a TON will make or break teams this year. Driving elegantly will be simply amazing if any team can pull it off.

Fix it windows, I know that when I publish a change to a customer at work and have it break I dont have a week to go back to my code, I have a couple hours while things are broken and I have to fix things with the errors flying in. Eliminating fix it windows is, in my opinion ok. The only exception would be for Michigan teams, recall, we no longer have Thursday as a practice day so most of our matches are real matches. And frankly, if you build a machine that has something seriously wrong with it why should you get to copy the machines that are not wrong? Go play poker by that logic, "Oh, well, I shouldn't have put this much money on my hand because your hand is better, let me deal hands again so I can win."

Expansion, it is limiting, do I like it? No, but I will live with it and design around it. It could be fun to try to design a smaller robot with the larger control system. Think of it as a challenge not a limitation.

Ive said it before, I'll say it again, this game is growing on me. It is going to prove to be an interesting game to say the least.

[Akash Rastogi]

Also do you guys not realize that even if that basketball player you chose to be your human player is so great at shooting baskets, the dynamics of this game are TOTALLY DIFFERENT. The kids we chose as human players WHO ARE KIDS ON THE BASKETBALL TEAM said themselves that THEY NEED TO PRACTICE TO BE ABLE TO DO WELL IN LUNACY. The mass of this ball and a basketball are two totally different things.

People really need to stop whining and get over things, and quick. And yes, I am in fact implying that you are explicitly whining about this way too much. If your team wasn't opportunistic and diverse enough to have students from throughout the school's extracurriculum then it is your loss. Don't go assuming and patronizing teams that are diverse and actually have those athletic future engineers. Instead of complaining about how unfair it is, consider how unfair you are being in your assumptions about other teams.

btw, THIS came from a student who's team is almost completely student driven and is proud of our self created accomplishments just to dispel all that "elitist" crap. I'm seirously for the first time, tired of it.

[waialua359]

Design and build the robot, play the game, then assess how you feel.
Its proven that many change how they feel once the game is played out.
Heck, it even changes from week 1 -6 as the game strategies evolve.
The idea of changing the surface was gonna happen sooner or later, and establishing rules to protect robots from breaking all over the field, definitely was a factor, in that strict footprint rule.

[Drwurm]

And really guys, How athletic do you need to be to stand in one spot and toss plastic balls at targets. It's more about hand-eye coordination than athleticism. Humans and robots interact in the real world, so why not have them interact in FIRST?

[smartkid]

*clears throat* 357 *clears throat* :rolleyes:

I have their button on my wall, it's 357. :D

One of our mentors from last year was with those guys and he showed me there custom mechanum wheels, I bet those guys were stunned... I bet that also has to really suck.

I'm a big fan of mechanums and omnis...

[65_Xero_Huskie]

I didn't really like this game when i saw the game animation at kickoff.
However, after sitting down and having a discussion about it and going through all the game rules and regs. i would have to say that my opinion has changed.

And for everyone who says that this game is making it a level playing field for all teams, i would have to disagree. There are certain aspects of this game, such as control while moving and scoring consistently in a goal that make the veterans have the advantage because they know how to work through these problems and how to some up with solutions to them.
When i saw last years game i thought the same thing; "Wow, this makes it so rookie teams can still end up being good lap bots and succeding in the competitions". This was true, the lap bots made by rookies were able to score points and do it well. However, When all was said and done, the veteran teams were able to make high end shooters which made lap bots all but obsolete.

So before you judge the game to harshly, wait until there are rule clarifications, and regionals get started. You never know how much fun you could be having :)

[Katy]

I'm going to skip most of what DeepWater said because I agree with him and there is no sense in me just re-saying everything he did. Lets just pick up some other scraps.

Who said 397 would design a box on wheels? Trust me, I had a mentor on 2337 have to explain the KISS (Keep it simple Schreiber) principle to me earlier today. The answer to that is I will push our students to do more than that.

I was never saying you would or should design a box or anything that is the same functionality as a basic box. I said that if you put all the resources in and achieved something no more functional than a box that you wasted your time and resources. The implication was that the additional resources and skill you believe you have could be used to design something that did more than a box did. Otherwise all you have done is created a more expensive and complicated version of something which already worked just fine. That is commonly known as bad engineering.


Your argument about how every kid deserves FIRST makes sense, honestly it does, but there is one problem. Every student deserves an education too. Does that mean that teachers have to start testing so that even the worst students can pass? In a class room if I get 28% on a test and you get 90% what do you want the teacher to do, adjust my score so that is a 90% too? Because, you know, every student deserves to graduate. And you know what, while we are at it, everyone deserves a Mercedes Benz, and paid vacation, and a million dollar home right? You know why people can buy those things? You know why teams pay Michael Jordan millions of dollars to throw a ball in a hoop? Because he worked his butt off.

Aside from the fact that a good many of the people who buy million dollar homes do it with either money they don't have (borrowed from a bank) or inherited from their parents...I'll stick with the spirit of your post and debate you from there.

No, nobody is saying you have to pass all the kids, I'm just saying they should all get to take the exam. What high school a student attends has NOTHING, and I mean absolutely NOTHING to do with the student's natural talent, determination, work ethic, or any other estimation of merit. The high school you attend is a reflection of many factors: primarily your parents income because of the relation of housing prices to school district quality. In the case of private schools it still normally based on your parent's income because your parents must pay for the school. Even if the student gets a scholarship there is still the question of the parent's dedication to providing transportation to the school every day for at least the first two years until the student is of legal age to drive, then either continuing to drive or finding the financial means to provide the student with the car. In short: since the merit of the student has a minimal impact on what high school the student will attend it seems pretty reasonable to minimize the advantages of attending one high school over another. FRC is a high school activity. Thus, it is reasonable to minimize the advantages of showing up on one team over another. Let them fight it out for the trophy on their own merits, to do anything else is an insult to their potential.

I fail to see why everyone being like rookies is a good thing. Eric I noticed you are a teacher, I will assume you have a decade of experience teaching (could be more or less either way). If I were to apply the same idea to your pay as you are applying to the veteran teams you would be paid the same as a new teacher, is that fair?

