Team update 16 [Archive]

Kevin Sevcik

09-03-2010, 17:22

*spit take*

The GDC has changed the seeding formula in the middle of the competition season? I think this is unprecedented. Perhaps the fact that a team at Bayou failed to field a robot for all of Quals and ended up a pick alliance persuaded them. That likely also inspired the not inspected modification, which really only makes sense. At any rate, kudos to them for acting boldly to remedy what was a rather poor ranking system in desperate need of a fix.

I propose that all we hold all further criticisms of the ranking system to the end of the season in recognition of this olive branch from the GDC. Furthermore, I think we should all support this change of rules by the GDC instead of complaining of the unfairness to Week 1 teams. Better that they've acted quickly and decisively now than that they force us all to deal with the original system on a matter of principle.

Koko Ed

09-03-2010, 17:23

Well, Friday might not be so painful after all.

GGCO

09-03-2010, 17:23

Thank goodness! However I'm still concerned with FIRST's dislike of high scoring matches. After all, what's wrong with a good robot beating a bad robot?

buildmaster5000

09-03-2010, 17:24

Well I would have liked this a week ago...and a bonus for winning with less than a full alliance would have been nice too

Jon Jack

09-03-2010, 17:27

Wow, this is a huge update. This really changes the game.

Marc P.

09-03-2010, 17:29

Thank goodness! However I'm still concerned with FIRST's dislike of high scoring matches. After all, what's wrong with a good robot beating a bad robot?

The hope would be the team with the "good robot" would lend a helping hand to the team with the "bad robot" to make it not so bad.

"Good robots" vs "good robots" makes for a good show, no matter which side you're on.

Fireworks 234

09-03-2010, 17:32

I think this has been one of the best updates I have ever seem :)

Thank you GDC!!! This will help out all of the teams tremendously!!!

Eugene Fang

09-03-2010, 17:34

JaneYoung

09-03-2010, 17:36

Thank you, members of the GDC.

Jane

Andrew Schreiber

09-03-2010, 17:37

Dear GDC,

Thank You

Tetraman

09-03-2010, 17:38

Huzzah!

I'd like to propose that we make Preseason events official FIRST events, for the sole purpose for FIRST, teams, the GDC to evaluate the game and it's rules so that Week 1 Regional Competitions will no longer carry the stigma.

Koko Ed

09-03-2010, 17:38

Kevin Sevcik

09-03-2010, 17:39

Remind me again why anyone, my team included, is stupid enough to keep going to week 1 events?
Madison,

Definitely a good question, given the massive problems with Week 1 events this year and previous years. It seems like there's little incentive to attend them unless you have no other option and it's very unfair to the teams forced to attend these events. Definitely something for discussion in the off-season. Off the top of my head, some possible solutions are:

1. Reduced entry fee for week 1 events. Takes the sting out of potential problems.
2. Drastically reduced number of week 1 events (one?) so FIRST can throw all available talent at them to help them run smoothly.
3. Full-on official scrimmages on official fields in an official tournament fashion. Assuming you can find the teams to make it happen.

Or some combination of these three. But at this point it's looking more and more like something needs to be done to address the quality of week 1 events, or you're going to see an exodus of savvy teams from these events.

Rich Kressly

09-03-2010, 17:39

namaste ... and thanks for listening ...
really looking forward to playing the game this way in a few weeks :)

IndySam

09-03-2010, 17:44

Two thumbs up for the GDC.

,4lex S.

09-03-2010, 17:47

Now I feel like I can have spectators show up and actually understand what is going on.

Thanks GDC, thats a really logical, upfront decision.

Nawaid Ladak

09-03-2010, 17:57

I personally am not a fan of the changes.... but i guess we have to live with it.

This is going to be a VERY intresting weekend in FIRST.

btw: has the GDC ever changed the scoring for a game once the competition has started? or is this a first?

IndySam

09-03-2010, 17:59

The <G46> change is as exciting as the section 9 change.

Should lead to much fewer penalties therefor higher scores and even higher coopertition bonus.

Even more reason to play to win!

robodude03

09-03-2010, 17:59

I have to mirror everyone else's statements and thank the GDC for this update. Playing the system will not be attractive anymore and can now focus on playing to win for those extra 5 points. This definitely changes the way the game will be played.

Radical Pi

09-03-2010, 18:16

I'd like to propose that we make Preseason events official FIRST events, for the sole purpose for FIRST, teams, the GDC to evaluate the game and it's rules so that Week 1 Regional Competitions will no longer carry the stigma.

Agreed. Being the victim of Week 1 field problems this year, I say a full official field should be offered to FIRST approved preseason events to work out the bugs in the system before full events

Tom Bottiglieri

09-03-2010, 18:19

Here's a task for a student with some free time:

Take last weekends match results (from TBA/twitter/wherever), and recalculate the rankings incorporating this new bonus.

This is NOT to see what teams would have been ranked higher/lower, but rather to see how (15 * num matches) points injected into the total seeding points pool can affect the overall rankings.

Martinez

09-03-2010, 18:20

I'm not as convinced as others that this will elimnate the 6v0 or 3v0 stradigies... However it is a serious step in the right direction. Personally, this is alot better than what I was expecting which was ether a penalty for a own goal or those goals not being counted (or something to that effect).

I am surprised with a +5 bonus for winning (along with the 2x multiplier), and having the losing alliance keeping the winners score. Clearly the GDC must be either mostly happy with the results or don't want to shake things up to much.

Thank you GDC for listening and making your fans happy.

:)

Wildcat

09-03-2010, 18:21

with the new +5 to the winning alliance this should make things much better and much more understandable :)

pfreivald

09-03-2010, 18:23

Thank you, thank you, thank you, GDC, for these changes. It's a wonderful day in the world of FIRST.

Billfred

09-03-2010, 18:25

Best. Team. Update. Ever.

qwertyuiop[]\

09-03-2010, 18:28

Remind me again why anyone, my team included, is stupid enough to keep going to week 1 events?

Stupid? I wouldnt be so rash in your wording. My team, which only goes to one regional, period (no atlanta either), sees week one events as more fair because it puts us at less of a disadvantage. no other teams have had actual experience in playing the game in week one as opposed to in week six where teams are coming back for the 2nd or 3rd regional. I would call it a SMART move for smaller low budget teams that only go to one regional to go to a Week 1. we are already at enough of a disadvantage to teams that are fortunate enough to have a full scale practice field, and a second robot to practice with after ship date.

EDIT: BTW, gdc nice revision on the rules

XaulZan11

09-03-2010, 18:32

Best. Team. Update. Ever.

Couldn't agree more. With my team's first competition this week I was losing sleep hoping balls would never get jammed at the mouth of the ball counter. Thankfully, now we can use the end of the trident!

I guess the 5 points is an ok rule, I guess...

GaryVoshol

09-03-2010, 18:36

Thank you GDC. This (the +5 for a win) is a major change; I can't remember anything similar in the last 6 years. There is no comparison to earlier rules changes like no pre-match stacking and no-you-cant-yes-you-can have bandsaws.

Given that average match scores on Friday were less than 5 points, the difference is a significant game-changer.

pacoliketaco

09-03-2010, 18:38

well first off, thank you GDC for fixing these two problems with the game that i saw last weekend. i think that a lot of matches were shutouts, or even 0-0, because of the three inch rule, enforced even if a team was pushed onto a ball (or flipped onto one, as happened a few times). so that fix is great, as is the other, as our team would probably have finished much higher, as a great deal of our matches were shutouts, so a 7-2 record placed us 19th. kinda annoying to change the rule after week 1, as has been said, but at least now everyone else gets to play the game as it should have been. so good luck to everyone else for the rest of the season :)

Coach Norm

09-03-2010, 18:40

The coach is me likes this update very much. It brings back the strategy to both alliances. If you are willing to gamble either way, you can.

\;934731']Stupid? I wouldnt be so rash in your wording. My team, which only goes to one regional, period (no atlanta either), sees week one events as more fair because it puts us at less of a disadvantage. no other teams have had actual experience in playing the game in week one as opposed to in week six where teams are coming back for the 2nd or 3rd regional. I would call it a SMART move for smaller low budget teams that only go to one regional to go to a Week 1. we are already at enough of a disadvantage to teams that are fortunate enough to have a full scale practice field, and a second robot to practice with after ship date.

EDIT: BTW, gdc nice revision on the rules

We are a third year team here at 2468 and we went to a first week regional last year in OKC. I have to agree that the field seemed more level since it was the first week for all teams to attend. In addition, to a young team it was very important for us to get to more than one regional so we could get more experience.

Chuck Glick

09-03-2010, 18:57

Thank you GDC.

You have managed to fix so much with one simple update. Teams now can see the advantages of playing 3v3 to WIN (while close to maximize points) and not 6v0 for just ranking. Also thank you for addressing the accidental 3" incursion penalties. This will help EVERYONE after watching how many teams were receiving these penalties (accidentally or due to negligence in design).

Side note: This will effectively end most 6v0 matches, but I bet we see one or two depending on what teams we see playing.

Richard Wallace

09-03-2010, 18:58

Thank you, Game Design Committee. :)

When something is not quite working as designed, the right move is to tweak it. I think these changes will, by this time next week, be seen as well-judged tweaks to a system that was nearly right to begin with.

