Bill's Blog, 5/11/11 "Wait, Did he say pool"

[thefro526]

New Bill's Blog, interesting stuff.

http://frcdirector.blogspot.com/2011/05/wait-did-he-say-pool.html

[Dustin Shadbolt]

Interesting read for sure. This could be interesting! :)

I like the idea of changing the times or something. Something new would be fun :)

[StevenB]

A "pool of ideas"... "certain items under certain conditions"... "playing around with the field configuration"... just starting to work on contracts with venues...
WATER GAME! :ahh:


Sorry, Bill is baiting us, and someone had to say it.

[bdon2751]

Every year a water game is speculated but it really would be AWESOME.

[bduddy]

I've been thinking about a hockey-based game... maybe a frozen pool? :cool:

[MagiChau]

The mention of field configuration and game length seems interesting in possibilities for next year.

[waialua359]

For all those that werent happy with the spacing at CMP this year, and the fact that we will still be in St. Louis for a couple more years at least.............imagine a smaller, different playing field? Now, all of the fields will fit in the dome.:ahh:

[DarrinMunter]

I've been thinking about a hockey-based game... maybe a frozen pool? :cool:

Where do the St. Louis Blue's play?

[sgreco]

I like the mention of field configuration and game length. A slighly longer game, hopefully without an obtainable maximum score, would be pretty cool. As long as a fully charged battery lasts, I see no reason not to extend the game length a little. I also wonder about field configuration. It seems like crowding has been a problem in the past, I wouldn't mind seeing a slighly bigger field (I don't know how this impacts moving fields from place to place, cost of events, time to set up etc., but a biiger field would certainly be interesting).

[JaneYoung]

Someone please explain to me again what the rush is with next year's game?

I'm sure I'm missing something.

Jane

[Racer26]

smaller fields means more of them could fit in the same fixed amount of space at championships. a fix for the problem of cmp capacity perhaps?

[Cory]

Someone please explain to me again what the rush is with next year's game?

I'm sure I'm missing something.

Jane

They want to finish the 2012 game early so they can start on the 2013 game.

[waialua359]

Someone please explain to me again what the rush is with next year's game?

I'm sure I'm missing something.

Jane

Its called withdrawals already from the 2011 season.
Some of us like torture all year round, missing out on family time, hanging out with friends, taking a break, etc.:)

[Josh Fox]

Someone please explain to me again what the rush is with next year's game?

I'm sure I'm missing something.

Jane

As far as I know, the plan is to finish the game sooner so they have more time to go through the rules and test fields, hopefully alleviating some of the issues/confusion in the rules and ironing out some technical difficulties the 1st week competitions usually experience.

[Steven Donow]

They want to finish the 2012 game early so they can start on the 2013 game.

I don't think its necessarily to start on the next game, but so that they can test the games as much as possible, so there wouldn't be the many issues in Week 1 as there were this year, like what happened with minibot towers.

[JaneYoung]

As far as I know, the plan is to finish the game sooner so they have more time to go through the rules and test fields, hopefully alleviating some of the issues/confusion in the rules and ironing out some technical difficulties the 1st week competitions usually experience.

I think I'm going to attach a seat belt to my chair so that when I read CD and Bill's Blog - I am prepared for the bumpy ride ahead rather than flying all over the place like I have been this past few months.

I should write: 'continual drastic change is good' on a yellow post-it note and stick it to my forehead while I'm at it.

Jane

[sanddrag]

I could definitely envision both fields and robots getting smaller. Generally speaking, smaller=cheaper (except in the case of Tetrix motors). Cheaper shipping, easier expansion to smaller venues, etc...

[MikeE]

Generally speaking, smaller=cheaper (except in the case of Tetrix motors)

Ouch!

I'm desperately hoping that next year's game piece is a rugby ball, hence combining the two best sports on the planet.
The game would of course have to be played without pads (bumpers).

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Everyone,
It is more important to note that there is a deadline on ordering additional medals and other items. Please check the dates so you don't miss out.

[Ian Curtis]

Ouch!

I'm desperately hoping that next year's game piece is a rugby ball, hence combining the two best sports on the planet.
The game would of course have to be played without pads (bumpers).

"Rugby Ball" is definitely a weird way to spell "Hockey Puck." ;)

Robots already have agility on carpet that closely approaches that of skaters on ice. (NO MORE REGOLITH PLEASE!) Some vintage FIRST mobile goals and we're all set.