I find that a pretty absurd comparison. A team may be decades old but under normal circumstances no student will have more than three years experience going into a season with a team. Is it proper for a student to inherit glory simply because he goes to the right school? To reap the rewards of all the students who poured everything into the robots for years before him? Of course not, that would be absurd. Students attend high schools based on their parent's merits: not their own. That would be, in your metaphor, to determine the pay grades of new teachers based on the salaries their parents received. If this was a college league that might be different: the merit of the student plays a much stronger influence on what college he attends. Students do not attend different high schools based on their merit in this country. Propping up existing teams in a high school league, saying that they should continue to be strong just because they were strong, I view as a pretty huge social injustice. The kids need to earn it: each and every year.

And if you look at your own words, I think you will find yourself agreeing with me :p

217 can build a stellar robot every year, you know why? Because they have dedicated students and mentors. I would be willing to bet you that if you told 217 that they could only spend $800 on a robot this year they would STILL put out a stunning machine. How do I know that? I know the team, I know that their quality doesn't come from money, it comes from their passion for FIRST, their desire to win.

So, I fail to see why you would object to the "everybody is rookies" setup. If anything your statement there seems like it would cause you to applaud this move! Now the "good teams" (you chose 217, I'll take your word that they don't beat puppies for fun :p ) will be able to rise above those who simply once had a member, ages ago, who happened to find a particularly impressive solution to the "driving on carpet" problem or have a fat checkbook. This system should reward exactly teams with the qualities you mentioned.

So why do you object to it?

[Carbon419]

I also dislike the game as well. Only due to the fact that it is primarily based on luck if you think about it. We are all on ice, basically, and we have to try and "score" into a trailer that is moving while we are moving at the same time. Its like a drive-by shooting. But hey, I am not trying to totally destroy the fact that the game is "different" I am just saying that it will be challenging and tough, I guess. Also, I think the human players are going to be the semi0most important "item" on the field. What do you guys think.

[sxysweed]

It's different. Drivetrain from past years is out the window. We'll be drifting this year, and you have to take it into acount for scoring. I like it. We have to re-think it, but for a low budget team like the one I'm on, it seems easier/cheaper than last year.

[Ben Bastedo]

I have to say, redesigning almost all components of past years robots will be complicated but I have a feeling this years game will be a lot of fun. Also we are three days into the season, you have to give the game time. It could turn out to be one of the best games in FRC history. :D

[oddjob]

I don't dislike the game but I think it misses on a couple of points.

1. Dean likes to refer to ball bouncers as possessing no useful skills to tackle life. This years game relies a lot on the skills of the ball throwers. I'd rather the game was more dependent on the robot. If this is a way to get the roookie teams on more level footing with the veterans, I wish they had found a better way than by reducing the significance of the robot in the game.

2. The game is a dud to a general audience. Last year we had robots trying to get the huge ball off the overpass in autonomous, and putting it back at the end of the game. The crowds had great fun screaming at the end of the game as balls were almost on the overpass and would they stay there or fall off or get knocked off. Robots could race around at high speed. The year before, robots would try to get on ramps. This year - slow robots, no autonomous bonus points and I predict a deathly boring first 15 seconds as the robots crawl out of their starting positions, the supercell at the end of the game is much like any other cell and a casual observer won't know or care about it.

As the series approaches 20 years and wants to expand its support base, this game is a step backwards. It's not visually exciting and needs more spritz!!!

[jrdude]

i don't like the game because the fact if you beat your oppenent (sp?) you will lose supercells :(

[oddjob]

i don't like the game because the fact if you beat your oppenent (sp?) you will lose supercells :(


Ha ha, I forgot about that rule. It's really lame that teams can be penalized for doing their best.

Maybe next year they'll stop keeping score and everyone is a winner.

[Akash Rastogi]

Ha ha, I forgot about that rule. It's really lame that teams can be penalized for doing their best.

Maybe next year they'll stop keeping score and everyone is a winner.

You my friend just struck a chord. ;)

If you'd like to present your case further, there's more threads about that rule. But yea, its one of the reasons I don't like the game so far either.

Remember teams... this is just day 3 so far.

[Sean Raia]

I dont think that veteran teams will be stooped down to rookie level again at all, actually i think the slippery conditions will just make rookies more confused.

[Drwurm]

1. Dean likes to refer to ball bouncers as possessing no useful skills to tackle life.

I realize this is a bit off topic, but I found Dean's comment about that during kickoff rather elitist and divisive. Anybody else feel that way?

I doubt Dean Kamen would object to the "follow your dreams" mantra. When I was in 7th grade, I dreamed of building robots when I grew up. Who's to say that the 7th grader next door whose dream was to play basketball is any less valid?

[Daniel_LaFleur]

It's different. Drivetrain from past years is out the window. We'll be drifting this year, and you have to take it into acount for scoring. I like it. We have to re-think it, but for a low budget team like the one I'm on, it seems easier/cheaper than last year.

Cheaper? possibly
Easier? I don't think so. And rookies will be even harder pressed.

The robot designs this year will have to be just as intricate and though through as previous years ... just in different ways ... and that that worked before, may not work now, and I like that :D

[Adam Y.]

I doubt Dean Kamen would object to the "follow your dreams" mantra. When I was in 7th grade, I dreamed of building robots when I grew up. Who's to say that the 7th grader next door whose dream was to play basketball is any less valid?
There is a difference between following your dreams and deluding yourself so badly that you can achieve something. Most people delude themselves that the have the necessary talent to play a professional sport.
Anybody else feel that way?
I don't know about you but there are a lot of sports figures who have the maturity of a two year old let alone no skills to change the world in any appreciable way. It actually makes me want to laugh and cry at the same time.

[Drwurm]

There is a difference between following your dreams and deluding yourself so badly that you can achieve something. Most people delude themselves that the have the necessary talent to play a professional sport.

True, but I believe Dean's comment was targeted at those who already are playing the professional sport. They overcame the odds and are now successful. I am not fond of blanket statements such as these. He implied that every "ball bouncer" has no life skills.

[Adam Y.]

They overcame the odds and are now successful.
Ehhhh... I wouldn't disagree with him. The sports players that tend to make the news most often have the maturity level of a two year old.

[Koko Ed]

Ehhhh... I wouldn't disagree with him. The sports players that tend to make the news most often have the maturity level of a two year old.

Those are the ones the media chooses to focus on.
There are actual athletes who are good upstanding citizens. The media just tends to find them boring.