For the record, my team was at a Week 1 event. And I was volunteering at a different Week 1 event. For several years I advocated within my regional planning committee to hold our event during Week 1. In spite of, and even because of, the challenges that FIRST encounters year after year I still say, "Week 1 this year, Week 1 next year, Week 1 forever!"

Daniel_LaFleur

09-03-2010, 19:00

Thanks GDC, I love being a guinea pig.

//walks away frustrated//

sgreco

09-03-2010, 19:11

Thank you GDC.

This is a great update. Now I feel as though playing the match to win is obviously in the best interest of the teams and not much iffy ground is left inbetween. That said, the coopertition has not been eliminated so you still want high scores coopertively. So the intent of the cooperation is intact, but now winning is definitely a benefit as opposed to the 6v0.

People may complain about this being late, but I appreciate the fact that they found a problem and fixed it. Better now than never.

George1902

09-03-2010, 19:14

There are three situations where the "6v0" situation arises:

1. The winning alliance in a blowout decides to increase the loser's score near the end of a match to increase their own coopertition bonus.

2. The losing alliance realizes they have no chance of winning (perhaps before the match even starts) and increases the loser's score in order to increase their seeding points and not waste goals increasing their opponent's coopertition bonus.

3. In a potentially close match one or both alliances decide playing against each other is too risky and decide all balls should be scored into one alliance's goal.

This update decreases the incentive for scenario 3, but does nothing to scenarios 1 and 2.

SteveGPage

09-03-2010, 19:29

Awesome! With Chesapeake coming up in 36 hours - all I can say is "Lock and Load!" :D

I can't wait!

Thank you GDC! You are my heroes!

Martinez

09-03-2010, 19:32

Well... lets see how good my math and logic is.

A +5 bonus is basically a kin to a 2 goals for Coopertition points, so things will start getting weird for blow outs (ie 3 goal lead or more). Basically at that turning point, the losing team will want to score for the winning team and the winning team will want to start scoring for the losing team.

I did some calcs in Excel and at the FLR, 37% of teams won with a lead of 3 or more on Friday Afternoon. Also the average goals was 2.8 to 2.3 for the Red vs Blue Alliance on Friday Afternoon. However, the average qual points with the new system is 7.5 to 7.1 on Friday Afternoon.

The average qual point from ties was 5 on Friday afternoon over the course of 9 matchs which is 18% of matches.

I did some fuzzy logic and determined that there were 5 "6v0 matches" during Friday (ie scored 5 goals or more against a team with a score of zero) in which the average qual points is also 7.6 (without a newly defined win bonus). For the record, yes this means my team (2053) was the benificiary of a 6v0 in match 50 and I never realized it.

I *think* this will produced the desired results that the GDC and the rest of us is looking for, but it will be hard to say until we see in action. Even just the Psycological effects of winning and getting bonus points for it will have a huge effect on game play. All in all, it looks promising.

:)

Wildcat

09-03-2010, 19:32

people calling Week 1 "unfair."
if people think week 1 was unfair week 1 should be replayed :P

jblay

09-03-2010, 19:36

This I think my favorite team update in as long as I have been involved in FIRST. And I would like to applaud the powers that be for making such an important change even though week 1 has already happened.

ttldomination

09-03-2010, 19:36

if people think week 1 was unfair week 1 should be replayed :P

Life isn't fair.

But Seriously, hundreds of teams and thousands of students played, including my team and me, and I can say that the system sucks, but I'm happy that going forward, the system is better. I would hate to have to attend our second regional, and even championships, with the bad system.

jspatz1

09-03-2010, 20:08

It would be interesting if some of you number crunchers out there would "replay" the week 1 regionals and see how the final ranking results would have been different with this change.

David Brinza

09-03-2010, 20:12

Thanks, GDC for putting competition back into it's place in Breakaway!

The 5-point incentive for winning will likely kill the 6v0 travesty of the game.

Travis Hoffman

09-03-2010, 20:33

Side note: This will effectively end most 6v0 matches, but I bet we see one or two depending on what teams we see playing.

At the very least it will enlarge the points deficit threshold needed for making the decision to lock down your goals and lose big(ger).

This seems like a goodly amount of GDC-brand grease to apply to the squeaky wheel.

Alex Cormier

09-03-2010, 20:46

In my opinion, the update was both good and bad.

In one hand, it was great to see the GDC noticed that their system had a major flaw. In the other hand, the best time to have put out this update was before the "official" regionals start.

My team played in a week 1 regional and was a subject to every change in the update.

We were the first team to get a yellow card from G46 (match #1 of FLR), we played 6v0 matches (match 58 and 63), and we got a yellow card which turned to a red card for G30 (early Friday). Interesting how every change in this update was a little reflect of what 3181 did on the playing field. (Maybe the update should be changed to Update #3181 :p)

It is a horrible thing that teams pay in full for the local regional and even away regionals on week 1 and the system changes drastically after the fact. I have no problem with decreasing the amount of week 1 regionals or decrease the amount of registration or have more official week 0 events to work everything out.

I will not walk away from FIRST from this point, I truly believe in this program and I will further mentor teams in my area that need help. I have gone through this system and I love it. There just needs to be some changes.

coldfusion1279

09-03-2010, 20:50

Thanks GDC.

It's a shame the week 1 regionals went the way they did... but better late than never I suppose. On to week 2! (and on to different concerns with the ranking system?... I hope not)

texarkana

09-03-2010, 20:56

In one hand, it was great to see the GDC noticed that their system had a major flaw. In the other hand, the best time to have put out this update was before the "official" regionals start.

They made the change as soon as the week 1 results and buzz made them realize there was a problem. If they had aniticipated the problem they would not have allowed it in the first place. I would not want the task of devising a system that 50,000 very smart people try to outwit.

I was a disgruntled week 1 complainer, but I commend them for listening to the community and fixing it so quickly. My enthusiasm is restored.

Akash Rastogi

09-03-2010, 20:57

I question why we keep attending a week 1 regional.

This is barely a thank you to the GDC.

thelittlesister

09-03-2010, 20:59

Wish FLR wasn't week 1 but im glad GDC has found a solution! Week 1 participants were more or less the ginuea pigs for the trial, but i'm glad all the other weeks will be better...hopefully! =P Thanks!

JesseK

09-03-2010, 21:06

Thanks GDC. I understand the intent of the new seeding system, and sometimes even the best of intentions lead to unexpected consequences.

Madison, iirc, you have an FTC team going to Atlanta too right? We'll see ya down there (FTC1885). I'm just glad I won't miss the conferences this year.

George A.

09-03-2010, 21:12

I want to commend the GDC, because frankly they were going to upset people regardless of how they acted.

If they let things continue the way they had been going, we would have gone through 5 weeks of regionals, and the Championship with people outraged at the seeding system, and way the rankings were ending up. (The Bayou regional is a good testament to why they had to change it)

On the other hand, if they do change it (as they have) yes, the people playing in the week 1 regionals kind of got screwed, but they did the greatest good for the greatest number. This way at least the final 4 weeks of regionals can be played with how the game should be played.

Would it have been ideal to have this update before regionals? Yes, but in some of the scrimmages I saw, robots were struggling to move let alone score. So there was no way to really know how things would play out.

So let's give them credit, they saw an issue, made a tough decision as to whether to fix it or ride out the storm, and did what they felt was in the program's best interest. In my opinion, it should make the final weeks a bit more entertaining.

cmh0114

09-03-2010, 21:29

I'm also one of the people who saw no object with the 6v0 method. I wouldn't say that I liked it, but I was okay with it as a valid strategy.
Now, I don't have to worry about that! No more scoring on your opponent in order to get double seeding points, either. This will bring it so much closer to the wins/losses systems we've had in the past.
I can't wait to see how this turns out!

Molten

09-03-2010, 21:33

Week one is a great time to compete. First of all, it allows more creativity in playing the game because nobody has seen it played before or played it themselves. This means that there are no prior strategies that have been known to work, nobody has had extra time to perfect their robot, and that everything is equal. Think about last year, how many teams in week 5 converted to dumpers rather quickly at the competition? They didn't do this in week 1 because nobody knew at first dumpers would do better. In 2007, did people know how to defend around the rack very well at first? No, they learned it from studying matches and experience.

Also, to teams asking for an incentive to choose week 1...the above is that incentive. It's a pretty big one in my opinion. Sure week 1 has drawbacks, but it comes out about fair with the rest in most years.

Swampdude

09-03-2010, 21:37

MUCHO RESPECT GDC!!! BRAVO!!! That's how to demonstrate good practices. I think in addition to this perhaps next season 2010 week 1 teams could elect to get a break on registration fees perhaps. This changed my whole attitude about Florida. I was almost dreading it....

Bill_B

09-03-2010, 21:40

Any thoughts on the amount of the added seed points? Why +5 and not +6 or +10? Seems like some speed limit traffic signs I've seen, namely, can't shake the possibility of arbitrariness.

Joe Johnson

09-03-2010, 21:41

JaneYoung

09-03-2010, 21:45

This changed my whole attitude about Florida. I was almost dreading it....
This changed my whole attitude about the 2nd week, period. It's very difficult watching and wondering what's going to happen by 3rd week, 4th week, 5th week. We all do that anyway but, this year it was awful. I honestly broke out in hives on Saturday and I can't remember the last time I've broken out in hives. The concern for the teams/game was difficult to manage. From here on out, when discussions start about the 2010 FRC game, my first thought is going to be, hives.

