Human players and FIRST games

[martin417]

This came up in another thread, and I thought it deserved it's own discussion. It looks like every other year, the GDC makes a rule that creates a huge "human element" in what is supposed to be ROBOTICS competition. Why have a game structure in a robotics competition where a human player directly (not through robot action) influences the outcome? If this is a human played game, why have robots? That was my biggest complaint about Lunacy, too much depended on the ability of a human to throw a ball into a trailer. How does this skill inspire students to become engineers? You might as well go to a horseshoe tournament if you want to see people throw unusual shaped objects with accuracy and distance.

The game itself is fine, very little change would be required to get rid of the "human factor". If the rules stated that all game pieces have to be introduced through the feeder slot, and may not leave the lane unless by robot power, that would eliminate the "human factor" and keep it in the hands of the robots. I realize that since the robots are driven by humans, there is a skill factor already, but that only encourages teams to design and build a robot that is easy to drive, and as automated as possible.

I thought after Lunacy the GDC had heard enough complaints about this subject. Maybe I am in the minority. How do you feel? Would you like to see more human skill tests in FIRST games? Less? Or about the same?

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Martin,
One of the perennial problems in this competition is robots breaking, turning over, random alliance assignments, and mistakes in judgment. The human player adds a little excitement. When all else fails, a team can still come away with a good feeling that they weren't totally shut out of participating due to one of these problems. I have always liked the human player and in some games, that aspect added significant drama and excitement at the very end of a match. In some games our human players were very successful, 1997 for instance. In others, our human player made the difference in a crucial match. The highly charged finals match at the Midwest Regional against the Beatty crawler in 2002 our human player gave Beatty the needed points to win. You can't write endings like that.

[Basel A]

I would absolutely agree, except this presumed effect during Lunacy never occurred, unless you're suggesting 67, 111, and 971 didn't deserve to win and just had great human players? In the end, the best robots won the competition, regardless of the degree of human player ability.

[martin417]

I would absolutely agree, except this presumed effect during Lunacy never occurred, unless you're suggesting 67, 111, and 971 didn't deserve to win and just had great human players? In the end, the best robots won the competition, regardless of the degree of human player ability.

I am not questioning the outcome of any match, or who "deserved" to win. I just did not like the fact that a single action, performed by a human, with no robotics input or interaction, could make significant impact on the outcome of a robotics game. That action did not come after great engineering feats. It did not come after a group of kids learned something new and exiting. It did not inspire anyone to change their college major from banking or communications to engineering or science. It just showcased an athletic ability of a single individual. In many cases this individual was not even a member of the robotics team, and had only been recruited for his or her ability to accurately throw a ball.

FIRST has a stated goal to inspire kids to enter the field of engineering, math, and science. How inspiring is it for kids to design and build the best robot on the field, only to lose the game because the high school quarterback landed a supercell in their trailer from all the way across the field? (I am not saying this event actually happened, it is just a what if question). In my opinion, it does exactly the opposite. It tells kids that no matter how well they may do in school, no matter what great inventions they create, the person with the greatest physical skill and athletic ability will usually win.

[Nathan Streeter]

So, in general I haven't minded the human player roles... Lunacy in 2009 was definitely an exception, though!

In Lunacy, the HP scored a very significant number of points! It certainly wasn't uncommon to see a team's HP scoring more than their robot... I think that should never be the case! The super cells were essentially just for the HP, as there simply was not enough time to consistently get them to a robot and have that robot score it. So, I certainly agree that Lunacy had too much HP involvement.

I don't think the HP involvement has been too large (besides Lunacy) in recent years, probably excepting 2004. My in-depth familiarity only goes back to 2003, unfortunately! So, I wouldn't say that FIRST has made this a trend, but I would certainly agree that 2009 involved too much HP influence on the results of a match.

2006 and 2007 come next in terms of HP influence, and I didn't think their effect level was bad... Then the HP could score, but their ability to do so was very minor - they primarily just supplied/regulated the game piece flow!

