alliances

[archiver]

Posted by Austin Martus, Other on team #47 from son of pchs coach.

Posted on 4/26/99 7:00 PM MST



What FIRST should have done is come up with a way of in the qualifying you get points for what you've (your own team) has done instead or something like that. cause if you get *stuck*(paired) with a robot that is not very good(dont move or get on puck or anything) then youre screwed and have to do everything by you self which makes it 2 on 1 and really hard to get a lot of points and only have alliances(score for both) in the final rounds, but this would have to happen at the beginning of the year cause the building of a robot would depend on something like this

or some kind of rule like this

just a thought


also to make the finals more accurate to have a double elimination finals but the draw back is it takes much more time

[archiver]

Posted by Daniel, Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames.

Posted on 4/26/99 7:45 PM MST


In Reply to: alliances posted by Austin Martus on 4/26/99 7:00 PM MST:



I think you make a very good point, but I also think there's a much better solution to the problem. See, by scoring individually it kills the strategy. Both robots suddenly have to be high scorers. Nobody would ever want to play a defensive match. Or even let their partner take care of any of the points. In fact, I could see it getting to the point where a partner is practically fighting with its ALLY over the floppies. Individual scoring wouldn't work.

Statistically, the most proven way to eliminate chance and luck is increasing the trials. More matches were needed. A team who gets a good partner and perhaps gets a 540 round (or something close to it) will essentially be guaranteed a place in the finals. Whether they deserve it or not. This is not right. More matches are needed. Period.

Whether this means more arenas, or merely a longer competition, I think this is a more valid solution to a very valid problem. What do you think?


-Daniel

[archiver]

Posted by Joe Johnson, Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 4/26/99 8:14 PM MST


In Reply to: Valid problem. Valid solution? posted by Daniel on 4/26/99 7:45 PM MST:



I can't confirm it, but I have heard that one team at the Nationals was literally a box with wheels. No motors, no wires, not even a battery or control box!

Is this right?

Teams that had to be paired with this team had no chance of scoring more than 180 points and most likely would even have a hard time doing that against any two 1/2 way decent teams.

I know of teams that had 0 partners out of 6 get on the puck, while they got on the puck every time in addition to getting the 2 point doubler every time. Others had the exact opposite.

I am not complaining, I am just pointing out that the luck of the draw played a bigger role than ever in determining the top 16 teams.

The picking of alliance partners leveled this out in many cases, but there are cases like the TRW team (and Boston Edison/Plymouth North and others), where things didn't really work out so very well.

I don't really have a solution, but I think that this is a topic that there should be open discussion about.

What do you think?

Joe J.

[archiver]

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

Posted on 4/26/99 9:34 PM MST


In Reply to: a box with wheels posted by Joe Johnson on 4/26/99 8:14 PM MST:



I have to reply to this one because our team was mentioned.

Yes, there was a team that was a box on wheels. And wouldn't you know it, they were our partners in one match. In fact, we were in 7th place going in to that match and needless to say we weren't 7th coming out. However, I am proud to say that we won that match (like all of our other matches :) ).

-Chris


: I can't confirm it, but I have heard that one team at the Nationals was literally a box with wheels. No motors, no wires, not even a battery or control box!

: Is this right?

: Teams that had to be paired with this team had no chance of scoring more than 180 points and most likely would even have a hard time doing that against any two 1/2 way decent teams.

: I know of teams that had 0 partners out of 6 get on the puck, while they got on the puck every time in addition to getting the 2 point doubler every time. Others had the exact opposite.

: I am not complaining, I am just pointing out that the luck of the draw played a bigger role than ever in determining the top 16 teams.

: The picking of alliance partners leveled this out in many cases, but there are cases like the TRW team (and Boston Edison/Plymouth North and others), where things didn't really work out so very well.

: I don't really have a solution, but I think that this is a topic that there should be open discussion about.

: What do you think?

: Joe J.

[archiver]

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

Posted on 4/26/99 10:12 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: a box with wheels posted by Chris on 4/26/99 9:34 PM MST:



I have to add something. The box with wheels did have a control box and it could move around. Although when we played with them they blew a fuse and we were on our own.

-Chris


: I have to reply to this one because our team was mentioned.

: Yes, there was a team that was a box on wheels. And wouldn't you know it, they were our partners in one match. In fact, we were in 7th place going in to that match and needless to say we weren't 7th coming out. However, I am proud to say that we won that match (like all of our other matches :) ).

: -Chris

:
: : I can't confirm it, but I have heard that one team at the Nationals was literally a box with wheels. No motors, no wires, not even a battery or control box!

: : Is this right?

: : Teams that had to be paired with this team had no chance of scoring more than 180 points and most likely would even have a hard time doing that against any two 1/2 way decent teams.

: : I know of teams that had 0 partners out of 6 get on the puck, while they got on the puck every time in addition to getting the 2 point doubler every time. Others had the exact opposite.

: : I am not complaining, I am just pointing out that the luck of the draw played a bigger role than ever in determining the top 16 teams.

: : The picking of alliance partners leveled this out in many cases, but there are cases like the TRW team (and Boston Edison/Plymouth North and others), where things didn't really work out so very well.

: : I don't really have a solution, but I think that this is a topic that there should be open discussion about.

: : What do you think?

: : Joe J.

[archiver]

Posted by Dave, Student on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW.

Posted on 4/27/99 5:32 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: a box with wheels posted by Chris on 4/26/99 10:12 PM MST:



Hey,

That match was most intresting, because at the end of the match, we were the only functioning robot, Husky Brigade had a chain pop off, the box blew a fuse, and the other robot was immobile and got tipped.

And for being paired with different robots that can't do much, I know how it is on both sides of the road. At Great Lakes, we were one of those robots that couldn't get on the puck and plagued by problems. But at nationals, we tangled with the best and came out on top, and we were occasionally paired with robots that were like us at Great Lakes. Just remember that no matter how frustrated you get because of it, the team that didn't work right is more then likely more frustrated then you are.