Jane

jamie_1930

09-03-2010, 21:53

This is a blessing for which we thank the GDC and can finally say forget 6v0!

Lil' Lavery

09-03-2010, 22:05

#2, it gives teams the moral leg to stand on to say, "the game is supposed to be played to win, even in the qualifying matches." Now we can say that the purpose is clear. The game is intended to be played to win.

I definitely agree. I also think this was already there, though.

7.1 OVERVIEW
Breakaway is a game played on the FIELD (illustrated in the figure below). Two ALLIANCES, one red and one blue, composed of three FIRST Robotics Competition (FRC) teams each, compete in each MATCH. The object of the game is to attain a higher score than your opponent by shooting BALLS into a GOAL, climbing on the ALLIANCE TOWER or PLATFORM, or by lifting an ALLIANCE ROBOT off the PLAYING SURFACE.

Chris Fultz

09-03-2010, 22:07

Well bummer.

Now we have nothing to change for IRI and Copioli won't be able to whine about the rules...

:D

Jeff Waegelin

09-03-2010, 22:10

All good comments.

I like 2 things best.

#1, it shows a willingness to change things, even major things, mid stream if it is sufficiently important. Good for the GDC.

#2, it gives teams the moral leg to stand on to say, "the game is supposed to be played to win, even in the qualifying matches." Now we can say that the purpose is clear. The game is intended to be played to win.

I am very happy.

Joe J.

Joe, I completely agree with you. I firmly believe that you should always play to win the game in every match. You help people if they need it, and work together in the pits, but on the field, you play hard, you play fair and try to win. This clearly does give an endorsement to that belief, and I commend the GDC for that. I also commend them for having the fortitude to make the hard decision and do what's right to make the game better for all teams and spectators. Bravo.

Al Skierkiewicz

09-03-2010, 22:14

Well bummer.

Now we have nothing to change for IRI and Copioli won't be able to whine about the rules...

:D
Give him time, he has a lot on his plate right now.

Foster

09-03-2010, 22:17

Remind me again why anyone, my team included, is stupid enough to keep going to week 1 events?

Simple we went to FLR to:

Hang with my sister and Rolling Thunder!!
Meet Koko Ed in person
Meet Karthic
Wings and BBQ at Quaker Steak and Lube
Meet Kim
Watch the glee in Steve as Canada teams come beat up on the Americans
Meet with 20 Chairmain's Award Winners (some of them multiple times)
Sticklips BBQ
Watch a rookie team take on some bigger/badder/meaner (in a GP way of course)teams and take their prizes
Meet Paul, the President of First
Team dinner of BBQ at Dinosaur BBQ
Come to a place with less snow than Philly
See team 1551 put on a robot show that will be talked about for years
Have 5 different teams either dance with or limbo under our giant screwdriver
Oh yea, get the bugs out of the robot for Philadelphia

Thats why we came! And we had a good time doing it.

Manoel

09-03-2010, 22:24

Well bummer.

Now we have nothing to change for IRI and Copioli won't be able to whine about the rules...

:D

Watch out for FRAME PERIMETER shims flying out from 217... ;)

I'd throw ours, if we could go to IRI!

Enigma's puzzle

09-03-2010, 22:25

George1902

09-03-2010, 22:29

No more scoring on your opponent in order to get double seeding points, either.
Why not? This update didn't remove the coopertition bonus.

If I'm winning 8-2 with 30 seconds left and 2 balls to score, do I make the score 10-2 or 8-4? The former nets me a seeding score of 19 under the new rules, while the latter nets me a seeding score of 21. The incentive is still to score for the other alliance.

Vice versa, if I'm losing 2-8 with 30 seconds left and 2 balls to score, do I make the score 4-8 or 2-10? The former nets me a seeding score of 8 while the latter nets me a seeding score of 10. Once again, the incentive is still to score for the other alliance.

Can someone explain to me what is different with this update? Yes, there is a bigger reward for winning, but once the match is out of reach for one alliance, 6v0 comes back into play.

Chris is me

09-03-2010, 22:33

Can someone explain to me what is different with this update? Yes, there is a bigger reward for winning, but once the match is out of reach for one alliance, 6v0 comes back into play.

6v0 is not a catch all term for all cross goal scoring and I wish people would stop using it as such.

This update prevents pre arranging a match to have one winner and one loser, since the winner gets 5 more points.

Swampdude

09-03-2010, 23:05

Why not? This update didn't remove the coopertition bonus.

If I'm winning 8-2 with 30 seconds left and 2 balls to score, do I make the score 10-2 or 8-4? The former nets me a seeding score of 19 under the new rules, while the latter nets me a seeding score of 21. The incentive is still to score for the other alliance.

Vice versa, if I'm losing 2-8 with 30 seconds left and 2 balls to score, do I make the score 4-8 or 2-10? The former nets me a seeding score of 8 while the latter nets me a seeding score of 10. Once again, the incentive is still to score for the other alliance.

Can someone explain to me what is different with this update? Yes, there is a bigger reward for winning, but once the match is out of reach for one alliance, 6v0 comes back into play.

I think 5 points and the threat of ball incursion penalties gone gives enough clear incentive to want to be the winner, where it didn't matter before. That's an important dynamic that should eliminate most of the predetermined 6v0 collusion. You're right, it's still there but I think this will put the winners where they belong.. on top.. and it's better than what we had! Looking forward to seeing you George!

Martinez

09-03-2010, 23:24

Any thoughts on the amount of the added seed points? Why +5 and not +6 or +10? Seems like some speed limit traffic signs I've seen, namely, can't shake the possibility of arbitrariness.

5 Points = 5 Goals or 2.5 Hangs or 2.5 Goals from "Coopertition Bonus." Considering the overall average seems to be a 3-2 maybe even a 4-1 match for quals, I say it was a large enough spread to cause enough of a insentive to actually win your own matches without resorting the system to a simple W vs L ratio.

Vikesrock

09-03-2010, 23:29

Although i have to agree with the change in the ranking system, i cannot say that i agree with the GDC changing the rules on the 3" penalty. It seems like they took a critical engineering problem out of the equation, i cannot speak for everyone, but as soon as we saw the problem occur on the robot, we designed a solution. I was surprised how many people hadn't designed a robot to prevent themselves from doing that. Dean and Woodie even brought that point up at kickoff.

They may have eliminated the penalty if the incursion is accidental, but they did not eliminate the incentive to not have incursions. Many teams I witnessed that got balls stuck underneath them spent substantial time, in some cases up to a minute to get the ball out from underneath them.

Martinez

09-03-2010, 23:30

Although i have to agree with the change in the ranking system, i cannot say that i agree with the GDC changing the rules on the 3" penalty. It seems like they took a critical engineering problem out of the equation, i cannot speak for everyone, but as soon as we saw the problem occur on the robot, we designed a solution. I was surprised how many people hadn't designed a robot to prevent themselves from doing that. Dean and Woodie even brought that point up at kickoff.

You have to realize that alot of teams do not go through a very robust Test n Debug period prior to ship. Heck, having a finished working enough robot to play for Friday is considered a success by several teams. As a result, many teams recieved infractions again and again, espcially around the goal area.

Heck, we designed and redesigned our system to allow plenty of space to go over the bump, but keep out balls and got ourselves going over a ball we couldn't seefrom the playerstation once or twice as we tried going over the Bumps. Less Penalties (especailly in this game) I see as a very good thing.

Justin Montois

09-03-2010, 23:45

This is a huge update. Changes a lot and all for the better. It's just a shame our regional is over. I'm looking more forward to Championship now. Happy with these changes! Go GDC!

Nawaid Ladak

09-03-2010, 23:50

Why not? This update didn't remove the coopertition bonus.

If I'm winning 8-2 with 30 seconds left and 2 balls to score, do I make the score 10-2 or 8-4? The former nets me a seeding score of 19 under the new rules, while the latter nets me a seeding score of 21. The incentive is still to score for the other alliance.

Vice versa, if I'm losing 2-8 with 30 seconds left and 2 balls to score, do I make the score 4-8 or 2-10? The former nets me a seeding score of 8 while the latter nets me a seeding score of 10. Once again, the incentive is still to score for the other alliance.

Can someone explain to me what is different with this update? Yes, there is a bigger reward for winning, but once the match is out of reach for one alliance, 6v0 comes back into play.

Your absolutely right in this. the reward for winning was the coopertition bonus. The GDC didn't need to add a incentive to win.

What i think is happening here is people are getting too hyped up for what the GDC did, All this does is stop matches from being fixed between two even alliances. If i knew i was going to lose. I would still play 6v0. it would STILL net me the most seeding points that my alliance could possibly gain from that match.

Sure this gives you more incentive to win (in qualification matches) . but wasn't that already a goal? (coopertition bonus, moves you to the top of the pack easier than a 6v0)

Molten

09-03-2010, 23:55

Simple we went to FLR to:

Wings and BBQ at Quaker Steak and Lube
Sticklips BBQ
Team dinner of BBQ at Dinosaur BBQ

Thats why we came! And we had a good time doing it.