[Adam Y.]

Those are the ones the media chooses to focus on.
There are actual athletes who are good upstanding citizens. The media just tends to find them boring.
Most of the ones I'm talking about were in the news because they were really good at what they do and then they just so happen to self-destruct in some of the most horrific ways possible. And lets be real here. The news media spent just as much time covering a Rhodes Scholar than they did covering someone who broke the law.

[A1-SteakSauce]

Most of the ones I'm talking about were in the news because they were really good at what they do and then they just so happen to self-destruct in some of the most horrific ways possible.

Well then there are also plenty of great athletes that win at life. Like Tiger Woods! WOO

My original thought on this thread: Yes I actually do like this game, I think that it is VERY challenging with no real easy solution. No real easy solution means conflict, and through conflict we (usually) find truth. :D

I'd also very much like to see some of the ideas that other teams have come up with.

[Nawaid Ladak]

I think i've come to a final conclusion about this game

I don't like it

FIRST has taken the side of the offense one too many times, for those of you who were around in 2004 and before, that was when real defense was played... defense wasn't tipping a trackball off the overpass at the last second or goigng to sit in a corner protecting your own goal. It was about getting up on a bar with a rotater so that you could deny anyone else who wanted to get on for that fifty point bonus, it was about being king of that hill in 2003

this game seems way to finesse,

I know people are going to say, your going to see pinning and ramming, but at what cost, the hits might shift the direction of the robot, and the robot thats getting pinned has the traction advantage. not to mention the robot thats doing the pinning is also a easy target to score on for the other team

FIRST has truly eliminated the word DEFENSE from its dictionary, thanks to this game and measures to reduce that word in games past. and in all honesty, i really think five years down the road, we might be talking about a big kids version of FLL.

...but then again, we have yet to see what teams can come up with, and how the game is played at the scrimmages or at week one events. when someone comes up with a truly inspiring design that actually works, thats when FIRST's true colours shine.

EDIT: please don'g get me started on G14... honestly, it could cost a alliance a game when they really can't afford to lose it

[bduddy]

My views towards Lunacy have changed vastly.

While watching the animation and for the rest of Saturday I flat-out hated it. I hated the simplicity and the design restrictions. The only thing that seemed cool was the drifting and no ramming/pinning penalties.

One day later while designing the robot and after sleeping on it I am really looking forward to it. I think that it will still be a good game to watch/play and that there will still be plenty of great/cool robot designs out there despite the limitations.My reaction was quite opposite. When I first saw the game in the Kickoff video, I loved it. I thought it would be a great challenge, be very fun to watch, and create interesting solutions. Over the last three days, I have come to really dislike it, though. <G14> was (in my opinion) not only thought through even less then <G22> from last year, the assumptions it is based upon are completely wrong. And make no mistake: this is a rule that will come into play constantly during every regional. I don't like the first update, which "elaborates upon" in a patronizing tone rules which were never there until now. The restrictions are overbearing, especially after the aforementioned update. The game places too much emphasis on the human player-don't get me wrong, a human player is a great idea, but this is too much.

And finally, in my opinion, the obvious effort to even the playing field in this game is, while well-intentioned, going to have the opposite effect. It is strikingly similar to what has happened in Formula 1, which used to be practically open in terms of car and engine design. However, lately there have been increasing efforts at regulation and standardization-some of them have been for safety and some to cut costs, but many have had as a stated goal the improvement of competition. However, they have had the opposite effect. In the past, teams could come up with really innovative ideas to provide an advantage, and many did; famous examples of which include the Tyrell P34 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrell_P34) and theBrabham BT46B "fan car" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brabham_BT46B), which ironically enough is apparently banned in this competition just as it was in real life. These days, however, in order to eak out any improvement, teams must do hours upon hours of expensive wind tunnel work, use gigantic simulators to test any part thoroughly before even considering trying it, and basically spending millions upon millions of dollars for improvements of tenths of seconds.

Lunacy will be similar-IMO, the most important factors in this game will be the human player, the drivetrain, programming, and the driver. The first factor is essentially a wash, despite some concerns over "basketball players" or the like. But the rest will not be. Sure, many teams will have to rethink their drivetrain and we will thankfully see the disappearance of the "trick" wheels, but the veteran teams will still have an advantage. We all know that. Programming will be even worse-I'm sure you have all seen the talk about here about traction control, anti-lock braking, and all the other three-letter abbreviations standard on new cars of the day. How do expect any programmer new to FRC to handle any of that? And given the new surface and quickly disappearing game pieces, the only drivers that will have much practice will be the ones on teams that can afford the game field, and in these economic times, there are not many of those.

[EStokely]

I realize this is a bit off topic, but I found Dean's comment about that during kickoff rather elitist and divisive. Anybody else feel that way?

I doubt Dean Kamen would object to the "follow your dreams" mantra. When I was in 7th grade, I dreamed of building robots when I grew up. Who's to say that the 7th grader next door whose dream was to play basketball is any less valid?


OK I'll bite and say I am willing to say it isn't a valid dream to be an NBA player in 7th grade.

Here is a simple way I can back that up.

If you are a Really good BB player (or football or baseball if you prefer) I mean really good. You can wait tables because only the GREAT players will be able to make any money doing it.

If you are a good singer/actor, ditto, only the GREAT ones seems to be able to make a living at it and even then...

But show me an average engineer, heck even one who only got B's and C's.
They can get a job as an engineer, what they trained for.

Now that I have said that I want to revisit my first comment. I think a 7th grader should be encouraged to play basketball if they enjoy it, and if they are really good at it, maybe some after school teams to play on. But not at the expense of their education or being deluded that they can do it for a living. They might be able, but statistically they won't be able to.

My 2 cents

[SWIM]

I think the game is a good concept, but they could have thought it through much better. The whole thing seems half-baked. The orbit ball supply problems, the fact that you can't tell the orbit balls apart, the misleading traction figures in the rules, the impossible to assemble trailers, G14...

One thing that bugs me is how the different parts of the gameplay don't synergize well. The low friction floor means the robots have to drift around the field, and that could have been really cool to watch, except for the fact that the trailer messes up the handling and makes eloquent maneuvers next to impossible. If the 'bots didn't need to be trying to tow trailers, watching them negotiate the regolith would be really interesting. Instead, we're going to be stuck watching robots struggle to stay in control while trying to make turns without jack knifing the trailer.