In 2003, 2005, 2008, and 2010 the HP has relatively little involvement... Overdrive saw the HP/RoboCoach only acting to direct in "auto" mode, Stack Attack only had the HP placing the configuration of blocks out in auto, Triple Play had the HP physically loading the robot with a game piece (as an easier alternative to the auto-loaders, essentially), and Breakaway had the HP returning game pieces. Even thought the HP could incur huge penalties in Breakaway, they only had this influence on the match on a relatively few occasions.

I think Logomotion lies somewhere in between those two sets... The HP has the opportunity to get tubes most of the way to the scoring zone (very helpful!) but can't actually score game pieces with anything akin to consistency - as far as I know, at least! ;-) They can definitely improve scores by performing particularly well; however, I don't think their influence is as large as 2006 or 2007.

So, I would say that even though the GDC put too much emphasis on Human Players in Lunacy and Raising the Bar, those are the outlies rather than the norm...

[JaneYoung]

It tells kids that no matter how well they may do in school, no matter what great inventions they create, the person with the greatest physical skill and athletic ability will usually win.

When I'm in the stands and I talk to various people about the game, I talk about the human player's role. It is always a benefit, from my point of view, to be able to talk about machines and humans working together to achieve a task or a goal. This season, I'll be talking about Robonaut2 and the International Space Station as an example of the possibilities and their importance.

You can look at the game as a game or you can look at it as an opportunity to explore options and possibilities.

Jane

[MrForbes]

Lunacy's need for a good human player led to one of our students finally reading drawings and building stuff and getting more involved in the robot his senior year....

You never know how things will work out.

[Brian Ha]

Another thing is being the hp is a lot of fun. Also the fact of the matter is in the future humans will interact with robots. This is a way that First incorparates this into the game. Which is very ingenious because they allow for the interaction.

[Chris is me]

I would absolutely agree, except this presumed effect during Lunacy never occurred

I can agree the final match didn't come down to human player shots, because 5 of the 6 teams human loaded their robots, but the overall assertion is by no means correct. More than 55% of the points scored in Lunacy were by human players.

I think games requiring athletic human players don't somehow de-inspire students already on the team. On the contrary, it gives the team a reason to recruit an athletic-oriented student who might not have otherwise been exposed to engineering.

[ttldomination]

FIRST has a stated goal to inspire kids to enter the field of engineering, math, and science. How inspiring is it for kids to design and build the best robot on the field, only to lose the game because the high school quarterback landed a supercell in their trailer from all the way across the field? (I am not saying this event actually happened, it is just a what if question). In my opinion, it does exactly the opposite. It tells kids that no matter how well they may do in school, no matter what great inventions they create, the person with the greatest physical skill and athletic ability will usually win.

2009 was 2009. There were angry threads back then, and I think that FIRST learned a lesson. I'm not going to say that '09 was bad. It was just a greater challenge of the game. Robots had to be aware of other robots on the field and the threat from a potentially devastating human player.

I don't quite understand where the anti-human player feeling about this game is coming from. It was made perfectly clear that throwing or feeder slot loading is perfectly legal, I'm sure there were many discussions about this on this very forum. And at a certain point, it was purely a design choice.

As for how much the human player will change things, I can tell you that even the worst human player can get the tube to half way. And getting the tube half way is a lot better than running to the feeder slot.

Instead of thinking of this as something that's holding back science and technology, try to think of it as another part of the challenge. At the very beginning of the year, people base their strategies and robots off how they think the game will play out.

Whether you think it's fortunate or unfortunate, the human player position this year seems to matter, whether it's more or less than previous years, it still matters. Never the less, it's still a part of the game that we all have play.

- Sunny

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Martin,
In Lunacy, as in any game, strategy and game playing are part of the mix. If robot design or strategy (thinking, planning, brainstorming) consider the actions of a human player, then there is/must be inspiration for that interface.

Basel, if your input was a response to my previous post, you need to take a look at my team affiliation. The best team won, all working together.