I'm seeing a trend here...Florida has good BBQ?

dtengineering

09-03-2010, 23:59

Sure this gives you more incentive to win. but wasn't that already a goal?

Winning the tournament is one goal. Winning a qualification match is another.

Now the two goals have a lot more in common with each other than they did a week ago.

Jason

waialua359

10-03-2010, 00:25

This changes nothing for our team.
We played to win every match last week and for the most part, that's how the SD regional was played.
In the end it worked out for the best.

Good luck in week 2 everyone!!!!

Andrew Schreiber

10-03-2010, 00:46

What i think is happening here is people are getting too hyped up for what the GDC did, All this does is stop matches from being fixed between two even alliances. If i knew i was going to lose. I would still play 6v0. it would STILL net me the most seeding points that my alliance could possibly gain from that match.

Nawaid, the new rules are not perfect but it is an olive branch, it is showing us that the GDC is aware that people are finding problems and is trying to address them. I for one appreciate this.

Kevin Sevcik

10-03-2010, 01:13

Your absolutely right in this. the reward for winning was the coopertition bonus. The GDC didn't need to add a incentive to win.

What i think is happening here is people are getting too hyped up for what the GDC did, All this does is stop matches from being fixed between two even alliances. If i knew i was going to lose. I would still play 6v0. it would STILL net me the most seeding points that my alliance could possibly gain from that match.

Sure this gives you more incentive to win (in qualification matches) . but wasn't that already a goal? (coopertition bonus, moves you to the top of the pack easier than a 6v0)
The difference post #16 is that now the weaker alliance can't "steal" the win from the stronger team. Pre #16, if the weaker alliance managed to blank its score and run up the score of the stronger alliance, they essentially ended up tying the stronger alliance. This denies any ranking advantage to the stronger alliance even though it would appear that it should have garnered some advantage from the match. It did completely dominate the other team, after all.

Succinctly, if there's no difference between a 16-0 blowout and a 16-16 tie, something's probably wrong with your system. The post #16 system removes this oddity and creates a system where winning is actually rewarded in all circumstances. This is the fundamental difference between the two seeding systems.

PaW

10-03-2010, 01:44

Winning the tournament is one goal. Winning a qualification match is another.

Now the two goals have a lot more in common with each other than they did a week ago.

Well said, Jason.

Thanks GDC.

Nawaid Ladak

10-03-2010, 01:53

The difference post #16 is that now the weaker alliance can't "steal" the win from the stronger team. Pre #16, if the weaker alliance managed to blank its score and run up the score of the stronger alliance, they essentially ended up tying the stronger alliance. This denies any ranking advantage to the stronger alliance even though it would appear that it should have garnered some advantage from the match. It did completely dominate the other team, after all.

Succinctly, if there's no difference between a 16-0 blowout and a 16-16 tie, something's probably wrong with your system. The post #16 system removes this oddity and creates a system where winning is actually rewarded in all circumstances. This is the fundamental difference between the two seeding systems.

My point is that update 16 will not stop the weaker alliance from creating a 6v0 situation, it won't stop the stronger alliance to score for their opponents to raise their own seeding score/cooperation bonus even more. after all. I thought that was the issue that everyone was struggling with. "scoring points for your opponent". We already knew that part of the system was flawed.

It's great what the GDC has done with G46 and the principle of the 5 point bonus, but the process in which they have enforced the rule change. This change is totally unfair to teams who participated in Week 1 events. In a ideal world the GDC would have announced this change, but would not implement it until the Championship Event. That would give people a even playing field during their respective Regional competitions.

Of course life isn't fair, and neither is anything in it. So i guess we just have to live with it.

Joe Matt

10-03-2010, 01:59

Of course life isn't fair, and neither is anything in it. So i guess we just have to live with it.

When it comes down to a decision like this you have to look at it from how will this benefit the kids. Will they get disgruntled and mad at a flawed system that COULD be fixed but only at an event they aren't going to (especially due to the rule). Or they could make problems with Week 1, fix it, and run the rest of the regionals in a maner that'd let those who play the game better (strategy, design) win.

Sorry Week 1.

Danny Diaz

10-03-2010, 02:14

My point is that update 16 will not stop the weaker alliance from creating a 6v0 situation, it won't stop the stronger alliance to score for their opponents to raise their own seeding score/cooperation bonus even more. after all. I thought that was the issue that everyone was struggling with. "scoring points for your opponent". We already knew that part of the system was flawed.

I have to agree with this. There is still no incentive for an alliance that knows they're not going to win to even attempt to "fight." All they really want to do (even with #16) is to keep the bleeding to a minimum - to prevent their alliance from scoring any points (whether scored by them or by the opposing alliance); there is nothing gained by fighting a battle you know you cannot win.

For instance, let's say a particular matchup brings 217-148-111 against 418-5000-5001 (where 5000 and 5001 represent mythical rookie teams that can only push balls around the field). Even after #16 I would still be correct to instruct my alliance members to not score (for our alliance), to not defend (against our opposing alliance from scoring in their own goals), and only to attempt to prevent anyone from scoring in our goals. It is in our alliance's interest to play like this during the qualifiers, if you know the cards are stacked against you, to prevent a "runaway" from the stronger alliance. This is where this year's game falls apart - where the scoring model inhales audibly. In this year's game I have the strong likelihood to do more damage to myself trying to play, than to sit on my keyster - WTH?

I do appreciate the GDC's stance on backing off the ball incursion penalty, and I also appreciate them cracking down on robots that don't pass inspection. However, their bread-and-butter (the game itself) is still sadly and horribly broken.

-Danny

the man

10-03-2010, 07:58

did any one notice this?

In the event that BALLS become dammed in the GOAL at the mouth of the BALL COUNTER,

I think dammed is ment to be jamed.

Travis Hoffman

10-03-2010, 08:04

My point is that update 16 will not stop the weaker alliance from creating a 6v0 situation, it won't stop the stronger alliance to score for their opponents to raise their own seeding score/cooperation bonus even more. after all. I thought that was the issue that everyone was struggling with. "scoring points for your opponent". We already knew that part of the system was flawed.

The most upsetting issue was the pre-match collusion possibility.

Although I made it clear in my "don't count points scored for the opposition" poll/thread that I do not like the concept of scoring on your opponents for any reason, because it doesn't really serve any inspirational point, and although I feel teams could still "cooperte" in other, better ways on the field if opposing goal scoring were eliminated, I believe Dean/FIRST feels that this practice is part of their "coopertition" model, and no amount of reasoning will get them to alter that viewpoint. Therefore, all the possibilities you mentioned are definitely still in play.

Here's my question - WWPCD? (you figure it out :p) in response to this rule change? I think I know, but I'll wait for the answer from the horse's mouth.

Most people abhor the notion of pre-match collusion - the *only* *true* 6v0 situation. Of all the scoring in opponent goals strategies - the 5 point bonus will serve as greatest incentive not to do that, since you have the entire match in front of you and anything can happen.

I believe this rule change will definitely sway more optimistic folks to pursue victory. However, for pessimist/realist types who know when they're up against a stacked alliance or paired with less than optimal partners, I don't think the 5 points will mean much - if anything, the alliance will wait a bit longer before deciding the hope of winning the match is lost and switching to "lockdown mode".

rick.oliver

10-03-2010, 08:09

Joe Johnson

10-03-2010, 08:28

To all those saying this doesn't fix everything, what solution do you know of that fixes EVERYTHING? I don't live in that universe (yet).

BUT I will repeat that these 5 point make ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that the intent of FIRST is that qualifying matches be played to WIN.

Yes, there may be some cases where an alliance may collect more seeding points if they do otherwise, but now teams can clearly point to this rule and say, "No, that was not the intention and we are not going to go down that path."

And, if that isn't enough for you, I'd argue that these 5 points covers 80% of the cases where teams will be tempted to go down that path. Dividing the number of cases where throwing a match earns a team more seeding points by 5 is a non-trivial improvement in my book.

Joe J.

Tetraman

10-03-2010, 08:33

did any one notice this?

In the event that BALLS become dammed in the GOAL at the mouth of the BALL COUNTER,

I think dammed is ment to be jamed.

technically, dammed is the correct word. Jammed would be just as good, but dammed implies that there is a flow that's being blocked, like a dam.

As to the argument of whether 5 points solves this crisis: I don't think it does, but it makes winning more appealing to those who need the Highest qualifying points possible. I can imagine a situations where 6v0 would still be employed, but only for alliances with robots desperate to get easy qualifying points. Could you imagine if robots block their own goals so opponent's can't score on them?

Rich Kressly

10-03-2010, 08:42

.....For instance, let's say a particular matchup brings 217-148-111 against 418-5000-5001 (where 5000 and 5001 represent mythical rookie teams that can only push balls around the field)....

I, personally, would not employ the strategy you outlined after the words above. However I admit that what you describe is a viable strategy that some may and still will employ, including my own team if our strategy/drive folks decide to do so with good reason (albeit not as often as they would have without U16).

First off, what an incredible honor it would be to be on the field at the same time as these three teams. Second, if I had an alliance with the three teams above, all with functional drivetrains, I'd be inclined to play it straight - one team defending as best as possible while other two try to manage/push/shoot balls to score - at least for the first part of the match and evaluate from there.