Also, the low friction floor means that high speed collisions are inevetiable, which is likely the reason for the updated bumper rule (outlaws overhangs over the bumper perimiter). Without being able to overhang the bumpers, it becomes nearly impossible for rookie teams that don't have the resources to engineer and build an aim-able shooter to score. It seems like there's going to be a lot of boxes on wheels this year.

[tar.ancalime]

The thing that initially bothered me like heck about Lunacy was the thought that teams up North/teams with lots of money are going to have a crazy advantage in terms of practice. Obviously a driver with enough practice is a critical element to the performance of your team, and a poorer team in a warm area 1. can't afford the floor and 2. lives where temperatures never get cold enough for us to make a playing field of ice! But I've heard that a waxed linoleum floor has about the same friction, so now I can pause to really appreciate the default-wheels rule. I feel like it levels the playing field considerably, and will force better designs instead of simply better materials/resources.

My new soapboax is, of course, G14. :rolleyes:

[Daniel_LaFleur]

I think the game is a good concept, but they could have thought it through much better. The whole thing seems half-baked. The orbit ball supply problems, the fact that you can't tell the orbit balls apart, the misleading traction figures in the rules, the impossible to assemble trailers, G14...

FIRST has little control over suppliers, although they most likely already have a good supply of orbitballs.

Orbit balls only come in 3 colors. I'm not colorblind but I also had a difficult time telling the balls apart. I consider it part of the challenge (Maybe use the camera to detect emptycells)???

Misleading traction figures??? I don't think thats the case. The traction figures are dependent on many factors such as cleanlyness of the wheels / surface , the particular run of wheel / surface, etc.

Lets see you come up with a game that many smart people are going to try and find advantages in ... see how you fair. I know I'd be a difficult thing to do, you might want to cut them some slack.


One thing that bugs me is how the different parts of the gameplay don't synergize well. The low friction floor means the robots have to drift around the field, and that could have been really cool to watch, except for the fact that the trailer messes up the handling and makes eloquent maneuvers next to impossible. If the 'bots didn't need to be trying to tow trailers, watching them negotiate the regolith would be really interesting. Instead, we're going to be stuck watching robots struggle to stay in control while trying to make turns without jack knifing the trailer.


Are you so sure that the trailer messes things up? Have you tested this? or is this all just supposition. After looking at the design of the trailer, I believe it'll be far different then most people are assuming.

And whats the problem with jack knifeing the trailer? seems to me it might just be a good defense ;)


Also, the low friction floor means that high speed collisions are inevetiable, which is likely the reason for the updated bumper rule (outlaws overhangs over the bumper perimiter). Without being able to overhang the bumpers, it becomes nearly impossible for rookie teams that don't have the resources to engineer and build an aim-able shooter to score. It seems like there's going to be a lot of boxes on wheels this year.

Who ever said you need a shooter to score? Hurding and collecting will be not only feasible but possible preferable.

I'd take a look at my own biases if I were you, and be prepared to be amazed at what these teams come up with.

I know I'll be amazed.

[Wayne C.]

If FIRST looks to have teams think out of the box why must our robots' dimensions be confined within one?

Respect diversity-

[Andrew Schreiber]

I would like to bring up a concern that came to mind last night at dinner, I understand why the GDC wants us to compete on a low friction. I have a small concern with the fact that all the teams have to buy a specific product from a single company. Im not worried about supply, I am worried that companies could lobby for the GDC to design a game using one of their products. Do I think AndyMark would do that? I would hope not. I just wanted to raise the concern.

[bduddy]

I would like to bring up a concern that came to mind last night at dinner, I understand why the GDC wants us to compete on a low friction. I have a small concern with the fact that all the teams have to buy a specific product from a single company. Im not worried about supply, I am worried that companies could lobby for the GDC to design a game using one of their products. Do I think AndyMark would do that? I would hope not. I just wanted to raise the concern.Are you talking about the floor? I wouldn't be so worried about that-yes, I am concerned that low-budget teams may be lacking in drive practice, but it does provide a legitimate challenge and surely everyone can find access to some sort of low-friction surface. I am more concerned about the balls-that is a very unique product offered by a single company (and only to the US!) and if the worst-case scenario happens, which it has, many teams will end up not being able to touch one. I'm wondering why they didn't just go with a more standard type of ball. Between these two issues and the trailer, I'm very worried that low-budget teams will be seriously lacking in practice.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Are you talking about the floor? I wouldn't be so worried about that-yes, I am concerned that low-budget teams may be lacking in drive practice, but it does provide a legitimate challenge and surely everyone can find access to some sort of low-friction surface. I am more concerned about the balls-that is a very unique product offered by a single company (and only to the US!) and if the worst-case scenario happens, which it has, many teams will end up not being able to touch one. I'm wondering why they didn't just go with a more standard type of ball. Between these two issues and the trailer, I'm very worried that low-budget teams will be seriously lacking in practice.

I was also concerned about wheels. The flooring material can be simulated using tile floor, the balls are also a concern however. Perhaps one of our teams outside the US could post how expensive/delayed AndyMark parts are.

[vespa2t]

I think i've come to a final conclusion about this game

I don't like it



No offense to anyone who feels this way, but this project/game is exactly what is in store for those of you who will be going into engineering / science. I have worked on many projects since school where the rules and constraints just seem 'dumb' and vague, but they are an obstacle that has to be challenged. This particular game has thrown many out of thier knowlege base comfort zone, which is human nature to not be comfortable with. Many things like this come down to the fact that whether we like the game or not is irrelevent, we still have to get to cranking on a solution.

Go engineering!

[Daniel_LaFleur]

If FIRST looks to have teams think out of the box why must our robots' dimensions be confined within one?

Respect diversity-

In engineering, this would be called a design requirement. Many times, in the real world, you get design requirements (from your customer) that make designing more difficult. This is where real engineering comes in.

Designing within a specific size requirement is pretty typical in the real world. Fixtures cannot take up all of your bench space, a customer wants to put your device inside his without changing his envelope, etc,etc,etc.

This "box" is just another challange.