I also have to agree on the thing about minuim requirments before you enter a match. Using this year as an example, have it move and somehow have a device to succesfully hold at least 1 floppy. And if a team mate doesn't show up, I think they should have gotten their points doubled. If they get a 1 man 180 point game, doubling it would give you a 360, still not a perfect score, but a score that is more deserving if you do that good.


Dave

: I have to add something. The box with wheels did have a control box and it could move around. Although when we played with them they blew a fuse and we were on our own.

: -Chris

:
: : I have to reply to this one because our team was mentioned.

: : Yes, there was a team that was a box on wheels. And wouldn't you know it, they were our partners in one match. In fact, we were in 7th place going in to that match and needless to say we weren't 7th coming out. However, I am proud to say that we won that match (like all of our other matches :) ).

: : -Chris

: :
: : : I can't confirm it, but I have heard that one team at the Nationals was literally a box with wheels. No motors, no wires, not even a battery or control box!

: : : Is this right?

: : : Teams that had to be paired with this team had no chance of scoring more than 180 points and most likely would even have a hard time doing that against any two 1/2 way decent teams.

: : : I know of teams that had 0 partners out of 6 get on the puck, while they got on the puck every time in addition to getting the 2 point doubler every time. Others had the exact opposite.

: : : I am not complaining, I am just pointing out that the luck of the draw played a bigger role than ever in determining the top 16 teams.

: : : The picking of alliance partners leveled this out in many cases, but there are cases like the TRW team (and Boston Edison/Plymouth North and others), where things didn't really work out so very well.

: : : I don't really have a solution, but I think that this is a topic that there should be open discussion about.

: : : What do you think?

: : : Joe J.

[archiver]

Posted by Reuben Hintz, Student on team #53 from Eleanor Roosevelt HS.

Posted on 4/28/99 1:02 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: a box with wheels posted by Dave on 4/27/99 5:32 PM MST:



You couldn't double the points though, because a lot of teams wouldn't want their alliance partner to show up.
I kind of feel bad about this subject too, because well, our team's robot didn't do very well. We kept telling people we could get on the puck, and we kept failing. That really hurt some of our partner's scores and made me feel really bad.

[archiver]

Posted by Dave, Student on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW.

Posted on 4/30/99 8:02 PM MST


In Reply to: Crappy Teams posted by Reuben Hintz on 4/28/99 1:02 PM MST:



Hey,
I don't think that would be the case, since they could be going against 2 good robots and get swamped. With this way, it would reward the team for doing good on their own, but they still have to work hard to get a good score. To get a 360 under my system, the team would have to get all 10 floppies, push the puck against 2 teams, then climb on it against 2 teams. It would be very hard to do, let alone most teams of 2 didn't even come close to picking up all 10 floppies.

Dave

: You couldn't double the points though, because a lot of teams wouldn't want their alliance partner to show up.
: I kind of feel bad about this subject too, because well, our team's robot didn't do very well. We kept telling people we could get on the puck, and we kept failing. That really hurt some of our partner's scores and made me feel really bad.

[archiver]

Posted by Joe Johnson, Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 4/27/99 8:15 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: a box with wheels posted by Chris on 4/26/99 10:12 PM MST:



Usually reliable sources say that this 'robot' was literally just a box with wheels, no battery, no rnet, no nothing.

Joe J.

[archiver]

Posted by michael bastoni of team #23, PNTA, from Plymouth North High School sponsored by Boston Edison Co.

Posted on 4/28/99 8:07 PM MST


In Reply to: not even a battery posted by Joe Johnson on 4/27/99 8:15 PM MST:



Battery yes
Rnet yes
Speed controller yes (but no capacitors on them)
Control box yes

BUT NO MOTORS....

[archiver]

Posted by Sean Kim, Student on team #115 from Monta Vista High School.

Posted on 4/26/99 11:24 PM MST


In Reply to: a box with wheels posted by Joe Johnson on 4/26/99 8:14 PM MST:



Um...box with the wheel can PUSH the puck...right?
it's better than having ONLY the human player as the partner...

kison

[archiver]

Posted by Mike King, Other on team #88, TJ², from Bridgewater Raynham and Johnson & Johnson Professional.

Posted on 4/27/99 4:37 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: a box with wheels posted by Sean Kim on 4/26/99 11:24 PM MST:



: Um...box with the wheel can PUSH the puck...right?
: it's better than having ONLY the human player as the partner...

: kison

Some teams didn't even have the human player.

Mike

[archiver]

Posted by Joe Johnson, Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 4/27/99 8:32 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: a box with wheels posted by Sean Kim on 4/26/99 11:24 PM MST:



Listen to me...

It was a box with wheels. It did not have even a single motor, nor a single wire, nor any other means of doing anything!

If I put a screw out there and claim it is a robot, would that make it a robot?

The IDEA of a box with wheels being a participant at the NATIONALS next to all the teams that that put in 1000's of hours making a robot is insulting.

Is this in the long-term interest of FIRST? I don't think so...

Joe J.

[archiver]

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

Posted on 4/28/99 10:26 AM MST


In Reply to: it had no MOTORS! posted by Joe Johnson on 4/27/99 8:32 PM MST:



Does anyone know what team number this robot was? The robot that I saw was a plywood box with wheels, but all of the motors, RNET, and the battery were inside the plywood box. They lifted a lid to put the RNET in. I saw this robot move in another match, but it died in our match. Are you sure this isn't the robot you're thinking of Joe? Maybe they blew a fuse when you saw them like they did in our match?

I would like to make sure we're not thinking of different robots. I only saw one in the pits that was a box with wheels and it was the one we played with. Also, the robot I'm talking about has a 'No Smoking' sign on it.