Clearly, if you feel that you're THAT overmatched, then clearly you probably don't feel you're a top 8-10 team anyway, so wouldn't you need to show 217, 148, and/or 111 that you're a worthy opponent, therefore worthy of consideration for being chosen by one of these elite teams as an alliance partner? If those three teams are so darned good, one is likely to be the number one seed right? and will pick another one of those teams for the elims, correct? Won't you have to beat them anyway to win the event?

I also find it a little humorous that you refer to a mythical alliance of your team with two barely functional rookies (which happens a lot at some events), while you present the 148, 217, 111 alliance as one that we may readily see. I've watched over the web and at events PRAYING for alliances like this to form (so I could sit with popcorn and watch) in seeding rounds for a decade and have only seen the planets align this way maybe 3 times.

Thus, the following is WAY overstated IMHO...

However, their bread-and-butter (the game itself) is still sadly and horribly broken. -Danny

The exact scenario, with three powerhouses together in a single seeding round, is so rare that, in my mind, there's no way to conclude that anything is "horribly broken." Heck, even before update 16 with a ranking/seeding formula I really didn't like, I still wasn't ready to say ANYTHING was horribly broken.

1712 played week one, and if you sat down with each individual student on the team who was in DC with us, you'd probably find out that none of them were too particularly fond of the ranking/scoring system. However, if you'd ask them if they'd do it all over again exactly the same way I think you'd be surprised by the answers. Further, if you'd ask them what they were taking away from the experience, I think you'd hear a LOT of feedback, very little of which had anything to do with the actual matches on the field. I don't believe that my team is special or different from most others in any significant way related to these conversations, either.

Let me reiterate that I'm THRILLED that there's an adjustment in ranking/seeding and was hoping for a change all day yesterday as many were, but cmon, is this REALLY something we want to view with this much importance to make such strong statements - even after major adjustments were made?

johnr

10-03-2010, 08:48

Team 5000 coach," I don't think so. My kids busted their butt for 6 weeks. Your not picking us anyway so we are here to have fun and play to win. Now you think your so smart come up with a strategy to win"
By the way, a team that could only push balls(at the time) won Kettering.

Travis Hoffman

10-03-2010, 08:55

BUT I will repeat that these 5 point make ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that the intent of FIRST is that qualifying matches be played to WIN.

Yet they have retained the loser gets winner's score feature of the rules, and therefore retained the incentive to "lose bigger". Trying to comeback after going down big does not serve the loser, as the loser doesn't get loser's points. There will still be a threshold "gap" and match time left at which some teams will decide to abandon the pursuit of a "true" win and instead pursue a loss result that yields the best seeding score possible. The +5 merely widens that gap. That may be enough to deter most teams from pursuing the loss. Time will tell.

I will not fault teams for continuing to pursue "lockdown" mode - helping the winner win bigger is still a benefit to the losing team - in effect, the losing team IS pursuing their best interests by doing this - this is how they "WIN" the match when a *real* win is out of reach.

It is unrealistic to expect teams to try to WIN under all game conditions when doing so in certain conditions under the existing rules is directly to the detriment of the team.

Martinez

10-03-2010, 08:56

I have to agree with this. There is still no incentive for an alliance that knows they're not going to win to even attempt to "fight." All they really want to do (even with #16) is to keep the bleeding to a minimum - to prevent their alliance from scoring any points (whether scored by them or by the opposing alliance); there is nothing gained by fighting a battle you know you cannot win.

For instance, let's say a particular matchup brings 217-148-111 against 418-5000-5001 (where 5000 and 5001 represent mythical rookie teams that can only push balls around the field). Even after #16 I would still be correct to instruct my alliance members to not score (for our alliance), to not defend (against our opposing alliance from scoring in their own goals), and only to attempt to prevent anyone from scoring in our goals. It is in our alliance's interest to play like this during the qualifiers, if you know the cards are stacked against you, to prevent a "runaway" from the stronger alliance. This is where this year's game falls apart - where the scoring model inhales audibly. In this year's game I have the strong likelihood to do more damage to myself trying to play, than to sit on my keyster - WTH?

I do appreciate the GDC's stance on backing off the ball incursion penalty, and I also appreciate them cracking down on robots that don't pass inspection. However, their bread-and-butter (the game itself) is still sadly and horribly broken.

-Danny

See, that's where FIRST believes their random alliance generator is infalliable, allowing such a one sided match never to happen. Ideally, with the alliance generator in place, blow outs should be rare or never happen. Of course, we all know the truth of that matter.

Al Skierkiewicz

10-03-2010, 08:57

Danny,
Thank you for including us in your dream team even if it is mythical as Rich has pointed out.
Rich, if it ever happens, you are going to have to bring popcorn for everyone and a really big couch.
Travis, I agree that there are other methods to employ which inspire. I however, like the ability to add score to an otherwise upset match. I feel bad for teams that go out and try very hard in a one sided match. I see no honor in winning 234 to zero and no benefit to the opposing team. I firmly believe everyone should have a fun weekend and should not leave with everyone in the country (including the sponsors) knowing they had a (or more than one) zero score match. Just my opinion.

thefro526

10-03-2010, 08:57

TheFro approves of this update.

It may not be perfect, but it sure is a hell of a lot better than what we had to work with before. Also, we competed in week 1, and the seeding system wasn't very nice to us either, but that's in the past now. We just have to keep moving forward to bigger and better things.

Thanks GDC, at least we know that you're out there somewhere... Listening.

Teammax

10-03-2010, 09:08

My point is that update 16 will not stop the weaker alliance from creating a 6v0 situation, it won't stop the stronger alliance to score for their opponents to raise their own seeding score/cooperation bonus even more. after all. I thought that was the issue that everyone was struggling with. "scoring points for your opponent". We already knew that part of the system was flawed.

It's great what the GDC has done with G46 and the principle of the 5 point bonus, but the process in which they have enforced the rule change. This change is totally unfair to teams who participated in Week 1 events. In a ideal world the GDC would have announced this change, but would not implement it until the Championship Event. That would give people a even playing field during their respective Regional competitions.

Of course life isn't fair, and neither is anything in it. So i guess we just have to live with it.

While I see the possibility of what you say I do not think it will happen much or if at all. In all the years we have had a team in this competition I never seen our team go into a much 'knowing they will lose or thinking they do not have a chance. So much can happen in a match I truely believe every team goes into a match will their alliance thinking they could win. Sure there are matches where we know the odds are not in our favor but everyone has seen upset matches numerous times. I can think of many times where we beat alliances that clearly out ranked the alliance we were on. Those are the matches you want to see at the end of the day because those are the oppurtunities to leap frog past other teams.

Along with this I am sure everyone that has been in a regional can point to a match that they were sure they would win prior to the match and then ended up losing.

I am not actually criticizing your comments and I understand the logic behind them. But, all of the teams are filled with overachievers I dont think the 'lose big' mind set will be there now that there is a 5 point incentive to win. A team that is low in the ranking will need those 5 points also.

JaneYoung

10-03-2010, 09:22

Thanks GDC, at least we know that you're out there somewhere... Listening.
They may listen but I'm also sure they evaluate and review. The 1st week competitions offered the opportunity for the game to be played out. We've spent several days picking things apart, evaluating, looking at the results. I wouldn't be surprised if the GDC doesn't do that as well.

Jane

Ryan Dognaux

10-03-2010, 09:41

Daniel_LaFleur

10-03-2010, 10:01

Yet they have retained the loser gets winner's score feature of the rules, and therefore retained the incentive to "lose bigger". Trying to comeback after going down big does not serve the loser, as the loser doesn't get loser's points.

Really?

We came back from a 5-1 deficit to win 7-6 (on a single penalty on our opponents --- BAE Qual53). This comeback scored seeding more points for us than would be possible had we assisited our opponents.

Giving up is just plain foolish, and teaching to do so is worse regardless of the scoring system.

martin417

10-03-2010, 10:31

Better late than never.

As a team that competed during week 1, the penalties were making the game way less fun than it should have been. This update should take care of all of that and hopefully we'll start to see a lot more ball passing and ball controlling strategies taking place.

I was surprised at the <G46> penalties, not because the penalties were called, but because teams did not design their bot to prevent it. How hard is it to design a bot that doesn't allow a 3" penetration? Did teams not do testing prior to ship? The rule existed from the beginning. I hate to put blame on teams, but that was an easy thing to fix.

Before I get flamed, I am not talking about getting forced over a ball on a hump, or something un-avoidable. But if the ball can get under your bot just driving around, you need to make a change. You should have tested for this possibility. The rules were clear.

Travis Hoffman

10-03-2010, 10:36

Really?

We came back from a 5-1 deficit to win 7-6 (on a single penalty on our opponents --- BAE Qual53). This comeback scored seeding more points for us than would be possible had we assisited our opponents.

Giving up is just plain foolish, and teaching to do so is worse regardless of the scoring system.

Given that there have been around 8 billion posts highlighting just how much the coopertition model differs from the traditional rah rah win good lose bad sports model, there is a good chance that your definition of "giving up" does not apply to the FIRST model.

I wonder what percentage of similar deficits across all of Week 1 matches resulted in comeback wins....