I hope FRC robots stay "big", it plays a big part in what makes them so impressive. We know that a championship winning Vex robot (or FLL robot) is a heck of a lot more impressive from an engineering point of view than an average FRC robot. However, I think it is a lot harder to prove that to Joe Schmoe who just came in off the street.

[JaneYoung]

"

I hope FRC robots stay "big", it plays a big part in what makes them so impressive. We know that a championship winning Vex robot (or FLL robot) is a heck of a lot more impressive from an engineering point of view than an average FRC robot. However, I think it is a lot harder to prove that to Joe Schmoe who just came in off the street.

If FRC goes smaller, it automatically lowers itself into a pool of robotics competitors. If FRC is smart, it won't go there.

Jane

[Cory]

I don't think its necessarily to start on the next game, but so that they can test the games as much as possible, so there wouldn't be the many issues in Week 1 as there were this year, like what happened with minibot towers.

They most definitely said/posted somewhere that they wanted to get the 2012 game done early to allow for more debug time as well as to get a head start on the 2013 game.

[zachmartin1806]

They most definitely said/posted somewhere that they wanted to get the 2012 game done early to allow for more debug time as well as to get a head start on the 2013 game.

Bill said this in his blog on May 5.

http://frcdirector.blogspot.com/2011/05/yes-im-already-counting-down-to-kickoff.html

[rwood359]

They most definitely said/posted somewhere that they wanted to get the 2012 game done early to allow for more debug time as well as to get a head start on the 2013 game.
And hopefully allow time to make sure that there is a supply of game pieces when the season starts.

[Tommy F.]

Sorry, Bill is baiting us, and someone had to say it.

Baiting = Fishing = Water game.


Where do the St. Louis Blue's play?

The Blues play at the Scottrade Center, which is just about down the street from Busch Stadium.

[DonRotolo]

I should write: 'continual drastic change is good' on a yellow post-it note and stick it to my forehead while I'm at it.
Remember to write it reversed so you can read it in the mirror. :p

I'm glad they're at least trying to get ahead of the curve here with the game design. Last minute stuff often ends up badly.

[nlknauss]

I hope that if they are looking at match times, they consider lengthening the autonomous period. FTC had a 40 second auto period this year and many of the more successful teams took full advantage of the scoring opportunities it provided. We also saw what was possible when maximizing scoring time when the Pink Team demonstrated its 3 ubertube hang online.

[apalrd]

I hope that if they are looking at match times, they consider lengthening the autonomous period.

I would much rather have a longer auto than a longer teleop (mostly because the battery honestly won't last a whole lot longer with the current motors).


....and because I am a programmer, so I like auto.

[BJC]

Of course, the flip side is getting to watch numerous matches where robots sit still for 40 seconds. 15 seconds is plenty long for that. :rolleyes:

[MagiChau]

Of course, the flip side is getting to watch numerous matches where robots sit still for 40 seconds. 15 seconds is plenty long for that. :rolleyes:

Some people preferred seeing their robot sit still than run backwards into the other side :p

[Basel A]

If you make the autonomous mode extraordinarily important, more people do auton. Just give it more points and let incentives do their work!

[Chris is me]

If you make the autonomous mode extraordinarily important, more people do auton. Just give it more points and let incentives do their work!

Too strong of an incentive and any team that can't get an auto to work suddenly is completely not competitive.

[MrForbes]

and if autonomous is more important, that gives us more motivation to get the robot put together in 5 weeks rather than 6. But it also gives us more motivation to build a "practice bot" and spend 4 months in build/program mode...which some teams do already. I kinda like a break after 6 weeks.

[XaulZan11]

Of course, the flip side is getting to watch numerous matches where robots sit still for 40 seconds. 15 seconds is plenty long for that. :rolleyes:

Bingo. Even in 2008 when teams just needed to drive straight to get points, there were far too many teams not doing autonomous.

The problem the GDC has is making a game that is good for both week 1 regionals and the championship. This year's game was good for early weeks, but pretty boring at the championship (the diminishing value of tubes, imo, really killed the game when played at the highest level). A longer auto would be good later in the season (pinks 3 uber auto, more 5 ball auto in Breakaway), but would be awful watching 6 robots stand still for 40 seconds week 1.