[indubitably]

I did not like the hp element in lunacy at all, we lost almost every game in midwest during qualifications because we would have 1 or 2 bots just sitting in their starting positions absolutely getting dumped on the entire match.

[ttldomination]

I did not like the hp element in lunacy at all, we lost almost every game in midwest during qualifications because we would have 1 or 2 bots just sitting in their starting positions absolutely getting dumped on the entire match.

You have to admit that there was an group incentive there. You wanted to make sure everyone was running so that no one robot would be dead in the water and getting dumped on.

- Sunny

[Grim Tuesday]

You have to admit that there was an group incentive there. You wanted to make sure everyone was running so that no one robot would be dead in the water and getting dumped on.

- Sunny

There is only so much that you can do to help your alliance, especially if you are in a qualification round.

I feel that HPs have a bit too much of a role this year: A team with a good human player can throw all the way to the zones, entirely eliminating the midfield defense. What is the fun in watching a robot just hang tubes?

It is demoralizing for a team who worked hard for six weeks on their robot to be beat by a human player.

[indubitably]

It would be funny to see a bot that puts up an 84 in wide net that just stops all of the tubes from being thrown accross the field.

[mathking]

As several posters pointed out, human - robot interaction is part of the future. Designing technology to work with people is an essential part of the engineering. Our robot in Lunacy could (and did) score on opponents, but we based our strategy on getting a lot of balls to our human player and trying to get other robots as close to him as possible. I don't think I would want that much human scoring every year, but I also don't think it killed inspiration. Certainly it did not for our team. As I said, we planned our robot design and strategy around involving the human player.

As for flinging the tubes this year, yes human players can throw the tubes. But it is NOT going to be nearly as easy as everyone thinks to get tubes to robots in the scoring zone. First off, there will be lots of tubes that hit towers and fall in the middle. Second, there will be tubes that land in the opponents lanes, off-limits to the side that threw the tube. Finally, some number of the tubes are going to either land short or hit the far wall and bounce back out of the scoring zone. In short, if people are throwing tubes during a match there will be a lot of tubes landing in the middle of the field. Which changes strategy.

Remember at the start of the season many people were arguing that picking up off the floor wouldn't be that important? If you are not planning to throw any tubes that may well be true. But if you are planning to throw tubes, picking up off the floor is important. This means that a decision on human player strategy means a decision on engineering design strategy.

One thing that active human player involvement does is level the playing field. Look at some of the videos of really impressive robots that are out there for this year. A number of these (I am not going to throw out team numbers because I am NOT criticizing these teams) robots are beyond the capabilities of most teams involved in FRC competition. They are really marvels of engineering. And will no doubt be very effective. But a simpler robot paired with a human player who is accurate when throwing tubes across the field goes a long way toward a more even competition. And there is nothing wrong with that. The students are not going to be less inspired because their human player helped them win.

At our competition in 2004 their was a team with a really simple robot that basically only herded balls to their human player. But it was effective at getting the balls to the human player and she was really good. We had a really cool, well engineered (over-engineered and too large) mechanical arm and a fantastic winch (it once lifted two robots). From an engineering standpoint our robot was much more "advanced" than theirs. When they beat us (because she outscored our 50 points for hanging) our kids didn't think that was wrong. They thought "Why didn't we realize that such a simple ball gathering technique and a good human player could have made us a much better team?" That was pretty much exactly the sentiment in our plusses and deltas meeting after the competition.

[Michael Corsetto]

What is the fun in watching a robot just hang tubes?

What isn't fun about watching a robot hang tubes? I love watching my team do it!

[Basel A]

I can agree the final match didn't come down to human player shots, because 5 of the 6 teams human loaded their robots, but the overall assertion is by no means correct. More than 55% of the points scored in Lunacy were by human players.

If teams on Einstein finals thought robots score better than humans, then that was probably the better strategy. Therefore human players can score all they want but robots will usually win out. Therefore Lunacy was a robot-based game, if with a larger human element than previous years. It can further be supported that the larger human element had little impact on high-level gameplay, especially for teams with the 'right' strategy.