You do raise a good point that penalties play a factor - although now with U16, perhaps not so much - in determining winner/loser. They are definitely another thing which would tend to increase the deficit threshold at which a team might choose to "go for the loss". But due to the rules, that threshold is still there, as teams will still consider the strategy.

Teams were presented with this conflict between winning outright and maximizing seeding scores - both supposedly *good* things to pursue - when it was built into certain game situations via the rules. Originally, the rules heavily disfavored winning outright in some circumstances. The GDC has done a good job of addressing some of the most notable situations and restoring balance with Update 16, but they have NOT tipped the scales entirely toward winning outright as the preferred outcome under ALL situations. Some still remain viable. If FIRST persists in keeping such choices in place, that's their decision (and not necessarily a bad one), but if they do, I cannot fault any team for pursuing either option if they feel they are doing what's BEST for them.

JesseK

10-03-2010, 11:05

Yet another improvement could be to assign penalties to an alliance to determine the winner, yet assign penalties to the specific violating team for determining all "penalized score" attributes of the seeding/coopertition scores.

This small tweak would further set apart those teams who've field-tested their bots and those who are playing catch up at the event. It also alleviates the stress to most teams from the syndrome that's often seen in qualifications where a single alliance member independently decides on its own to do some off the wall action that causes multiple penalties or a yellow card.

Ryan Dognaux

10-03-2010, 11:54

I was surprised at the <G46> penalties, not because the penalties were called, but because teams did not design their bot to prevent it. How hard is it to design a bot that doesn't allow a 3" penetration? Did teams not do testing prior to ship? The rule existed from the beginning. I hate to put blame on teams, but that was an easy thing to fix.

Before I get flamed, I am not talking about getting forced over a ball on a hump, or something un-avoidable. But if the ball can get under your bot just driving around, you need to make a change. You should have tested for this possibility. The rules were clear.

Martin - No doubt about it, the rules were clear as day.

I think what teams failed to expect was just how easy it is to get a ball under your frame. There are a lot of things usually going on to factor in - other robots, the field elements, the driver station lack-of-view. I can easily see how a team could not even see a ball that it ran over depending upon where they're at on the field.

Balls near the bumps were often an issue as teams would come over them and land on top of a ball. The inclines near the goals were bad spots too; as teams tried pushing balls in they would often drive over them.

The rules were clear, but I'm glad that they've changed them a bit. It should make for higher scores and an all around better competition with a reduced focus on avoiding penalties and an increased focus on scoring points.

jspatz1

10-03-2010, 12:09

It could be argued that for most robots, driving over the ball was not really an incursion violation anyway. If you think of the bottom of the robot in the same terms as the top of the robot, the ball could pass under the bottom without actually penetrating the frame volume by 3", just as it can roll across the top without doing so. The rule is not that the ball cannot come into a verticle projection of the frame perimeter, it is that it cannot incure a concave area of the robot by more than 3". This update is certainly welcome to clarify the intent of the rule. We may have had many penalties called in week 1 that should not have been.

JHSmentor

10-03-2010, 12:11

Remind me again why anyone, my team included, is stupid enough to keep going to week 1 events?

ETA: It's a good change, but the timing is obviously frustrating.

I'll second that - I just wish we even had the option of skipping a week 1 regional.

wouldn't it be nice if they mixed things up from year to year - or just move Portland to week 2 or 3. :)

Teammax

10-03-2010, 12:16

I was surprised at the <G46> penalties, not because the penalties were called, but because teams did not design their bot to prevent it. How hard is it to design a bot that doesn't allow a 3" penetration? Did teams not do testing prior to ship? The rule existed from the beginning. I hate to put blame on teams, but that was an easy thing to fix.

Before I get flamed, I am not talking about getting forced over a ball on a hump, or something un-avoidable. But if the ball can get under your bot just driving around, you need to make a change. You should have tested for this possibility. The rules were clear.

I think designing a robot to go over the bumps and one that will not allow balls to roll under it is very challenging. I am sure there are effective designs but just having a round object with a surface that grips makes it hard to stop. If the center of the ball can get under a robot then it is very easy to drive over that ball and trap it under neath. You cannot have a solid 'skirt' the rides low to the ground because it effects your ability to go over the bumps.

I am sure that teams have effectively designed there robot to avoid this (I hope we did!!) but I think it is more of a challenge then we thought it would be.

ks_mumupsi

10-03-2010, 12:33

bah... now i cant have fun with my strategy team :P

great update, only wish was that it should have been pre-week 1 as others said.

im looking forward to going ot nyc and seeing how this affects rankings now.

gluck out there.

ChuckDickerson

10-03-2010, 12:35

Martin - No doubt about it, the rules were clear as day.

I think what teams failed to expect was just how easy it is to get a ball under your frame. There are a lot of things usually going on to factor in - other robots, the field elements, the driver station lack-of-view. I can easily see how a team could not even see a ball that it ran over depending upon where they're at on the field.

Balls near the bumps were often an issue as teams would come over them and land on top of a ball. The inclines near the goals were bad spots too; as teams tried pushing balls in they would often drive over them.

The rules were clear, but I'm glad that they've changed them a bit. It should make for higher scores and an all around better competition with a reduced focus on avoiding penalties and an increased focus on scoring points.

Really? Teams that designed to be able to drive over the bumps never thought that they might also drive over a ball? Really? I thought most teams would have considered that early on during the design process. We sure did. That was one of the factors that steered us away from going over the bumps from the beginning. That and the higher likelihood of getting flipped over. We DESIGNED to minimize the likelihood of penalties from the beginning rather than leaving it as an after thought for the drivers to deal with on the field. We basically equated going over the bumps to a high likelihood of getting penalties and/or flipped over. We are only going through the tunnels instead for those reasons.

Now don’t get me wrong, I am ecstatic with the new changes in Update 16. I think it will elevate the game play for all. I am especially happy to see the new rule that you don’t get any seeding points until you field a robot that has passed inspection. Being one of the inspectors in Bayou having to watch 2920 not pass inspection but be ranked in the top 8 all day Friday and Saturday was painful to watch. This is the first time that I can ever remember that FIRST has, as of Update 16, not just let you put your human player out there and you still get the points.

Daniel_LaFleur

10-03-2010, 12:40

This is the first time that I can ever remember that FIRST has, as of Update 16, not just let you put your human player out there and you still get the points.

As long as you are inspected, you can still do this :rolleyes:

JesseK

10-03-2010, 12:43

Really? Teams that designed to be able to drive over the bumps never thought that they might also drive over a ball? Really? I thought most teams would have considered that early on during the design process. We sure did. That was one of the factors that steered us away from going over the bumps from the beginning. That and the higher likelihood of getting flipped over. We DESIGNED to minimize the likelihood of penalties from the beginning rather than leaving it as an after thought for the drivers to deal with on the field. We basically equated going over the bumps to a high likelihood of getting penalties and/or flipped over. We are only going through the tunnels instead for those reasons.

Even with an army of brainstorming sessions, going over a bump onto a ball resulting in a penalty never even crossed our minds. We're not geniuses, but we do consider ourselves to be "smart". It's simply impossible to play out every possible scenario beforehand, thus designing to be adaptable was higher on our priority list than designing to be perfect. I'm sure there were many other teams in the same boat. Even so, we only ever got one 3" incursion penalty and it was because we went head-to-head with another robot and they pushed their possessed ball under our robot.

carbuff2228

10-03-2010, 12:50

This is a blessing for which we thank the GDC and can finally say forget 6v0!

i totally agree it gives me our team scouting lead and strategist a chance to actually talk strategy and actually an incentive to win a match thank you so much gdc no more 6v0

Martinez

10-03-2010, 13:20

I think designing a robot to go over the bumps and one that will not allow balls to roll under it is very challenging. I am sure there are effective designs but just having a round object with a surface that grips makes it hard to stop. If the center of the ball can get under a robot then it is very easy to drive over that ball and trap it under neath. You cannot have a solid 'skirt' the rides low to the ground because it effects your ability to go over the bumps.

I am sure that teams have effectively designed there robot to avoid this (I hope we did!!) but I think it is more of a challenge then we thought it would be.

Agreed. Along with posessing a ball well enough to drive that ball up the ramp into the goal I would see as the major design challanges of this year's game, even above that of hanging, once a cost analysis is undertaken. Balls are everywhere in this game, especially in places you don't expect (or can't see due to field objects) and its really easy for an opposing robot to shove it underneath your frame.

pathew100

10-03-2010, 13:22

I was surprised at the <G46> penalties, not because the penalties were called, but because teams did not design their bot to prevent it. How hard is it to design a bot that doesn't allow a 3" penetration? Did teams not do testing prior to ship? The rule existed from the beginning. I hate to put blame on teams, but that was an easy thing to fix.

Before I get flamed, I am not talking about getting forced over a ball on a hump, or something un-avoidable. But if the ball can get under your bot just driving around, you need to make a change. You should have tested for this possibility. The rules were clear.

Obviously teams need to prevent the ball from going under completely, and that is still a penalty.

The situation that U16 addresses regarding <G46> is a 'transient'-type ball incursion. This happened many times and was the cause of most of the <G46> penalties last week (that I saw).