[Joe G.]

I loved the "end early for bonus points" element of Diabolical Dynamics, and since then, I've always thought dynamic lengths of periods would be an interesting game feature. For example, a 10 second auto, which gets extended to 30 seconds if the robots accomplish a certain task. Or a long autonomous, where the first robot to accomplish a task gets switched to teleop early, while their opponents remain in autonomous for a while longer. If done right, it could give top notch programmers a chance to really shine, while reducing the "boredom factor" from 6 robots that sit still autonomously.

[Billfred]

I've got a better idea...

Standard FRC match cycle is six minutes, start to start--that means that, in a 2:15 match, the field is hot only 37.5% of the time. If those matches went to three full minutes, and the match cycle expanded to seven minutes, then the hot-field percentage goes to 42.9%. 3:15 and seven-minute cycle? 46.4%. For the same amount of time spent doing load-out, reset, load-in, and introductions, you get that much more time of the game being played.

Robot wouldn't run for that long, you say? Imagine if your matches were three minutes, but your robot only ran for two minutes. Just like the real world, you can't run your machinery around the clock--maintenance, repair, slow business, constraints on supply from upstream, operator rest periods, and so on all conspire to limit how much a piece of machinery can actually run. So with a time limit on each robot, you now have an additional layer of coordination necessary to achieve game objectives.

It wouldn't work for all games--Lunacy would be awful with this scenario--but it could afford FIRST some flexibility in scheduling (or even some other objectives; imagine if robots above 110 pounds had a one-second delay in activation in the middle of the match.)

[bduddy]

I've got a better idea...

Standard FRC match cycle is six minutes, start to start--that means that, in a 2:15 match, the field is hot only 37.5% of the time. If those matches went to three full minutes, and the match cycle expanded to seven minutes, then the hot-field percentage goes to 42.9%. 3:15 and seven-minute cycle? 46.4%. For the same amount of time spent doing load-out, reset, load-in, and introductions, you get that much more time of the game being played.

Robot wouldn't run for that long, you say? Imagine if your matches were three minutes, but your robot only ran for two minutes. Just like the real world, you can't run your machinery around the clock--maintenance, repair, slow business, constraints on supply from upstream, operator rest periods, and so on all conspire to limit how much a piece of machinery can actually run. So with a time limit on each robot, you now have an additional layer of coordination necessary to achieve game objectives.

It wouldn't work for all games--Lunacy would be awful with this scenario--but it could afford FIRST some flexibility in scheduling (or even some other objectives; imagine if robots above 110 pounds had a one-second delay in activation in the middle of the match.)I was thinking a related idea. Four robots per alliance - matches of 4:30. Budget four minutes between matches, and each team will have roughly the same number of matches as before. I was also thinking of having one robot off the field at all times, so the field would not be so crowded... teams could also change batteries/etc. while their robot was off the field.

[Billfred]

I was thinking a related idea. Four robots per alliance - matches of 4:30. Budget four minutes between matches, and each team will have roughly the same number of matches as before. I was also thinking of having one robot off the field at all times, so the field would not be so crowded... teams could also change batteries/etc. while their robot was off the field.
I wouldn't see that happening with anything remotely resembling a current FRC robot--anything that required the gates would become too dangerous to try to pull on and off while the field was live. That said, locations on the field to park shut-down robots might be a workable solution.

[Cory]

If you make the autonomous mode extraordinarily important, more people do auton. Just give it more points and let incentives do their work!

Autonomous was extraordinarily important-not as much as 2008 when you could win a match via auton, but still very very important.

Yet probably less than 50% of teams could reliably score in autonomous.

[BigJ]

I loved the "end early for bonus points" element of Diabolical Dynamics, and since then, I've always thought dynamic lengths of periods would be an interesting game feature. For example, a 10 second auto, which gets extended to 30 seconds if the robots accomplish a certain task. Or a long autonomous, where the first robot to accomplish a task gets switched to teleop early, while their opponents remain in autonomous for a while longer. If done right, it could give top notch programmers a chance to really shine, while reducing the "boredom factor" from 6 robots that sit still autonomously.

I... I really like this. I want this.

[pandamonium]

Here is my take
wow kind of surprised he came right out and said that they are playing around with everything from field configuration to length of play.


Pool... as in shooting pool 6 pockets?