-Chris


: Listen to me...

: It was a box with wheels. It did not have even a single motor, nor a single wire, nor any other means of doing anything!

: If I put a screw out there and claim it is a robot, would that make it a robot?

: The IDEA of a box with wheels being a participant at the NATIONALS next to all the teams that that put in 1000's of hours making a robot is insulting.

: Is this in the long-term interest of FIRST? I don't think so...

: Joe J.

[archiver]

Posted by michael bastoni of team #23, PNTA, from Plymouth North High School sponsored by Boston Edison Co.

Posted on 4/28/99 8:04 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: it had no MOTORS! posted by Chris on 4/28/99 10:26 AM MST:




By the time we played it...it had no motors...they were 'reworking it' and could not get them back in time for the match....
Really no one could have...

Do you folks remember the year most of MIT's robot did not show up in NH
At least they had the good sense not to enter it (as I remember)...

And really...I'm not trying to beat up a team but I am trying to make a point...and I think
you'd have to be dead to have missed this point....

So let's forgive and forget this team's number....let's make sure
this never happens again...

And if we kept the game the same for 4-5 years...we all would have more time to make our
robots work better.....what about the rookie NASCAR teams.....c'mon
guys....this thing about the rookie teams is a weak argument...WE WERE ALL ROOKIES ONCE.

And I'm betting you'll never forget the thrill and mixed emotions that
filled that rookie year.....So don't cry for the rookies....they will have all year
to watch the game, visit teams and plan their strategy....IT WILL BE A DISTINCT ADVANTAGE
to entering rookie teams.....

Be good out there in Robot Nation...

[archiver]

Posted by Gary Fernandes, Engineer on team #88, TJ2, from Bridgewater Raynham Reg. and Johnson & Johnson.

Posted on 4/29/99 4:11 PM MST


In Reply to: Trust me posted by michael bastoni on 4/28/99 8:04 PM MST:



What a tough year it has been FIRST really gave us a challenge. I posted a letter last year about having A / B teams at the nationals. Mike you didn’t like the idea last year how does it sound to you for next year.

The top 50% of the teams at the regional pay in the A league at the nationals. For the finals the top 16 teams pick one of their alliance partners from the top 16 B league teams. This gives the teams playing in the B league something to go for.
I hope that everyone responds to my idea. Add your point of view trust me the FIRST gods are reading along with us.

I want to take my hat off to FIRST they did a really great job this year. The interaction between teams because of the alliance system I really enjoyed. Keep up the good work and try to take it easy on use next year so we can do FIRST and still have a life.

[archiver]

Posted by Andrew Trax, Coach on team #180, S.P.A.M., from Southfork,Martin Co. High and UTC.

Posted on 4/27/99 3:56 AM MST


In Reply to: a box with wheels posted by Joe Johnson on 4/26/99 8:14 PM MST:



Yup, we were partnered with them in our last match. They could drive
but veeery, veeery slowly. The strategy used was for us to move the puck
to a corner and have the box block it. Then we passed all the floppies
to our human player, loaded our basket (8 floppies - 8 feet) then tried
to get back on the puck. It was our lowest score (48)and only our
second lose. Not too shabbby.

Mrs. T.

[archiver]

Posted by Andrew Trax, Coach on team #180, S.P.A.M., from Southfork,Martin Co. High and UTC.

Posted on 4/27/99 3:56 AM MST


In Reply to: a box with wheels posted by Joe Johnson on 4/26/99 8:14 PM MST:



Yup, we were partnered with them in our last match. They could drive
but veeery, veeery slowly. The strategy used was for us to move the puck
to a corner and have the box block it. Then we passed all the floppies
to our human player, loaded our basket (8 floppies - 8 feet) then tried
to get back on the puck. It was our lowest score (48)and only our
second lose. Not too shabbby.

Mrs. T.

[archiver]

Posted by michael bastoni of team #23, PNTA, from Plymouth North High School sponsored by Boston Edison Co.

Posted on 4/27/99 5:27 PM MST


In Reply to: a box with wheels posted by Joe Johnson on 4/26/99 8:14 PM MST:



Sometimes in real life we allied with (metaphorical) plywood boxes.....And I don't like
it any better....but at least I can do something about it...

By the time we played them they were only a plywood box with wheels.
They did not have motors in the box at that time...they were immobile...rocklike,
very similar to last years placebo... just wires a control box
and some speed controllers.....

Now I hate to be a jerk...a complainer, a whiner etc....and I suppose I should just
shut up...but.....I want to share a thought and pose some questions.

What are we doing here in the National Robotic Competition, I mean what is really going on
and what messages are we trying to send
and what behaviors are we trying to re-enforce in kids?

If we are simply saying to kids that ANY attempt at this sport is valid,
That any effort you make to simply show up at the nationals is cool, and that it's
really only just fun and games, and that there is really absolutely no
reasonable expectation of winning, and there are not recognizable standards
and it's not about education or skill development and we should all just look the other way
in situations like this...then so be it...but there are easier ways to
cop this attitude.

I am so darn tired of being told by the man in denim that this is not about education,
but rather about inspiration....well who is inspired by a plywood box with wheels ?
None of our teenagers were very impressed.

Let's look at gracious professionalism....the gracious professionalism shown by six
different teams who played with the plywood box is admirable...but the fact
that some adult advisor somewhere would allow and worse encourage his team to
attend the nationals and severely compromise six other teams is not gracious professionalism by any means.
It could possibly be seen as a selfish act by someone who paid 4000 dollars and
did not make the necessary commitment...but because they spent so much money felt entitled
to their moment on stage.....at the expense of some dedicated and hard working people who
'did their homework'...