[GaryVoshol]

I have a small concern with the fact that all the teams have to buy a specific product from a single company. Im not worried about supply, I am worried that companies could lobby for the GDC to design a game using one of their products. Do I think AndyMark would do that? I would hope not. I just wanted to raise the concern.You mean like FLL and FTC?

Knowing Andy and Mark, I would presume that AndyMark made very little, if anything, from the KoP stuff. They may have even donated some of it.

[Andrew Schreiber]

You mean like FLL and FTC?

Knowing Andy and Mark, I would presume that AndyMark made very little, if anything, from the KoP stuff. They may have even donated some of it.

Yes, same issue with FLL and FTC, I'm not too involved in those events so I don't tend to think of it.

I agree, Andy and Mark probably wouldn't take advantage of the situation but other companies might.

[pfreivald]

The more I think about this game, the more I appreciate it for its complexity. The low-gravity simulation 'ice', the trailer you can't control, the strict size limit...

FIRST has, for what I believe is the first time, actually limited the ability of teams to engineer around a problem, and is forcing them to live with known problems to greater or lesser degrees. That makes it really rather more like a real engineering challenge than any previous game, IMO.

Put on your rose-colored glasses and look at this game for what it is: a brilliant engineering challenge.

Patrick

[16MentalTempest]

I think the game is going to be really fun, and I'm interested. However, I do not like the increased human interaction. Human players could potentially score more points than the robots. If your robot dies, the shooters can still score! Last year if your robot died, tough luck! Just about every team I talked to at Kickoff said 'Grab a basketball player and you're good.'

I doubt it'll be that easy, but I would prefer the competition to be more centered on the robots than the people.

I see the low-traction environment as a challenge, not something to get mad about like some folks. The restrictions on design, however frustrating, are part of the challenge.

'The songs you grow to like never stick at first'
-Fall Out Boy, Dead on Arrival

[Moreau]

I appreciate the view that some take of the low friction floor being a good design challenge (although I believe it's just a limitation, and in any real low-gravity rover would just keep speed down), the problem with thinking of it as any other engineering challenge is that its a fabricated rule. I may not be able to change the surface of the moon through complaining, but I can complain that someone making rules to simulate the surface of the moon is not creating a fun game in addition to a legitimate challenge. Although the likelihood of the latter complaint changing anything is probably smaller than the first's...

It's sort of like NASA telling its contractors that the conditions of the moon and that they want a rover for it, but since they don't want any unfair advantages the contractors must not design their robots to use anything to overcome the limitations of a slippery surface. No paddle/fins on the wheels, no treads. In fact, they tell the designers that since they found these cool wheels in the warehouse, they must use the super slick wheels. I completely understand the intent of the challenge, but since the challenge charades as a simulation of reality it feels ever more artificial and grating. Abstract games, such as tossing enormous balls around, don't have this problem because they don't take themselves more seriously than as games.

Oh dear... I suppose it's time to move away from the psychology of it all...


...

No, wait! I've got one more!

Like others have said, the 2008 game was great for observers since the game pieces were very large, and it was very clear when points were scored (on the other hand, penalties could be very finicky and difficult for the audience to see), so the audience really had something to watch. FRC is foremost a robotics competition, so the design challenge of the game should come first, but the quality of the game as a game is also important. If Dean's goal is to increase public interest in FRC, his objective should not have been to make the game more esoteric and less interesting. There aren't going to be any surprises (unless someone can actually spot that supercell going into a trailer, and I guarantee that one hail-mary throw will decide 70% of matches if it gets in), and the winners will be determined after a game through bean counting. Robots will lurch across the field slowly, turn slowly, jackknife slightly more quickly, impact each other, fail to score on each other, and slowly escape back to the carpet to run around collecting balls quickly.

In the same way that a chess game would be utterly boring and perplexing to anyone without knowledge of the rules, this game is only going to be interesting to those who appreciate the design limitations and obstacles of the game overall. And unless everyone in the audience has read the entire manual to know that the theoretical maximum acceleration of any robot on the field is X.X ft/s due to the coefficient of friction, and that the robots cannot extend past the bumpers, they are all going to wonder why everyone decided to make such crappy robots that can barely move and score.

It's not like this is going to be a terrible game. It will be fun for participants. I just think the GDC could have given us something more fun and interesting. They put so many limitations on everything this time around that there are going to be very, very few variations. Even in 2008, where I thought there would only be 2 types of robots at first (lifters and runners), since designs weren't limited except by starting configuration we got lifters, runners, shooters, hybrid lifter/shooters, and all the variations that come with the different drive trains (tank, car, swerve and all the derivatives). This year it's (although I may be wrong, I honestly don't know what else will work) dumpers with either tank or car steering. Shooters are going to be attempted, but will probably be impractical for most teams. Sure, the mechanisms might be different, but the effect is the same.

Creating challenging field elements is more interesting than forcing the robot to contribute to the challenge. Make the field have random height variations every few feet, so that robots with a suspension system would have an advantage over robots without, but robots without any suspension would still be able to drive decently and accomplish other goals independent of driving. Trying to level the playing field among elite and fresh teams is pointless and even counterproductive; I've always viewed the desire to limit "elite" teams a policy of envy (some limitations, however, are good to keep it all fair), especially since I look to their designs to see the limit of what is possible with the game. Sure, I might be envious that my team doesn't have the machining capacity to produce a 7 pound frame that can hold elephants while incorporating a suspension system and the ultimate manipulator of utter win, but the fact that some team did have the ability to do that and pulled it off is still impressive to me, and I enjoy seeing the most sophisticated design solutions to a problem. Besides, if some team does score the next amazing design partnership with Toyota or something, that means it's their turn to "abuse" the brainpower and construction capability that it entails.

Oh, and just to be more negative, the names are silly. Not that it is bad, but if you want FRC to be taken seriously, don't call everything by silly names such as payload specialist and moon rocks. It just screams "nerds playing space commander" to the average person. If you disagree, substitute football positions with the new FRC monikers. The quarterbacks are payload specialists? The coach is the mission commander? The field is the moonscape? NASA gets away with it because they are nerds in space, so they get to pull it off and everyone keeps a straight face. Oh, and perhaps because they popularized the terminology to begin with.

Bleh... once again, I make a post too long to be bothered with. But at least it's out there now...