For example, when a robot drives up to a ball and a traction wheel grabs it and they 'ride up' on it for a a second and then immediately back down and off the ball. Or a roller bar grabs a ball and starts to suck the ball under but they back off immediately.

Conor Ryan

10-03-2010, 13:41

I think Team Update 16 was a result of the Referees doing an excellent job at week 1 regionals. They called the penalties by the book at least 95%+ of the time and because of that the GDC was able to make appropriate rule changes.

Also of note, I hope Bill's Blog updates to give us more insight to the changes.

Good job GDC, I support these changes, despite being unfair to week 1 regionals (hindsight is always 20/20), I think this will improve the spirit of the game a great deal.

ChuckDickerson

10-03-2010, 14:15

... Even so, we only ever got one 3" incursion penalty and it was because we went head-to-head with another robot and they pushed their possessed ball under our robot.

Interesting that you got a penalty for that. Our assesment of the rules would indicate that there should have not been a penalty under <G13>:

<G13> Causing PENALTIES – The actions of an ALLIANCE shall not cause an opposing ALLIANCE to violate a rule and thus incur PENALTIES. Any rule violations committed by the affected ALLIANCE shall be excused, and no PENALTIES will be assigned.

Did you protest the call?

Al Skierkiewicz

10-03-2010, 14:22

JesseK

10-03-2010, 14:30

Did you protest the call?

No, it was deemed insignificant at the time considering it was Saturday and it was only our 2nd penalty total (the first being incidental contact with a flipped robot within the grace period).

Sumathi

10-03-2010, 14:32

So they are still using the coopertition ranking system to award points, but the winner gets 5 extra points? Correct me if I am wrong.

jgannon

10-03-2010, 14:40

It could be argued that for most robots, driving over the ball was not really an incursion violation anyway. If you think of the bottom of the robot in the same terms as the top of the robot, the ball could pass under the bottom without actually penetrating the frame volume by 3", just as it can roll across the top without doing so.
The bottom of the robot is not the same as the top, in terms of <R19>.
The rule is not that the ball cannot come into a verticle projection of the frame perimeter
Below the bumper zone, that is actually the rule. <R19> spells this all out.

ChuckDickerson

10-03-2010, 15:06

Chuck,
Don't forget this...
<R19> ROBOTS must be designed so that in normal operation BALLS cannot extend more than 3 inches inside
a) the FRAME PERIMETER below the level of the BUMPER ZONE (see Figure 8-5),
b) a MECHANISM or feature designed or used to deflect BALLS in a controlled manner that is above the level of the BUMPER ZONE.

R19 remains unchanged and may have played into the decision.

Absolutely, which begs the question is this an inspection issue or a referee issue? As an inspector we required the robots to have some reasonable protection on the top and sides such that the balls couldn’t enter the robot more than 3”. We required several teams to add some sort of netting, Lexan, or other cover on their tops and/or bars or something on the lower parts of the sides so that the balls didn’t have a reasonable chance of entering the robot by more than 3”. We assumed this to be the intent of <R19>. However, we didn’t require all the bots to be solid on the bottom as this would inhibit going over the bumps in most cases. If you incurred a penalty by riding up on the ball and trapping it under/inside your robot the inspectors considered that to be a field issue for the refs to deal with. I guess I am wondering what "normal operation" means? <R19> would seem to be an inspection issue as it is a robot rule not a game rule. If you designed your robot to go over the bump then is that not "normal operation"? If in "normal operation" a ball can go under and end up trapped inside your robot is this something the inspectors should fail or is this something to be left to the refs to penalize on the field?

jspatz1

10-03-2010, 15:14

The bottom of the robot is not the same as the top, in terms of <R19>.

Below the bumper zone, that is actually the rule. <R19> spells this all out.

I stand corrected.

martin417

10-03-2010, 16:04

Even with an army of brainstorming sessions, going over a bump onto a ball resulting in a penalty never even crossed our minds. We're not geniuses, but we do consider ourselves to be "smart". It's simply impossible to play out every possible scenario beforehand, thus designing to be adaptable was higher on our priority list than designing to be perfect. I'm sure there were many other teams in the same boat. Even so, we only ever got one 3" incursion penalty and it was because we went head-to-head with another robot and they pushed their possessed ball under our robot.

As I said in my post, I was not talking about going over a bump onto the ball. Most of the penalties I saw at Peachtree were caused by robots in the open field trying to push a single ball all by themselves, and driving over that ball. This could be tested with a $10.00 soccer ball in 5 minutes of testing prior to ship. I know we did a lot of such testing to insure that it couldn't happen to us.

anyheck

10-03-2010, 19:06

Changing the rules in the middle of the season = Fundamental FAIL.

jspatz1

10-03-2010, 19:26

Changing the rules in the middle of the season = Fundamental FAIL.

It is the beginning of the season, not the middle. NOT changing the rules after flaws are uncovered would have been a fundamental fail.

anyheck

10-03-2010, 19:31

It is the beginning of the season, not the middle. NOT changing the rules after flaws are uncovered would have been a fundamental fail.

The beginning of the season was more than 6 weeks ago.

BIGWILLI2081

10-03-2010, 21:55

Changing the rules in the middle of the season = Fundamental FAIL.

When were they to know some of the rules were not the best? Before the regionals started? They had to observe it before they could change it. Although, I do agree the seeding point system was not the best to begin with, it just took some examples (and complaining) before the GDC realized they had to do something to make it better. Unfortunately for week 1 teams, they were the guinea pigs. It's better they change them now than never. I give props to the GDC for fixing the rules.

Molten

10-03-2010, 22:02

Unfortunately for week 1 teams, they were the guinea pigs.

Sounds better if you call them beta testers.

PayneTrain

10-03-2010, 22:13

It's just a general issue FIRST has tried to deal with for a few years; they almost have to turn regionals week one into a test drive.

Why not just set the regionals a week later and allow the FiM guys to run a district or two to test out the field system, points settings, and the rules? At least beta test on something that covers less money and less teams.

pfreivald

10-03-2010, 22:23

Is it really that big a deal?

1551 has been going to week 1 regionals since it's inception -- and has never attended two regionals -- and we've never found that there's some big problem with the first week...

Could they have anticipated the seeding issues? Sure.
Could they have anticipated the reffing issues? Sure.

Were either of these things a surprise to anyone playing? Not if they read the rules and assumed they would be followed to a 'T'***...

...and that means that at the very least, week 1 teams were playing a fair game.

**...even though this may be a bad assumption. Two years ago, our robot Shiela was designed around the fact that contact outside the bumper zone would be penalized. It pretty much never was, and our super-compact trackball grabber went basically unnoticed -- as did the elegant design that only extended 3" outside the frame, and then only while gathering a trackball from the floor. And there were plenty of games that we would have won had cotbz penalties been called...

But that's ok. Once we knew how it would be played, a fair game is a fair game, and fun (and learnin') was had by all.

ExTexan

10-03-2010, 22:25

This could be tested with a $10.00 soccer ball in 5 minutes of testing prior to ship.

Now there is something I am going to suggest to my team...."testing before ship (bag)"....on second thought, maybe I'll just ref! ::ouch::

anyheck

10-03-2010, 22:32

When were they to know some of the rules were not the best? Before the regionals started? They had to observe it before they could change it. Although, I do agree the seeding point system was not the best to begin with, it just took some examples (and complaining) before the GDC realized they had to do something to make it better. Unfortunately for week 1 teams, they were the guinea pigs. It's better they change them now than never. I give props to the GDC for fixing the rules.

I'm glad that we could be part of the beta test for the game. Let the real week one begin!

Vikesrock

10-03-2010, 22:34

I'm glad that we could be part of the beta test for the game. Let the real week one begin!

Do you have a suggestion on how FIRST could do things better? Or do you just like to whine and complain?

The Lucas

10-03-2010, 22:42

Changing the rules in the middle of the season = Fundamental FAIL.

At least the GDC changed the rules in what is widely regarded as a positive way after Week 1. I am happy and truly stunned (unprecedented) that they improved the seeding system to save the rest of the year. It could be worse they could change the rules in a negative way after Week 1. That is what happened in 2003 with the now infamous Tape Measure Rule (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=26908&postcount=1). I was at that Week 1 VCU Regional. I was not happy that we had to scrap our tape measure early in the design process when it was deemed illegal by an update, only to compete against teams (who didn't read the updates) with (suddenly legal) tape measures.

Update 16 is a good update after Week 1, so it is the Anti-Tape Measure Rule.

Week 1 is always a guinea pig for something (FMS, Real Time Scoring, rule loopholes). However, you cant let these issues ruin the event for you. If things like that really bother you, maybe you should consider attending a later regional. My teams try to avoid Week 1 Regionals for multiple reasons. I realise other teams have little choice when thier home regional or the only regional for a few hundred miles is on Week 1.

1551 has been going to week 1 regionals since it's inception -- and has never attended two regionals -- and we've never found that there's some big problem with the first week...

Actually, half of the FLR regionals (06-08) have occured on Week 2. It really matters which week in January is Kickoff (and what day of the week is January 1st). I can't wait for FLR to be on Week 2 again.

anyheck

10-03-2010, 23:05

Do you have a suggestion on how FIRST could do things better? Or do you just like to whine and complain?

They could improve by not changing the rules after 'coopertition' has actually begun.