I encourage my students to search for the truth in many ways..one way is to extrapolate
a given condition...let's ask ourselves a question...Would the FIRST National
Robotics Competition, and the students who participate, be better off, or worse off, if all the teams showed up with
OBVIOUSLY ill prepared machines....that is if we all had plywood boxes with wheels?
Based on your answer, you can draw your own conclusions.

Do you think the plywood box on wheels will appear on the 99 TV production video...
Time will tell....but don't count on it.

How many of you would knowingly enter an inadequate machine in a competition
knowing that your presence would severly compromise some hardworking folks ?
I don't see alot of hands raised on that one.....

OK The wrap up.....

Problems like the plywood box are the result of changing the game every year.
They are 'Bugs' in the alpha version of the game.....we could change this...
We could make things better every year, not worse, by keeping the game the same for 4-6 years
at a time.....the competitions would get increasingly more competitive and the
recruitment of teams would be much enhanced not to mention the fact that some of
your colleagues at work might want to come and help out if it means not losing their wife, job and ski week
..and if you are getting red in the face
over this..chill out...you can't know until you try.....

So......

We agree that anybody can play...and no matter how hard some of you work to build a competetive robot,
it really does not matter in the end because were all equal under the rules of FIRST....I'm on board for that (not)

Or we try to develop a game that we can live with for awhile and that we
can massage into something educational, and equitable and something viewed as
a real robot sport.....something we can try to be better at over time...
something that does not require heroism to participate in....something others won't be afraid
to participate in......

And in finishing I ask for a response to this question....

Who among you are ready and willing to debug this game...produce the
beta version or maybe even the 1.0 release...and play it again next year?
Or do you want another alpha version with the same bugs and problems we have every year?????

What say all you wonderful students, mentors and teachers....?


Mr.B

[archiver]

Posted by Dave, Student on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW.

Posted on 4/27/99 6:00 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: a box with wheels posted by michael bastoni on 4/27/99 5:27 PM MST:



Hey,

I have to say is that I agree and disagre with you on many points, espically with the point that it's all out for blood and not for fun. I know no matter how hard you try, there are going to be teams that are out for blood, but going into nationals, my team nor I had any clue what our robot could do, and I made a commitment to myself that I would have fun no matter what happened.

I know that a plywood box on wheels isn't very inspiring, but there are other robots like them that were plagued by problems, just like my team was at regionals. If everyone who didn't think their robot was going to do good or that they couldn't win didn't come, there would be no competition, just a bunch of really good teams fighting each other. I'm not going to rip into the team with the plywood box, maybe they had unknown circumstances come up that we just don't know about. In my opinion, going to nationals is a reward for everyone for the time that they put in.

For the 99 TV production video, I think that they should show a couple of those matches. They don't block hockey games because one of the teams stinks, and it shows that all the robots that compete aren't all god-like, but that there are mortal robots and that you don't have to compete with the big teams to goto nationals.

To keep the same game but change it every year does have it's good points and bad points. The bad points being that some team out there will start early and get an advantage, even if the game changes slightly every year. It's not that hard to adapt a half built robot for changing plans. The good points would be that it will eventually get everyone better at. The problem with that is that the rookie teams would get smoked by the teams that have been playing the game for several years. You'd also start to see robots that look very alike. If they repeat this years game, there would be alot more pole grabbers and other gadgets that made certin teams unique. One idea would be to repeat the game every couple of years, say 4 years, so that no student plays the same game twice. This would allow for tweaking of the rules to make the game more fair and still keep a varaity going.

In all, I think that things will change if teams are paired up again next year. And hey, only 8 months until we find out our next game :)

Dave

: Sometimes in real life we allied with (metaphorical) plywood boxes.....And I don't like
: it any better....but at least I can do something about it...

: By the time we played them they were only a plywood box with wheels.
: They did not have motors in the box at that time...they were immobile...rocklike,
: very similar to last years placebo... just wires a control box
: and some speed controllers.....

: Now I hate to be a jerk...a complainer, a whiner etc....and I suppose I should just
: shut up...but.....I want to share a thought and pose some questions.

: What are we doing here in the National Robotic Competition, I mean what is really going on
: and what messages are we trying to send
: and what behaviors are we trying to re-enforce in kids?

: If we are simply saying to kids that ANY attempt at this sport is valid,
: That any effort you make to simply show up at the nationals is cool, and that it's
: really only just fun and games, and that there is really absolutely no
: reasonable expectation of winning, and there are not recognizable standards
: and it's not about education or skill development and we should all just look the other way
: in situations like this...then so be it...but there are easier ways to
: cop this attitude.

: I am so darn tired of being told by the man in denim that this is not about education,
: but rather about inspiration....well who is inspired by a plywood box with wheels ?
: None of our teenagers were very impressed.

: Let's look at gracious professionalism....the gracious professionalism shown by six
: different teams who played with the plywood box is admirable...but the fact
: that some adult advisor somewhere would allow and worse encourage his team to
: attend the nationals and severely compromise six other teams is not gracious professionalism by any means.
: It could possibly be seen as a selfish act by someone who paid 4000 dollars and
: did not make the necessary commitment...but because they spent so much money felt entitled
: to their moment on stage.....at the expense of some dedicated and hard working people who
: 'did their homework'...

: I encourage my students to search for the truth in many ways..one way is to extrapolate
: a given condition...let's ask ourselves a question...Would the FIRST National
: Robotics Competition, and the students who participate, be better off, or worse off, if all the teams showed up with
: OBVIOUSLY ill prepared machines....that is if we all had plywood boxes with wheels?
: Based on your answer, you can draw your own conclusions.

: Do you think the plywood box on wheels will appear on the 99 TV production video...
: Time will tell....but don't count on it.

: How many of you would knowingly enter an inadequate machine in a competition
: knowing that your presence would severly compromise some hardworking folks ?
: I don't see alot of hands raised on that one.....

: OK The wrap up.....