[Doug Adams]

It's sort of like NASA telling its contractors that the conditions of the moon and that they want a rover for it, but since they don't want any unfair advantages the contractors must not design their robots to use anything to overcome the limitations of a slippery surface. No paddle/fins on the wheels, no treads. In fact, they tell the designers that since they found these cool wheels in the warehouse, they must use the super slick wheels. I completely understand the intent of the challenge, but since the challenge charades as a simulation of reality it feels ever more artificial and grating. Abstract games, such as tossing enormous balls around, don't have this problem because they don't take themselves more seriously than as games.

The purpose of such a directive wouldn't be because of an unfair advantage. It's a fallback position. Of course you design your rover with appendages. But what if you get to the moon and your paddles/fins are damaged and don't work? Instead of declaring "mission over", you come up with solutions to work around or through such possibilities ahead of time. These backup scenarios would receive test time in the simulators just as the primary mission would.

[Hanna2325]

I did at first...a lot, mostly because all the unreasonable restrictions. But, now as were getting down to work, I think its going to be really interesting. The one thing I still don't like is how much humans are involved. But, the rest i think is a good challenge:yikes:

[nHouse]

As with what Hanna said, I do not like how impactual human players might end up being in this years game but that i guess wont be seen until competition. Other then that I think the game is pretty good...

[JaneYoung]

I did a quick search for Human-Robot Interaction. Several links were made available, including one that I read regarding NASA and future work on the moon.

If you look at the entire game, what kind of game is it? Is it just a game of competition where teams win or lose, or does it provide more opportunities to explore areas like HRI?

We are often limited by our thinking and our own perceptions of what we think we see. Sometimes we do that without delving into the opportunities and information provided, to see how we can expand our thinking, perceptions, awareness, knowledge.

.02

[pfreivald]

I did at first...a lot, mostly because all the unreasonable restrictions. But, now as were getting down to work, I think its going to be really interesting. The one thing I still don't like is how much humans are involved. But, the rest i think is a good challenge:yikes:

LOL. I've founded two FIRST teams, and every time students ask me about a rule I say "to make it hard!"

All of the restrictions fall into one of three categories:
1. Safety (protruding edges, proper shielding, etc.)
2. Fairness ($$ limit, powering, usage of parts, etc.)
3. Challenge (size, weight, wheels, etc.)

I'm surprised to see so many FIRSTers complaining about the challenge aspect of it.

I think one *could* make a legitimate complaint about the human player aspect, but honestly, I think a well-automated turret will be a better scorer than the humans. You're looking at a 10" thick erratically-moving donut into which you're throwing 9" balls -- doable, but it's going to be harder than people give it credit for.

Patrick

[catsylve]

As with any other game, I would expect that the impact of the human players will vary at the different levels of play. In the finals and at the championship in Atlanta, I would expect that the matches will be more exciting, with teams that have really thought through the problems and come up with some creative solutions. That will make the game interesting enough when everyone gets out there on the field and really puts the game to the test.

On another note, I would really like to give my seal of approval to the game. As a teacher, I will be using the things we do, including video footage of robots sliding, calculations of friction and driving techniques with my students when appropriate. To be able to relate the things that happen in the game to a general physics classroom is always very valuable to me.

[ezpkns]

I like the general idea but still am sort of frustrated with the low traction floors

[Andrew Schreiber]

Like others have said, the 2008 game was great for observers since the game pieces were very large, and it was very clear when points were scored (on the other hand, penalties could be very finicky and difficult for the audience to see), so the audience really had something to watch. FRC is foremost a robotics competition, so the design challenge of the game should come first, but the quality of the game as a game is also important. If Dean's goal is to increase public interest in FRC, his objective should not have been to make the game more esoteric and less interesting. There aren't going to be any surprises (unless someone can actually spot that supercell going into a trailer, and I guarantee that one hail-mary throw will decide 70% of matches if it gets in), and the winners will be determined after a game through bean counting. Robots will lurch across the field slowly, turn slowly, jackknife slightly more quickly, impact each other, fail to score on each other, and slowly escape back to the carpet to run around collecting balls quickly.


I would not claim that robots will lurch slowly across the field, from what I have seen a good driver can move on this stuff without any fancy programming or drive trains. It is not easy, and they will be whipping around a lot, but it is doable. And I have said it time and time again, a good robot can be dominated by a mediocre robot w/ a great driver. Look at 1114, technically their robot was not as complex or fancy as some robots, I would put it as a good robot (no offense meant of course) but I would say that their drivers are the best in the business. THAT is why they won. Drivers will determine if robot's are good, not the machines themselves.

Hail Mary throws are generally just that, high risk, high reward attempts. A team who does a Hail Mary pass in the last play of the Super Bowl because they are down by 5 points does it because they know they will lose. I think a piece like that keeps things exciting. Look back to 2004, hanging and the 2x balls were able to swing whole matches in the last second. I recall RUSH losing two events because our partner's hanging mechanism failed in the last 5 seconds of our matches. It made us constantly have to be on our feet instead of being able to get so far ahead that we could just stop caring.

LOL. I've founded two FIRST teams, and every time students ask me about a rule I say "to make it hard!"

All of the restrictions fall into one of three categories:
1. Safety (protruding edges, proper shielding, etc.)
2. Fairness ($$ limit, powering, usage of parts, etc.)
3. Challenge (size, weight, wheels, etc.)

I'm surprised to see so many FIRSTers complaining about the challenge aspect of it.

I think one *could* make a legitimate complaint about the human player aspect, but honestly, I think a well-automated turret will be a better scorer than the humans. You're looking at a 10" thick erratically-moving donut into which you're throwing 9" balls -- doable, but it's going to be harder than people give it credit for.

Patrick

I personally enjoy making it so there is a human aspect to scoring. Look back to the last game where human players had a reasonable chance of scoring, 2006. Did they detract from the robots? Not at all, but they did make it more interesting.

Also, on your list, where does <G14> come in? That is the ONLY issue I still have with the game. Other than that I think it will be a lot of fun to watch and to play.

[Adam Y.]