[Grim Tuesday]

If teams on Einstein finals thought robots score better than humans, then that was probably the better strategy. Therefore human players can score all they want but robots will usually win out. Therefore Lunacy was a robot-based game, if with a larger human element than previous years. It can further be supported that the larger human element had little impact on high-level gameplay, especially for teams with the 'right' strategy.

Of all the thousands of teams in FIRST, if you base how the game was on an elite few, then thats not what the game was. If at regionals, the HPs were scoring most of the points, then that was a HP based game.

[Koko Ed]

BEST YEAR TO BE A HUMAN PLAYER - 2009.You were heavily involved in the game and influenced the outcome of the match more often than not. Avoiding hot shooting human player became and actual strategy point.

WORST YEAR TO BE A HUMAN PLAYER - 2008. More often than not they had nothing to do unless you had a decent autonomous mode and then they just stood there for the rest of the match.. Anyone could push a remote.

MOST DANGEROUS YEAR TO BE A HUMAN PLAYER - 2005. They had to run out to the side of the field with tall robots and there was the occasional robot that toppled into the lane. There were dire predictions on CD that a human player would get taken out by a robot and calls for mandatory helmets for them.

MOST COMPLEX TASK FOR A HUMAN PLAYER - 2006. You had to pay attention when to shoot and when not to shoot balls so your team could best operate during their period. Wasting shots when it wasn't your alliance's scoring period was one of the most inexplicable acts ever by a human player.

[Tetraman]

BEST YEAR TO BE A HUMAN PLAYER - 2009.You were heavily involved in the game and influenced the outcome of the match more often than not. Avoiding hot shooting human player became and actual strategy point.

Don't forget 2004.

[Koko Ed]

Don't forget 2004.
I was thinking of 2004 with it's "cuddly little landmines" but since the target was stationary instead of the challenge of hitting a moving target and getting to make a big difference with the Supercell, 2009 wins out.

[AllenGregoryIV]

I love the human aspect of most games. When I was in high school, I was human player for both 04 and 06. I was also the head programmer so it was really good to be on drive team and see up close were code changes need to be made. I remember several matches were we had our robot either tip over, 04, or break its shooter, 06; being able to human score gave my team the ability to contribute to the alliance. I thought 06 had a good balance between human and robot, teams with the best robots obviously won but the humans still needed to be good at their jobs to allow the robot to perform well.

[pfreivald]

We pulled a basketball player into FIRST in Lunacy, just to be our human player. Ironically, he DIDN'T end up being our human player during the competition (and the kid who did was the best HP at FLR), but he DID end up going to RIT for engineering instead of FLCC for sports management...

Any way you cut it, that was a giant win!

[mathking]

We pulled a basketball player into FIRST in Lunacy, just to be our human player. Ironically, he DIDN'T end up being our human player during the competition (and the kid who did was the best HP at FLR), but he DID end up going to RIT for engineering instead of FLCC for sports management...

Any way you cut it, that was a giant win!

Excellent!

Our HP was a CC/Track kid (I also coach both of those sports) who is an engineering major at Ohio State now.

In my experience even in years like 2009 it was not so much athletic talent that made good human players as it was the ability to stay focused and think clearly. A lot, I mean a lot, of human players in 2009 just kept shooting whenever they got a ball to shoot. The good ones watched and tried to shoot when robot were near and/or moving toward them rather than far away and/or moving away. I think that such focus will be particularly important this year, as will good communication.

[Joe Ross]

Several human players were injured, including a broken ankle, in the 2003 game. http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19329

[gblake]

In addition to the arguments others have advanced, if you are willing to think of FRC as a slightly misnamed STEM program, then the human player's contributions to the "strategy space" that must be properly analyzed and navigated is a big contribution to the M part of a STEM program.

[Basel A]

Of all the thousands of teams in FIRST, if you base how the game was on an elite few, then thats not what the game was. If at regionals, the HPs were scoring most of the points, then that was a HP based game.