: Problems like the plywood box are the result of changing the game every year.
: They are 'Bugs' in the alpha version of the game.....we could change this...
: We could make things better every year, not worse, by keeping the game the same for 4-6 years
: at a time.....the competitions would get increasingly more competitive and the
: recruitment of teams would be much enhanced not to mention the fact that some of
: your colleagues at work might want to come and help out if it means not losing their wife, job and ski week
: ..and if you are getting red in the face
: over this..chill out...you can't know until you try.....

: So......

: We agree that anybody can play...and no matter how hard some of you work to build a competetive robot,
: it really does not matter in the end because were all equal under the rules of FIRST....I'm on board for that (not)

: Or we try to develop a game that we can live with for awhile and that we
: can massage into something educational, and equitable and something viewed as
: a real robot sport.....something we can try to be better at over time...
: something that does not require heroism to participate in....something others won't be afraid
: to participate in......

: And in finishing I ask for a response to this question....

: Who among you are ready and willing to debug this game...produce the
: beta version or maybe even the 1.0 release...and play it again next year?
: Or do you want another alpha version with the same bugs and problems we have every year?????

: What say all you wonderful students, mentors and teachers....?

:
: Mr.B

[archiver]

Posted by Austin Martus, Other on team #47 from son of pchs coach.

Posted on 4/27/99 7:35 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: a box with wheels posted by Dave on 4/27/99 6:00 PM MST:



as you hear the people from FIRST always saying


is a plywood box with wheels really 'in the spirit of the game'???

i personally dont think so


just think about that


austin

[archiver]

Posted by Joe Johnson, Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 4/30/99 5:00 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: a box with wheels posted by michael bastoni on 4/27/99 5:27 PM MST:



Folks,

I am just about as strong of an advocate for changing the game each year as Mr. B. is for keeping it the same.

For me and for most of our team, the idea of playing the same game each year is nowhere near as exciting.

Beyond this, there would have to be drastic changes to how the FIRST kit is developed in order to make it work.

Let me give you some examples.

You have probably seen the last Delphi Power Sliding Door Motor manufactured by Bosch. The Tiagene ones cost me about 2/3 and have essentially the same performance.

Also, don't bet on ITTA seat adjuster motors. ITTA has sold their motor business, the new owners are a brick wall when it comes to requests for donations.

Beyond obsolete stuff, new stuff causes just as many and perhaps more problems. How many teams would willingly give up the new motors from this year alone? What would your machine look like with the 2 drill motors and 4 seat motors that we had 4 years ago?

Changes to the control system really start to get interesting.

How are we going to keep the game the same if the stuff in the kit is constantly changing?

I vote against Mr. B's proposal.

Joe J.

[archiver]

Posted by michael bastoni of team #23, PNTA, from Plymouth North High School sponsored by Boston Edison Co.

Posted on 5/2/99 7:32 AM MST


In Reply to: You know my vote... posted by Joe Johnson on 4/30/99 5:00 AM MST:



A Petition To the Robot Nation,

and a quick clarification....There is nothing I like better than a good debate....
And to clear the air here...let me state how much I appreciate and value
JJ's opinion and friendship..

but...

JJ is putting up blockades to a good Idea.....yes of course manufacturers
come and go...but electric motors do not...and who the heck said that
the kits had to be made from donated parts?

And please don't give me that old saw that the 5K goes to FIRST...yeah it
goes to FIRST to pay people to spend an inordinate amount of time trying
to assemble (Read beg for) kit parts...These same fees and good people could be putting
their time to better use recruiting and supporting new teams.

JJ, If the kit is your only impass we can settle that easy...let's all use
the McMaster Carr catalog as our 'Kit of Parts'...and limit power
consumption through mandated batteries, fusing and speed controllers...I don't think Jeff Gordon
builds his NASCAR from a donated Kit of Parts. What good does it do to give
a gyro chip to a team that can't utilize it....If that team see's others
utilizing sophisticated components...they will go out and learn to use them in order
to remain competative...let's let the the natural market forces work at FIRST too..
Let's not create false, manipulated worlds...let's get real...Let's break out
of this KIT DEPENDENCY...that we've been strung out on...and simply regulate by
rules and specifications. And don't demean peoples' intelligence by stating they
need kits.

C'mon JJ...All I'm looking for is to find a way to make FIRST a sustainable
program....We are losing top quality volunteers at an alarming rate...

99% of the teams playing FIRST after ONLY 8 YEARS are not original members...

Why....because their lives, their careers and their families have been too severly impacted....THE FOCUS OF FIRST
IS TO INSPIRE RIGHT....Well for gosh sakes...that is a focus shared by many many
organizations...We have no patent on inspiration....and we can inspire better
if we have more teams nation wide...if we have more local events and more
local and regional teams playing with their robots.....showing and growing the program.
Look...my wife has actually...after 5 years...asked that I please do something to include my family
during the 18 + weekends we dedicate to FIRST..I think there can be a better way..And let me
say that my wife is just as good as any FIRST widow...and that she is also a professional
career person (which makes things even harder on her) and that she is a full supporter
of my efforts as an educator..And I love her dearly too.


PLAYING WITH THEIR ROBOTS.........

Playing with the robots is not easy to do if you have to build new fields
and new robots every year...yes build new games...but darn it...build em every 4-5 years.

...I'm getting frustrated and I am no wimp.. other people are getting tired and frustrated too..Our group does
FIRST year round...and we'd like to continue doing FIRST year round....
But FIRST could make some really minor changes that would add alot of growth potential
and sustainability to the program...AND NOT SACRIFICE ANY 'INSPIRATIONAL
FUNCTIONALITY'.......and maybe make the program more educational in the long run...
The efficiency experts at Delphi might look at this issue and ask, How might we
obtain better inspirational bang for the buck...how might we better deploy
our capital and human resources in order to better inspire (and educate)
our youth.