It's sort of like NASA telling its contractors that the conditions of the moon and that they want a rover for it, but since they don't want any unfair advantages the contractors must not design their robots to use anything to overcome the limitations of a slippery surface. No paddle/fins on the wheels, no treads. In fact, they tell the designers that since they found these cool wheels in the warehouse, they must use the super slick wheels. I completely understand the intent of the challenge, but since the challenge charades as a simulation of reality it feels ever more artificial and grating. Abstract games, such as tossing enormous balls around, don't have this problem because they don't take themselves more seriously than as games.
That is a bit of odd logic from what I understand how the game actually operates. The wheels are a design requirment because the combination of the wheels and the flooring is what creates the feeling of being on the moon. Using different wheels would defeat the purpose of having a game where you are driving a robot that feels like it is on the moon. Please correct me if I am wrong.
In the same way that a chess game would be utterly boring and perplexing to anyone without knowledge of the rules, this game is only going to be interesting to those who appreciate the design limitations and obstacles of the game overall. And unless everyone in the audience has read the entire manual to know that the theoretical maximum acceleration of any robot on the field is X.X ft/s due to the coefficient of friction, and that the robots cannot extend past the bumpers, they are all going to wonder why everyone decided to make such crappy robots that can barely move and score.
Welcome to 99.999999% of all real life engineering endaveours. I never appreciated some of the aspects of the world I lived in until I decided to become an engineer. Your average person is not going to sit there and be amazed at the electronics inside of a computer because of the lack of background in how a computer is designed and built. I had no clue that the van de graf generator was originally used as a particle acellerator until recently.
Trying to level the playing field among elite and fresh teams is pointless and even counterproductive; I've always viewed the desire to limit "elite" teams a policy of envy (some limitations, however, are good to keep it all fair), especially since I look to their designs to see the limit of what is possible with the game. Sure, I might be envious that my team doesn't have the machining capacity to produce a 7 pound frame that can hold elephants while incorporating a suspension system and the ultimate manipulator of utter win, but the fact that some team did have the ability to do that and pulled it off is still impressive to me, and I enjoy seeing the most sophisticated design solutions to a problem. Besides, if some team does score the next amazing design partnership with Toyota or something, that means it's their turn to "abuse" the brainpower and construction capability that it entails.

This goes back to the above comment above chess. FIRST has managed to limit all the teams in a way that they are on equal footing technology wise. The problem that everyone seems to be having is that the field is utterly boring to the average lay person. Control engineering is as close as you can get to a purely mathematical application of engineering and with the new control system you have a really nice opportunity to work in that area.
Oh, and just to be more negative, the names are silly. Not that it is bad, but if you want FRC to be taken seriously, don't call everything by silly names such as payload specialist and moon rocks. It just screams "nerds playing space commander" to the average person. If you disagree, substitute football positions with the new FRC monikers. The quarterbacks are payload specialists? The coach is the mission commander? The field is the moonscape? NASA gets away with it because they are nerds in space, so they get to pull it off and everyone keeps a straight face. Oh, and perhaps because they popularized the terminology to begin with.
Ooo come on. Even the silly names are an accurate representation of some engineering fields. With names like Very High Speed Intergrated Circuit Hardware Description Language I really can not complain. And yes that is an actual term more commonly known as VHDL which is a nested acronymn.
(although I believe it's just a limitation, and in any real low-gravity rover would just keep speed down)
Actually, most rovers keep their speed down because of the mechanical limitations. The rocker bogie (The wheel configuration seen on most robots) by its very nature can not go very fast.
Well then there are also plenty of great athletes that win at life. Like Tiger Woods! WOO

I know. I think I was really agrivated when I wrote that post. Especially seeing people like Stephen Marbury receive some credit for creating a cheap clothing line and then act like a creep. I guess I was annoyed at the negative aspect of it when in reality there are people like that in all fields. Lord knows seeing the neurosurgeon football player was certainly inspring.

[Alan Anderson]

I think i've come to a final conclusion about this game

After less than a week? With no competition matches having been played? With no teams even driving their finished robots on a competition field? With some teams yet to receive everything in the Kit of Parts?

I am laughing at your final conclusion. Not because of what it is, but because you labeled it a "final conclusion".

[pfreivald]

[QUOTE=Andrew Schreiber;796727Also, on your list, where does <G14> come in? That is the ONLY issue I still have with the game.[/QUOTE]

I see it the way I see just about everything else with these games... It's just one more parameter to take into consideration when playing.

Patrick

[Moreau]

Wow, my last post was rather scatterbrained and probably only contained complete statements in my imagination... I think it's all in there, just not well organized at all...

Lunacy is an effort to do four things at the same time.
G1. One, it is a design challenge for FRC teams.
G2. Two, it is a game with clear objectives and rules (and ideally should be fun/interesting).
G3. Three, it is an attempt to simulate a real-world application of robots.
G4. Four, it should encourage interest in technology and attract future participants.

I believe that is the order in which the objectives should be in priority. The fourth item is more of a FIRST goal rather than a game design goal, but it should be kept in mind while designing the game overall. All of the items are interrelated, but G3 is especially emphasized this year.

I just think there are problems in that item G3 overtly influenced G1 and is conflicting with items G2 and G4. The game isn't going to be as interesting as purely a game (yes, it is interesting to us as work through the design challenge), and the simulation aspect is detrimental to generating more interest in FIRST because the game itself isn't as interesting and everything about it is somewhat sillier (although the earlier esoteric titles weren't that much better, they did seem more serious). -Sidenote: I'm a chemical & biomolecular engineering major; I know esoteric naming schemes! =D

In designing the engineering challenge, three things are considered:

D1. The design of the field (including goals)
D2. The design of the game piece
D3. The design of the robot

With another consideration about how the robot interacts with other robots, and all of this being kept within the realm of safety.

Ideally, D1 and D2 should provide the majority of the challenge with minimal restrictions placed on D3 (the robot). A well designed game will allow for finite general types of robot designs simply through field design and game piece design without explicitly limiting robot design to such types. Although only a few general types of robot are feasible, many variations can be had on those generalities because of open design allowance, so it is highly unlikely to have large numbers of extremely similar robots. Also, a relatively open design is a favorite of most designers, even if the field elements or game pieces severely limit design possibilities anyways. I, at least, would prefer a field in one game to have a divider in the middle with a 40" tall slot in it rather than a forced 40" height limit on the robots. Sure, to move around the field the robot would need to be less than 40", but I like the fact that the design of the robot is influence by an objective (crossing the field) rather than a rule forced on robot design (you must keep under 40").