[Jared Russell]

Two ideas I like:

1. An autonomous mode of variable length. For example: if your robot achieves one task in the first 15 seconds, autonomous mode gets extended by 15 more seconds. Or, take a page out of 2001's playbook, and let teams hit an "E-Stop" to manually transition from auto to teleop, giving them incremental bonuses the longer they stay in auto mode (would only be realistic with rules/a field that prevents hostile contact during auto mode). It is important that we don't unilaterally install a 30+ second autonomous period, simply because nobody wants to look at stationary robots for that long.

2. Slightly smaller fields (say, 20x40) and 2 vs. 2. Design so that each regional/division can host two fields that alternate play. Less down time, more matches for each team, easier to see what is going on/scout (3 vs. 3 can get hectic), and more flexibility in fitting the fields into a venue.

[Ryan Caldwell]

I think its interesting he said Winnow the pool and not Narrow down
win·now (wn)
1.
a. To separate the chaff from (grain) by means of a current of air.
b. To rid of undesirable parts.
2. To blow (chaff) off or away.
3. To blow away; scatter.
4. To blow on; fan: a breeze winnowing the tall grass.

Aim high with a industrial fan behind the goal?

[Taylor]

This year's game was good for early weeks, but pretty boring at the championship (the diminishing value of tubes, imo, really killed the game when played at the highest level).

I found the opposite to be true. At early regionals/districts, there were too many no-shows, boxes-on-wheels, and incomplete programs/robots to be terribly entertaining; when the really good robots were winnowed out, the games became more exciting.
I do agree with your notion of the tubes becoming less important as the minibots became more prevalent, though.

[Refresh]

Pool... as in shooting pool 6 pockets?

that's what I was thinking. It could be kind of like lunacy with the stations in the middle of the field and the four stations at the end.

[rsisk]

I think its interesting he said Winnow the pool and not Narrow down
win·now (wn)
1.
a. To separate the chaff from (grain) by means of a current of air.
b. To rid of undesirable parts.
2. To blow (chaff) off or away.
3. To blow away; scatter.
4. To blow on; fan: a breeze winnowing the tall grass.

Aim high with a industrial fan behind the goal?

Guys, you're treating this like a Dave Laverly game hint!

[Alan Anderson]

Guys, you're treating this like a Dave Laverly game hint!

We have to. We not going to get any more GDC hints from Dave Lavery. :(

[Jon Stratis]

If they go to longer matches, it's really going to be a stretch to have robots competing as actively as they are now on the same batteries... maybe they'll be giving us some new, higher capacity batteries as well?

I can't see them doing anything with ice, as people have mentioned on here... It would simply be too expensive to create/maintain a mini hockey rink in non-hockey venues. Likewise, they'd have a hell of a time convincing some venues (like basketball stadiums) to allow them to have large vats of water on the field for a water game - not to mention difficulties from filling up the pool between matches as water spills out!

I'd say it's much more likely they'll have a game object that we have to throw or shoot (maybe something like a wiffle ball?) through air currents (air currents... water currents... references to water?). How cool would it be to have 100 wiffle balls spilling across the field, with 6 foot high target goals surrounded by rotating fans so the currents are constantly changing?

[Carol]

Or Bill may just be having fun with us, to give us something to do in the long months until kickoff......


Last year the GDC committee started (I think) in June or July, so they are not starting all that much earlier this year. And the fact that everyone was already together in one place probably made it convenient to to then.

[pandamonium]

Winnowing associates with wind currents.

What object logically associates with wind currents?

Kites?

no I am not saying we will have to build a robot that can fly kites but maybe perhaps some kind of air goals...

[MagiChau]

What about an enclosed cage with fans blowing balloons around. The robot would have to move around game pieces to cover fans to redirect game pieces into a scoring box. Don't know how possible this is but it sounds fun.

[Robby Unruh]

I doubt the GDC even knows what kind of hint Bill has "just gave out" because they just started meeting, what, a week ago? :P

[JesseK]

If we had an incentive to leave autonomous early this year, we might not have seen the 2 or 3 tube autonomous attempts this year.

I like the idea of an autonomous-mode extension for completion of a task, somewhat: keep the extension & bonuses reasonable, then take the equivalent amount of time away from teleop so match cycles are predictable. The idea would extend the life of interesting autonomous routines, and let the teams without auto-modes play teleop sooner. The downside is that it'd grow the disparity between well-resourced (mentors, sponsors, etc) and low-resourced teams.