I guess I wasn't clear before.

Some other ideas:

Call the week 1 regionals 'beta' so people know that that's what they're buying into and don't make them 'count.'

Discount teams a N>1 regional if they are doing an N=1.

Run a test regional early with 'real scoring' to find bugs. Some areas have enough density of teams for this to be reasonable.

Have FIRST build some robots and play with them with 'real scoring' in the 9-months that they have to design the game.

Live with the rules they came up with even if they suck.

Chris is me

10-03-2010, 23:08

Live with the rules they came up with even if they suck.

Yup, let's make everyone suffer just so you can feel better about your regional selection choice.

Do we really need to take such drastic measures when the Week 1 bugs are usually relatively minor?

Vikesrock

10-03-2010, 23:14

Run a test regional early with 'real scoring' to find bugs. Some areas have enough density of teams for this to be reasonable.

This one I like, and has been suggested by others. Let some of the well attended-well run pre-ships be run with the full official field and full official scoring. They already do this with one event, but it may be wise to do it with multiple events.

Have FIRST build some robots and play with them with 'real scoring' in the 9-months that they have to design the game.
They already do this. The problem is that, as brilliant as the GDC members are, they just can't match the manpower of every FIRST team combined. We will inevitably find things that they do not.

Live with the rules they came up with even if they suck.
So instead of fixing something that they felt was broken, they should just allow the other 4 weeks of regionals to play with the same broken rules? They should allow the seeding system to degenerate into cesspool of prearranged 6v0 matches? I hardly see how that would have been of benefit to anyone.

Nawaid Ladak

10-03-2010, 23:27

See, that's where FIRST believes their random alliance generator is infalliable, allowing such a one sided match never to happen. Ideally, with the alliance generator in place, blow outs should be rare or never happen. Of course, we all know the truth of that matter.

Galileo 2009 Qualification Match 42? (it's close enough, 45, 67, 111)

Do you have a suggestion on how FIRST could do things better? Or do you just like to whine and complain?

the poster has one simple point. One set of teams play by a set of rules while everyone else plays by different rules. I would have loved to see teh GDC change this for Championships (and) MSC.

but what FIRST CAN do is possibly ship out he fields so that they may be used for scrimmage events. probably in the general area of where the Week 1 regionals would be held. and have the events run similar to one day regionals (each team gets a minimum 3-4 qm's, 4 alliances etc.). and collect feedback from the various events so that if need be, new rules can be implemented before the regional season starts. That way everyone plays by the same set of rules when points really count.

rwood359

10-03-2010, 23:48

Run a test regional early with 'real scoring' to find bugs. Some areas have enough density of teams for this to be reasonable.

If this were done, I'd like to see it done with mentor designed and driven kit robots or something other than robots and drivers that are going to compete. An extra free regional would give the attending teams a huge advantage in testing their design and training their drivers.

Steve W

10-03-2010, 23:55

Time to let this one cool for a bit. There has been enough "Good for the GDC" and FIRST sucks posts. Let's put this thread on hold till Friday morning and then I will open for discussion again.

Steve W

12-03-2010, 00:53

The thread is now open. Please be civil with the posts.

Ryan Dognaux

12-03-2010, 08:04

Really? Teams that designed to be able to drive over the bumps never thought that they might also drive over a ball? Really? I thought most teams would have considered that early on during the design process. We sure did. That was one of the factors that steered us away from going over the bumps from the beginning. That and the higher likelihood of getting flipped over. We DESIGNED to minimize the likelihood of penalties from the beginning rather than leaving it as an after thought for the drivers to deal with on the field.

Teams should have considered it early on, but for some it was an afterthought. It'd be great if every team had time to test things, but some are lucky if it's driving by the time it goes into the crate. Being a week 1 event, it wasn't surprising to see so many ball incursion penalties.

We were using Lexan plates near our wheels with surgical tubing tied across to keep the balls out, but this still allowed balls to come in from the side on occasion when we translated sideways. We remedied this by taking a long thin strip of Lexan and creating a parabola-shape on the bottom of our frame.

Even some of the most well-designed robots in San Diego would get a ball up under them every now and then, which would decide the match. I'm in favor of the change and can't wait to see some of the new high scores this week.

pfreivald

12-03-2010, 08:37

Actually, half of the FLR regionals (06-08) have occured on Week 2. It really matters which week in January is Kickoff (and what day of the week is January 1st). I can't wait for FLR to be on Week 2 again.

I stand corrected!

Either way, I'm fine with a Week 1 Regional. There are always bugs/kinks to work out, but there always are with our robots, too!

Ricky Q.

12-03-2010, 10:44

Kims Robot

12-03-2010, 13:37

Something to note - from what I'm seeing so far - the 5pt bonus for winning is not being displayed in the final score.

It is only showing up in the seeding score on the rankings.

I would have that that FIRST would wanted the winning bonus publicized out in the arena.

The winning bonus is only part of the seeding score, so at most I would think the announcers would explain it (like Paul did at FLR), but it wouldnt be part of the final scores or real time scores... just like the seeding points were never displayed even when the "losing team" got more than the "winning team"... The ranking system has always been "behind the curtain" at the regionals.

brianelite

16-03-2010, 22:24

FIRST should apologize to week one participants

Kimmeh

16-03-2010, 23:42

FIRST should apologize to week one participants

I disagree. To be blunt and slightly cynical, what good would an apology do? It's in the past, so there's nothing it would truly accomplish. Everyone knows that Week 1 events have issues. It's expected. Granted, no one expected such a massive one, least of all the GDC. However, they did happen, and the GDC did their best to remedy the situation. That's the best we can ask for.

Hakuna Matata

Molten

17-03-2010, 10:47

Hakuna Matata

Thanks for getting the song stuck in my head. The rest of work should be a bit more interesting. :]

Daniel_LaFleur

17-03-2010, 10:53

I disagree. To be blunt and slightly cynical, what good would an apology do? It's in the past, so there's nothing it would truly accomplish. Everyone knows that Week 1 events have issues. It's expected. Granted, no one expected such a massive one, least of all the GDC. However, they did happen, and the GDC did their best to remedy the situation. That's the best we can ask for.

Hakuna Matata

Just because "Everyone knows that Week 1 events have issues" doesn't make it right to those teams that can only go to a week 1 regional.

The game is different for all teams that play after week 1, this is a fundamental change from years past where everyone played by the same rules.

Wayne Doenges

17-03-2010, 11:55

The game is different for all teams that play after week 1, this is a fundamental change from years past where everyone played by the same rules.
I disagree. Example 2002 season. FIRST rules stated that you couldn't have any type of entanglement device which ruled out tape measurers. We designed two (11 pounds each) devices that spooled out a 22' length of lexan to score in both end zones.
After our regional FIRST changed the rule and said tape measurers were legal. We were a little miffed, at the change, but we GOT OVER IT.

Daniel_LaFleur

17-03-2010, 12:08

I disagree. Example 2002 season. FIRST rules stated that you couldn't have any type of entanglement device which ruled out tape measurers. We designed two (11 pounds each) devices that spooled out a 22' length of lexan to score in both end zones.
After our regional FIRST changed the rule and said tape measurers were legal. We were a little miffed, at the change, but we GOT OVER IT.

That was before my time in FIRST, although I've heard the story (and seen the frustration when the story is told) many times.

There was a scrimmage weekend and there should have been testing (probably was, but it missed this one). These should have shown enough of the game to proveout the seeding/scoring system. Changing it once some teams are done for the season (because some believe it's broken) is disgraceful and leaves many with feelings of being used.

Don't worry, we'll get over it ... but It'll take a long time before I trust the GDC and FIRST again to keep the playing field even.

PAR_WIG1350

17-03-2010, 17:43

2002 has been brought up a few times recently.The tethers, 'mice', and 71 were some of the most interesting game elements in first. Anyone want to start a thread for the others?

Any way, This is a good update, much better than update 17 and all of the restrictions it added.

Al Skierkiewicz

17-03-2010, 17:48

We overcame the rule by having a gravity energized steel roll deploy with the end of match signal. No possible entanglement since no one was moving when we deployed. It was dubbed "the magic tongue".

Molten

17-03-2010, 18:44

There was a scrimmage weekend and there should have been testing (probably was, but it missed this one). These should have shown enough of the game to proveout the seeding/scoring system. Changing it once some teams are done for the season (because some believe it's broken) is disgraceful and leaves many with feelings of being used.

Don't worry, we'll get over it ... but It'll take a long time before I trust the GDC and FIRST again to keep the playing field even.

It would have been bad strategy for a team to use their "creative" ideas in scrimmage that is meant to throw off their opponent. Only matches that count will actually be useful to gauge the game. Also, I guess I don't fully understand how you feel used. I mean, yes you played the game differently. I know some consider that being guinea pigs...but I prefer to think of it as being on a frontier. You had the same chances to come up with ideas that would revolutionize the game as anyone else. You played it where nobody had real experience. This is the most level playing field possible. I think this more then balances any shortcomings due to rules being edited.

Also, how is the playing field not even? If in 2011, half the regionals play Aim High and the other half play Triple Play. How is this playing field not even? If the two regionals have the same level of difficulty, they are even. Despite having different rules, they are still well-balanced. There is a big difference between being equal and the same.