Anyways, G3 once again rears its ugly head and has influenced D1, D2, and D3. Normally, this wouldn't be a bad thing, but in order to make G3 work, G1 is changed to be closer to simulation. In order to do that, D1 and D3 must be altered greatly, which creates the challenge of G1, which fits in the scheme of G3. But I argue that G1 makes a relatively poor game (G2), which is bad for G4 (encouraging participation), and frustrates designers for being limiting on the robot.

A teflon coated floor covered in lube would have relatively similar effects as this regolith and wheel combination, but without the need for wheel limitations. It's an impractical game, but it might be preferred by some for having less robot design limitations (even though the effect is the same).

Sorry for all of the numbers and crap, I just felt that it would be quicker than writing a thesis paper on the subject and assaulting you with another wall of text. Not that this is short anyway...

I don't hate this game. I like the idea of making the robots goalpieces and such, I just think the overall game idea was influenced by the goal of making it a simulation of driving on the moon to the point of being detrimental to other aspects of the game. I just think the GDC could have done better.

For example, deployment size limitations. Obviously, the GDC wants to prevent decapping/blocking and also wants to keep everything safe for collisions by forcing robots not to have stuff sticking out. I would argue that although they probably already reasoned that an arm manipulator is a bad design choice for this game (I agree), they don't need that rule to achieve their objectives. Just make blocking/decapping a penalty if done intentionally, and give penalties for dangerous manipulator positions during collisions (as if smashing your arm against another robot's frame was something that you wanted to do anyways). Presto, same effect achieved, very few people will actually build far out of the protection area of the bumpers, and no one will complain about deployment restrictions. Some might complain about the possibilities of new penalties, but I think it would be worth it just for the freedom, even if few will take serious advantage of it.

Hope that was a little clearer...

[XaulZan11]

Lunacy is an effort to do four things at the same time.
G1. One, it is a design challenge for FRC teams.
G2. Two, it is a game with clear objectives and rules (and ideally should be fun/interesting).
G3. Three, it is an attempt to simulate a real-world application of robots.
G4. Four, it should encourage interest in technology and attract future participants.



How do you know what Lunacy's objective are? Unless you are part of the GDC and went through the process of designing the game, I don't think you can accurately know the objectives. Honestly, I skimmed through the rest of your post because you were comming from an unsupported premise.

I have read too many people say things like "Lunacy is suppose to do this, but doesn't so its a bad game". A good example of this the percieved attempt to level the playing field. I don't remember in the rule book that the game is suppose to level the playing field. I think the criticism of the game that it doesn't level the playing field are really irrelevent. Did Aim High or any other favorite games actively level the playing field? Probably not too much, so why does Lunancy need to in order to be a good/successful game?

[Moreau]

No one knows what the GDC's actual goals are except themselves, of course. I am putting words in their mouths, but I believe it is a reasonable design criteria. We do know what FIRST's goals are:
Our mission is to inspire young people to be science and technology leaders, by engaging them in exciting mentor-based programs that build science, engineering and technology skills, that inspire innovation, and that foster well-rounded life capabilities including self-confidence, communication, and leadership.

I believe that it is rather logical to assume that any robotics competition game design can be said to be engineering challenge, since any application of a robot requires at least some minimum level of design and construction.

It IS a game with a clear set of rules, restrictions, and objectives, as described in the competition manual under section 7, The Game. In my mind, it should ideally be an interesting and fun game. The same is implied by the introduction to the competition manual under section 0.1:

The FIRST Robotics Competition (FRC) is an exciting program that assimilates teams, sponsors, colleges, and technical professionals with high school students to develop their solution to a prescribed engineering challenge in a competitive game environment. The competitions, also known as co-opetitions, combine the practical application of science and technology with the fun, intense energy, and excitement of a championship-sporting event. The program results in lifechanging, career molding experiences for its participants and is a lot of fun.

However, it indeed does not state that one of the game design goals is making a fun game.

It is a simulation in at least some aspects with a moon theme. The game is called Lunacy. The most abundant game objects are moon rocks. The field is called the crater. The surface is called regolith. The coefficient of friction creates a similar effect to driving on the moon (I cannot cite this specifically, but I believe either Kamen or Flowers said this in the kickoff). It is not specifically stated that this is a lunar simulation, but there are so many intentional similarities that I am comfortable in saying that it is. But this is also an assumption key to my argument above. It is possible to argue that it isn't, but in my post above I assume that this is true.

It is most likely designed to encourage interest in technology and attract future participants. This is found in the fundamental missions statement on the FIRST website (previously quoted in this post). However, the game design itself may not be the way in which they hope to spread interest in technology. I think that is an unreasonable assumption (the competitions are the main thing that FIRST does), but it could be said that FIRST encourages interest through teams, and relies on teams to recruit more people. But the teams are formed because of the competition, and it would certainly be in the best interest of FIRST to design competitions that fostered greater interest in technology and engineering (again, as stated above). I grant that it may not be a significant design criteria for the GDC, but if their mission statement is to be believed, it should be at least present in game design decisions.

I agree that I did not support those four points initially, and thank you for the encouragement to further flesh out my position. However, I'm perilously close to writing a miniature thesis paper now with how long this is getting. It's not going to change anything, I'm just trying to get in the heads of the GDC and figure out what they were thinking and why.

[JaneYoung]

I'm just trying to get in the heads of the GDC and figure out what they were thinking and why.

Oh dear. I hope you put some type of block in yours, they can drive you nuts in no time flat.

Not that I would know anything about that.

[Koko Ed]

I personally enjoy making it so there is a human aspect to scoring. Look back to the last game where human players had a reasonable chance of scoring, 2006. Did they detract from the robots? Not at all, but they did make it more interesting.



The greatest individual match I saw was the finals match of the 2004 VCU regional . 977 was perched up their from the beginning of the match and 616 was pushing them all around but couldn't move them enough to get tot he bar. At the end of the match 33 came came up onto the platform and went at 616 to keep them from getting on just when it looked like they were about to make it. Time ran out so they counted tha amount of balls scored. 33/977 had 8 balls for 40 points. 616/165 had 7 for 35. 33/977/388 won the regional.

[JKWarrior]

it seems like an interesting game. low traction could make the game intense, or a pain in th rear

[Trav-O]

There's going to be a lot of bots sliding everywhere so remember to wear your safety glasses