You cannot base it only on total scoring! If every single human player played the same, then as an overall all human players didn't make a difference, no net change. Of course they were not exactly the same, but in this case, it was proven that teams who trusted their robots won out.

[GaryVoshol]

MOST DANGEROUS YEAR TO BE A HUMAN PLAYER - 2005. They had to run out to the side of the field with tall robots and there was the occasional robot that toppled into the lane. There were dire predictions on CD that a human player would get taken out by a robot and calls for mandatory helmets for them.
It happened. Our HP got conked on the head by a robot arm - I don't think it was our robot. They didn't stop the match. Worst part was, she had to crawl back to her pad, or our robot couldn't keep running.

That said, I did like that interaction. While the HP was in motion, the robot was immobilized. That put in an element of strategy to HP use.

I prefer games where the HP can assist the robot to score, but cannot score directly. This year it comes close to that, since scoring is so difficult.

[Koko Ed]

It happened. Our HP got conked on the head by a robot arm - I don't think it was our robot. They didn't stop the match. Worst part was, she had to crawl back to her pad, or our robot couldn't keep running.

That said, I did like that interaction. While the HP was in motion, the robot was immobilized. That put in an element of strategy to HP use.

I prefer games where the HP can assist the robot to score, but cannot score directly. This year it comes close to that, since scoring is so difficult.

I doubt we'll ever see a human player role like 2005.
The potential for disaster was just too great.

[Tetraman]

It happened. Our HP got conked on the head by a robot arm - I don't think it was our robot. They didn't stop the match. Worst part was, she had to crawl back to her pad, or our robot couldn't keep running.

That said, I did like that interaction. While the HP was in motion, the robot was immobilized. That put in an element of strategy to HP use.

I prefer games where the HP can assist the robot to score, but cannot score directly. This year it comes close to that, since scoring is so difficult.

As a HP of 2005, I remember having plenty of close calls with robots. But the worst part was less about the robots, and more about the other human player. If either of us weren't paying close enough attention, we would have collided.

[gren737]

I feel that HPs have a bit too much of a role this year: A team with a good human player can throw all the way to the zones, entirely eliminating the midfield defense. What is the fun in watching a robot just hang tubes?

It is demoralizing for a team who worked hard for six weeks on their robot to be beat by a human player.

This is the wrong way to look at it.

I LOVE good human player interactions, I think it makes the game more exciting. ESPECIALLY for the teams that maybe don't finish their robot or have the robot not come out the way they wanted it, it still allows them to be a valuable alliance member. It does not cost money, or require any special equipment, experienced engineers etc. to be a good human player. Just practice. If your team takes the human player role as seriously as the robot and has that person spend their build time practicing then any team can have a great human player. You just have to value the role as importantly from day 1, which all of the "successful" teams do. It can't be an after thought decision made at the competition.

It's no different than saying it's demoralizing to be beat by a great robot because they had engineers, and machine shops and money...FIRST isn't fair. Dean has said this many times, but I think that there is no advantage given to any team at the beginning of build season for the human player role. Every team has equal opportunity to have a great human player.

FWIW I think 2004 was the best human player year.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Of all the thousands of teams in FIRST, if you base how the game was on an elite few, then thats not what the game was. If at regionals, the HPs were scoring most of the points, then that was a HP based game.

Grim,
I would be shocked if a human player can score let alone throw the entire distance end to end of the playing field.

[Joe Ross]

Grim,
I would be shocked if a human player can score let alone throw the entire distance end to end of the playing field.

In 118's video, the human player throws one tube that scores, and one tube that lands in the safe zone.

[Grim Tuesday]

Joe, you beat me to it.

Anyways, I think that robots should be built by humans, and the game should be played by robots. If a team doesnt finish their robot, I don't feel that they should be able to compete on the merit of their human players. I would rather help them fix their robot, and have that compete than have the human player be the focus of the competition.

Just by 2 cents.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

In the real world, humans and robots interact with each other. Machines are loaded with parts/raw materials, they are programmed for different tasks, and are adjusted/maintained by people.