[Vermeulen]

Hopefully this won't turn into a flying minibot challenge.

[Billfred]

Two ideas I like:

1. An autonomous mode of variable length. For example: if your robot achieves one task in the first 15 seconds, autonomous mode gets extended by 15 more seconds. Or, take a page out of 2001's playbook, and let teams hit an "E-Stop" to manually transition from auto to teleop, giving them incremental bonuses the longer they stay in auto mode (would only be realistic with rules/a field that prevents hostile contact during auto mode). It is important that we don't unilaterally install a 30+ second autonomous period, simply because nobody wants to look at stationary robots for that long.

2. Slightly smaller fields (say, 20x40) and 2 vs. 2. Design so that each regional/division can host two fields that alternate play. Less down time, more matches for each team, easier to see what is going on/scout (3 vs. 3 can get hectic), and more flexibility in fitting the fields into a venue.

If we had an incentive to leave autonomous early this year, we might not have seen the 2 or 3 tube autonomous attempts this year.

I like the idea of an autonomous-mode extension for completion of a task, somewhat: keep the extension & bonuses reasonable, then take the equivalent amount of time away from teleop so match cycles are predictable. The idea would extend the life of interesting autonomous routines, and let the teams without auto-modes play teleop sooner. The downside is that it'd grow the disparity between well-resourced (mentors, sponsors, etc) and low-resourced teams.

I like the idea of fancier autonomous routines, but I think one thing could encourage teams to go for it even in the context of the current setup: remove the fear. We wound up ditching our autonomous routines because we didn't want to interfere with our partners--to say nothing of my fear that our coders somehow caused the robot to take off backwards across the center line (as one of our opponents did at Peachtree). If you saw us start "forward" at Peachtree only to spin around immediately at the start of teleop, it was because I was downright paranoid.

My thought? Park a momentary switch on a grip at each player station. Your driver lets go? Your robot stops. Everyone lets go? Start teleop. Don't reward staying in autonomous, or you'll see teams just holding onto the buttons to rack up the score while their robots stay stationary.

As for smaller fields and 2v2, I'm game--the current-generation field border definitely supports it (http://chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/25113), and that field size (don't remember the length) was about right for a scaled-down version of Aim High (open field, 28x38 bases with no expansion, bumpers optional). With a little extra field width and/or smaller robots, it could probably work. And it could work too--if you were able to run two matches in six or seven minutes, it could still be a net gain of robot-matches-per-minute while allowing smaller events to slow it down or run one field.

[Jaxom]

I found the opposite to be true. At early regionals/districts, there were too many no-shows, boxes-on-wheels, and incomplete programs/robots to be terribly entertaining; when the really good robots were winnowed out, the games became more exciting.
I do agree with your notion of the tubes becoming less important as the minibots became more prevalent, though.

I don't know...because in week one, there were fewer teams that had minibots. If you had one, it was very important.

Having said that...I've wanted a longer autonomous for years. A variable length auto is a cool idea, if it has the right incentives. And as long as the auto has a piece that has some points (even if a small number) for driving a pretty straight-forward pattern (say, straight ahead) there should be very few teams that can't get *something* working.

[Bill_B]

I found the opposite to be true. At early regionals/districts, there were too many no-shows, boxes-on-wheels, and incomplete programs/robots to be terribly entertaining; when the really good robots were winnowed out, the games became more exciting.
I do agree with your notion of the tubes becoming less important as the minibots became more prevalent, though.

I was thinking that a slight scoring modification would increase the lower row scoring excitement. Make logo scoring up and down diagonals count. Like tictactoe. An additional bonus for filling all nine pegs with tubes in logo sequences. Off season?

[Jim Giacchi]

My thought? Park a momentary switch on a grip at each player station. Your driver lets go? Your robot stops. Everyone lets go? Start teleop. Don't reward staying in autonomous, or you'll see teams just holding onto the buttons to rack up the score while their robots stay stationary.


I absolutely love this idea. I've always thought the E-Stop rule was a little ridiculous, if teams had a method of stopping their robots if disaster stuck, but still be able to do teleop, I think a lot more teams would try autonomous. I never understood why you got penalized for trying to do the safe thing by disabling your robot.