Here comes some heresy frm Mr.b.....This program focus belongs mostly,
mainly in the schools...yep in the schools...know why?.....cause that's
where the target audience is....the kids. Keeping the game the same would allow
for some quality time spent analyzing and re-engineering the bot...LEARNING FROM MISTAKES.
Alot of those time consuming but worthwhile things you PE folks at Delphi do..
We will always have plywood boxes in the competitions...always have rookies
at a decided disadvantage...what we won't always have is talented, hardworking
volunteers to share their lives with kids....

Not unless we adopt a specific profile for FIRST volunteers....umarried, no kids
no pressing job responsibilities and highly proficient in technical design...
And I for one, don't meet that criteria..

Look....Joe has a point, Woody has a point....Dean has a point...you all
have good reason to keep changing the game...but look around...talk to the old time
people.

How in the heck can you think you have a sustainable program if it depends on the
heroic efforts of one individual like JJ to keep it together..

JJ....ask yourself one question....If you took a job offer at say 500K
to work somewhere else (very very possible at some point in time)....would team 47 survive intact?

If you answer yes...you have sustainability...if not and so many teams, hundreds
actually have not...then you've got to make changes that accomodate and resolve
what appears to be the single largest problem to growing this organization...


I respect JJ's point...and I DO NOT SPEAK FOR ANYONE ON MY TEAM OR ON ANY OTHER TEAM..
Only for myself...
I look down the road and see flattened growth and high turnover for FIRST..
and I am screaming for someone to stand up and address this issue with action.
Recruitment is not a problem...it is the attrition rates and the nation wide
fear that people have about 'Making the commitment' that needs to be addressed.

Please don't spend too much time questioning my motives...my position is
documented clearly....and my commitment to students as well...

To the Robot nation I ask......Is everything perfect as it is...or is there
work to be done to improve the sustainability of FIRST ?

FIRST IS GOOD, FIRST IS GREAT, FIRST NEEDS SOME RE ENGINEERING TOO. Just because
mr.b does not seem to be 'Towing the Line' does not mean he is not especially
dedicated or concerned with inspiring youth....don't make that mistake.

Mr. B

[archiver]

Posted by Joe Johnson, Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 5/2/99 7:46 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: You know my vote... posted by michael bastoni on 5/2/99 7:32 AM MST:



Mike,

I am not making any claim that FIRST is perfect. In fact, you know that on many issues, I have been among FIRST's most vocal critics.

But, like you, I am not just throwing rocks in order to break windows. We both believe in the necessity important changes in the direction that our country and culture is headed.

FIRST can play an important role in making those changes.

NOW, on to your particulars.

I agree with you on many issues, perhaps especially the need to get FIRST to a purchaseable kit. My hope is that FIRST will swing a deal with Small Parts Inc to sell the stuff that is not available over the counter.

As to changing the game each year, we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

However, I am not an unreasonable man. In my opinion, the risks associated with trying a year of keeping the game the same pales in comparison to risks that FIRST took this year in changing the format as radically as they did.

So, while I am not a big fan of the idea, if there is enough support for it among the teams out there, I would be willing to get behind a 1 year trial of the idea.

There will still be exciting matches. There will still be new robot designs. There are worse games to repeat. It would be a good year.

So...

What do team think? Is it worth a 1 year trial?

Joe J.

P.S. I still have my doubts as to whether or not it will address any of the concerns Mr.B. has, but that is a message for another day. JJ

[archiver]

Posted by Dan, Student on team #10, BSM, from Benilde-St. Margaret's and Banner Engineering.

Posted on 5/2/99 9:01 PM MST


In Reply to: Let's try it... posted by Joe Johnson on 5/2/99 7:46 PM MST:



>>>So, while I am not a big fan of the idea, if there is enough support for it among the teams out there, I would be willing to get behind a 1 year trial of the idea.

[archiver]

Posted by michael bastoni, Coach on team #23, PNTA, from Plymouth North High School and Boston Edison Co.

Posted on 5/3/99 4:19 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: let the trial begin . . . posted by Dan on 5/2/99 9:01 PM MST:



Dan,

The game is being replayed this summer....at about nine locations nationwide.
That's the whole point...extending the game cycle will allow
more time and opportunities to play...and playing the darn
game is the hook...it's what we are supposed to be doing..Playing
and learning.....these things are closely aligned...inseperable
actually...

And the trial must be for more than one year...we've done this for
8...I say we try the next change for 8.....1 year proves nothing..
We should go for 2, 4 year cycles....

But this is where negotiation takes place.

Mr.b

[archiver]

Posted by Raul, Engineer on team #111, Wildstang, from Rolling Meadows & Wheeling HS and Motorola.

Posted on 5/3/99 5:01 PM MST


In Reply to: Let's try it... posted by Joe Johnson on 5/2/99 7:46 PM MST:



If we did the same game for one year, I have some predictions based on two scenarios:
1) FIRST tells teams that they must maintain the same basic functionality.
2) FIRST tells teams that they can start from scratch if they wish.

I will concede for now that many of the learning benefits that Mr.B stated in the past will come true.

For #1:
This is easy.
- Many teams will tweak their robots to fix the problems they had and make their design stronger, more reliable, etc, etc.
- We will all get more sleep and spend a lot less money.
- Rookies will copy someone’s design and learn less than they may have otherwise.
- Those that had a really weak design will be discouraged by the inability to completely redo their design.
- Many engineers will lose interest because every engineer wants to try something new and creative not just fix an existing design. Yes, I know this is also what happens most often in real engineering but it is just not as inspirational.
- Actually, now that I think about it, this is just what we interpret Rumble at the Rock to be and we will not be changing anything even though we have lots of time to do it.