These interactions must be taken into account by the engineers (be it mechanical engineers or manufacturing/process endineers). Without paying attention to these human/machine interactions people will get hurt and efficiency will be lost.

So, Martin, what part of this robotics (not robot) competition don't you get?

[Al Skierkiewicz]

In 118's video, the human player throws one tube that scores, and one tube that lands in the safe zone.
Joe,
I wonder how often that actually occurs and since we haven't competed as yet, whether it will occur under real world conditions.

[Grim Tuesday]

In the real world, humans and robots interact with each other. Machines are loaded with parts/raw materials, they are programmed for different tasks, and are adjusted/maintained by people.

These interactions must be taken into account by the engineers (be it mechanical engineers or manufacturing/process endineers). Without paying attention to these human/machine interactions people will get hurt and efficiency will be lost.

So, Martin, what part of this robotics (not robot) competition don't you get?

I think that robots should interact with humans in a way that the "skill" of the robot, not the skill of the human decides the outcome.

Also, isn't human drivers enough?

[Daniel_LaFleur]

I think that robots should interact with humans in a way that the "skill" of the robot, not the skill of the human decides the outcome.

Also, isn't human drivers enough?

I guess here we have to agree to disagree. I believe the outcome should include the skill of the robot AND the skill of the humans (driver,operator,feeders,analyst,and coach).

... and I believe that removing anyone of them lessens the game (or weakens the alliance).

[TEE]

In 2009, I believe my team had one of the best human players (if not the best human player) of the game, so you could say I have a unique perspective on the matter. He consistently scored almost all of his moon rocks, and usually scored one or both super cells. There were several matches where he made the difference between a win and a loss, and there was at least one match where he scored 2 super cells to tie the score, so if the argument is that the human players had an impact on the game, then yes, they did, but from what I witnessed throughout the season, they didn't alter the competition so much that it was no longer about the robots.

In 2009 still, each human player started with 20 moon rocks, and could only get additional moon rocks if a robot delivered them, and could only use a super cell if the robot delivered an empty cell. Every thrown moon rock that didn't end up in a trailer was fair game for the robots, and so the robots that were the best at getting the moon rocks off of the ground and into the other robots' trailers had the advantage.

Further, the trailers were attached to the robots! A well-driven robot was difficult for human players to score on, while a poorly-driven robot was comparatively easy to score on. In autonomous mode, the goal of just about every team was to avoid being scored on, and our robot did that particularly well. All our robot had to do was drive straight for a couple of seconds, and then spin for the rest of autonomous.

**This is kind of off topic, but in Traverse City that year, I remember the announcer crediting team 85 for coming up with the spin strategy, when, I think (correct me if I'm wrong) we were the first team that did it at that competition; our autonomous was finished during build season, and we only changed it at nationals to try other methods of avoiding human players, and to try to run an empty cell in autonomous.**

Anyways, at every competition I attended, the teams with the best robots won. At Traverse City, team 85 (BOB) dominated, because their robot was the best at picking up and scoring moon rocks rapidly. In spite of our human player, we couldn't beat them. At Wayne State, teams 910 and 66 did particularly well— At the Michigan State Championships, teams 217 and 67 won, and at Einstein, 111, 971 and 67 won (which is particularly significant, not only because they won that final match, but also because they had to win their way through qualifications and eliminations to get there).

So, my point is that no matter how much of an effect human players have, it will still be a robotics competition. Once the season starts, human player strategies can be copied, and human players themselves can hone their abilities, but the robots (even if they can be changed slightly) can not be copied, and so are the most significant part of the teams, from a competitive standpoint.

[TEE]

I think that robots should interact with humans in a way that the "skill" of the robot, not the skill of the human decides the outcome.

Also, isn't human drivers enough?

I believe 2009 definitively shows that, in the end, the skill of the robots determined the outcome, not the skill of the human players. Even the teams with the best human players were ultimately defeated by the teams with the best robots.