For #2:
- Many teams will come up with killer defensive robot designs because no one will want to be pushed around or tipped over.
- The matches will become boring because everyone’s strategy will be the same – take over the puck and keep others off. Or maybe not boring if it becomes like Robot Wars.
- FIRST will have to allow even more contact and aggression to keep it interesting
- Budgets may increase for spare parts needed, especially motor that, as JJ says, are becoming obsolete.
- We will implement a design that we had pondered that will ignore scoring and completely engulf the puck and not let anyone else on. Believe me, it would be completely legal but if you thought TKO was tough this will be your worst nightmare.

OK, I may be completely wrong on this but every bone in my body tells me it just doesn’t feel right to keep the game the same.

Maybe, we can have two divisions, one for a new game and another for those that wish to have another crack at perfecting their design. If I ask my son which one he would prefer, I know what he will say.

That’s my 20 cents worth.

Raul

[archiver]

Posted by Dodd Stacy, Engineer on team #95, Lebanon Robotics Team, from Lebanon High School and CRREL/CREARE.

Posted on 5/3/99 9:02 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: You know my vote... posted by michael bastoni on 5/2/99 7:32 AM MST:




Mr. B,

I think your read on the key issues is dead bang on. FIRST as presently configured is not sustainable as an exponential growth vehicle for getting more kids to pursue scientific, technical, and engineering education. I believe the enterprise is straining as the seams right now, and it's essential that sustainability receive urgent attention. Some random thoughts on some of your points:

LONGER RUN ON THE SAME GAME. I've been here from the beginning, here's why. I think the key to sustainability is to embed the FIRST program in the school system. That requires that the science, math, industrial arts, computer etc faculty get on board and work the program into the curriculum, and the school administration and the board make a serious commitment to the program. School is where the kids are, dying for something to bite into. Forget TV. I don't know how representative our team is, but we have one science teacher and a bunch of engineers who blow through the school like a six week hurricane and create a huge ruckus for everyone. The administration tolerates our efforts and gives lip service support, but we are on shakey ground. I believe we would have more success in enlisting teachers if the game were more stable and they could work the robot design process into their classroom material. I know some schools and teams already do this successfully, but I think the chaotic nature of the FIRST program is a barrier to persuading overworked teachers to join in.

BURNOUT. We all understand this intimately, and it is a HUGE damper on exponential growth of the program. I have a running discussion with my son, who is also an engineer on our team, as to whether FIRST is the right vehicle to invest our time and energy in to inspire/mentor/empower bright kids to shoot for the moon. Yes, there are always a couple of obvious successes each year, and perhaps a few sleepers, but the job of building the 'bot can compete with focusing attention on the kids when we're stretched thin and time is short. Something about alligators and draining the swamp. This also cuts to slowing down the game cycle - more time to devote to the KIDS rather than the 'bot.

KITS. I can only add to your excellent coverage of the points that the cost of purchasing what we need from an expanded industrial supply source like MMC is peanuts compared to the expenses of team travel to the Nationals. Not to mention what a pain it is trying to find spare parts for discontinued models of drills, etc (which I suppose is why a lot of the stuff in the Kit is donated in the first place).

THE GAME. I'd like to see a game that could be played between schools at halftime of their basketball games. Structure the rules to enable playing on the wood court without damaging it, use the existing boundaries, and work in scoring that builds as it goes and is posted on the scoreboard in real time. The particulars I suggest may not be apt, but the concept of piggy backing on the existing school sports program, facilities, and AUDIENCE does all the right things to promote the program goals within the school culture. The game could evolve and refine as the machines were further developed, and I'm sure the teams would figure out how to network the scouting and intelligence gathering end of it to compensate for just meeting one opponent per game nite.

Dodd

[archiver]

Posted by michael bastoni, Coach on team #23, PNTA, from Plymouth North High School and Boston Edison Co.

Posted on 5/3/99 4:13 PM MST


In Reply to: Not Alone in the Woods posted by Dodd Stacy on 5/3/99 9:02 AM MST:




Dodd,

Thank you so very much....for simply being there....you too are so very right on.
And so much more eloquent....we need to talk.

Mr.b

[archiver]

Posted by Dan, Student on team #10, BSM, from Benilde-St. Margaret's and Banner Engineering.

Posted on 5/3/99 4:43 PM MST


In Reply to: Not Alone in the Woods posted by Dodd Stacy on 5/3/99 9:02 AM MST:



I've found that most of what I learn from FIRST happens in the early stages of our 6 weeks.
Things like how I initially confront the problem, how the team decides on designs, and basically working very hard to make sure my 'vision' of the design is realistic are pretty key to FIRST's success.
If FIRST were to repeat the game and teams were to use the same robot w/ slight additions, then how would you make sure the kids get exposed to these vital steps in the process?
Sure you could make sure everyone knows why the robot is like it is, but that is a lot different then creating a design purely from scratch (ie with no previous designs affecting you). If the repeat-the-game thing is going to happen, this issue needs to be addressed or accepted as one of the downfalls. :-Dan

[archiver]

Posted by Dodd Stacy, Engineer on team #95, Lebanon Robotics Team, from Lebanon High School and CRREL/CREARE.

Posted on 5/3/99 8:48 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Not Alone in the Woods posted by Dan on 5/3/99 4:43 PM MST:



Dan,

The conceptual part of the design process is heady stuff for sure. I'm not sure that repeating the game interferes with this part of the process, at least presuming the teams are 'allowed' to come up with a totally new design for the new year. I think it would probably be pretty difficult to draw the line between 'slight additions' and new functionality anyway. In any event, I don't think that a restriction to static robot designs should be necessarily linked to the concept of repeating games.

What I really want to say, though, is that none of the robot designs are created purely from scratch. They all derive from other stimuli and embed details proven to work in other applications - like previous years' robots. I think someone from Team 177 was saying on this board recently that they've used the same basic arm mechanism for the past three years, and it IS a thing of functional beauty. I would even claim that a new game each year and a six week build period DISCOURAGES creativity and innovation in design. Any team that is really focused on the competitive aspect of the er, um, Competition is crazy to abandon what they had working well (or nearly working) the previous year. None of this precludes the kids being exposed to and being a part of the visionary problem solving process.

Dodd

[archiver]

Posted by Dan, Student on team #10, BSM, from Benilde-St. Margaret's and Banner Engineering.

Posted on 5/3/99 9:08 PM MST


In Reply to: Design from Scratch posted by Dodd Stacy on 5/3/99 8:48 PM MST:



I agree that we very rarely design from scratch. Our team investigated the Genie Lifts in our gym and Wildstang's lift from last year before designing our lift.
But maybe this just comes down to my personal experience it's a much different process when you have no idea what direction the other teams are going in. I know it's different because I've done both; our first year we pretty much modeled our robot after Beatty's national champ machine since we didn't know what we were capable of. But this year we were given a clean slate to work with and I definitely enjoyed it more.
It could be argued that the current format neglects the re-engineering process which could probably be argued to be *more* important than the 'design-from-scratch' since most designs in life are knock-offs of others (or it's the same product altogether just with a clock on it.)
So what it all comes down to is personal preference, and I prefer design from scratch. I can see the arguements for the other way though. :-Dan


>>>Any team that is really focused on the competitive aspect of the er, um, Competition is crazy to abandon what they had working well (or nearly working) the previous year. None of this precludes the kids being exposed to and being a part of the visionary problem solving process.

[archiver]

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

Posted on 5/8/99 7:14 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: You know my vote... posted by michael bastoni on 5/2/99 7:32 AM MST:




(I'm sorry I came into this late - I somehow missed this thread. I hope I'm not too late!)

Mike-

I am in total agreement with you that our single biggest problem is that of sustainability. The great things that happen on all of these teams is because of big efforts from individuals working together, and if we do not have the individuals working, we will not grow into thousands of teams. It applies to teachers, engineers, students, and the entities that allow us to use their facilities (schools, businesses). All of them need to be considered in our sustainability plan. I agree with you that this is what we need to work on as we help to improve FIRST. Lets not lose that even if we disagree on this 'same game' issue.

I think your ideas on the kit are good ones. Making the motors, etc. a bought kit instead of a donated kit will make more sense if we have a lot more teams. Availability would still be an issue - perhaps making sure that each team can get one set of parts through a source that packages everything together - one set per team - would take care of that.

On to the disagreement...

I do not see how keeping the game the same helps. Following are three reasons why. I don't think you have addressed them in your arguments for keeping the game the same. I just don't see how it makes things better.

1. I really do not believe it will be less 'robot work' because, with a carryover game, teams will then have to work on their robots year round if they want to remain competitive. If they know the game, they will start working on it. You can say, sure, wait until the new school year, but I really doubt thats going to happen. Any competitive student/teacher/engineer will start working on it last week. Burnout will become a BIGGER factor, in my opinion. It will be harder to get people to be on the team. It will be harder to work on non-robot projects like fundraising and community awareness, because there will be one other big thing to do.

2. It is not as inspiring to keep the game the same. Re-engineering is important and relevant, but it is not as useful for teaching students the lesson that engineers can make something from nothing, and teams of engineers can do the 'impossible' in an 'impossibly' short time. They won't be impressed by what technical professionals can do with their minds, because they'll know that we just copied last years TechnoJuggerKat or SonOfBeattyAces, because thats probably what it will take to win. I put a lot of value on this point, and I don't think your proposal does.

3. What are the new students going to be inspired about? The drivers will have been practicing all summer, so the new students won't get a chance to drive. The design team will have solidified ideas on what the robot should look like, and the new students will be in a catchup mode until when? Until the game changes again or until the 'players' graduate? What do we do when we are interviewing new students for the Year2000 team - tell them that they will have an impact on the design? I know I'm not going to lie to them. I want to be able to tell them that their ideas will go onto a brainstorming list that will be used. If they don't think they will get to 'play' will they still want to join the team? The reason I think this is important is that, in my opinion, the earlier we get the students on the team, the better. I think we can impact 9th grade lives more than we can impact 12th grade lives. We get the 9th graders for possibly 4 years (and more if they come from a Lego League school).

I just don't see the benefits to keeping the game the same. I totally agree with your emphasis on sustainability, though.

Ken

[archiver]

Posted by Elaine Anselm, Engineer on team #191, X-Cats, from Jos Wilson High School and Xerox.

Posted on 4/30/99 12:21 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: a box with wheels posted by michael bastoni on 4/27/99 5:27 PM MST:



Some of our adult and student team members have discussed the idea of the same game year over year and we unanimously agreed it is not something we would like to see. Xerox has partnered with Wilson High School in FIRST since 1992 and we have never looked at producing the most competitive robot as our primary objective. Some years we do well, others we don't, but each year we come home feeling great. We feel that the same game year over year would put too much emphasis on winning.

There are going to be great robots in the finals, I have no doubt about that. If our robot is not among them we are all ok with that - adults and students (even if we think our robot should have been there). Each year we work really hard to make the best robot we can and some years our capabilities are better than others. We state right up front with everyone that if there is a conflict between building a more competitive robot and inspiring kids, inspiration wins out, every time. I know we inspire kids regardless of what the robot does at the competition.

As far as the same game, some of our thoughts about it:
Our team builds half of the excitement into the anticipation waiting for the rules. It is like a party.
We attract adults to the program who are just as excited to see what the new game will be. We have graduated students who come back on kickoff day, just to see the game rules.
The same game reinforces the competition as the most important thing, not the engineering and inspiration of students - over eight years we have found countless ways to inspire students that are not centered on placing #1 or #2 or even #32
With the same game, returning teams would have all year to work on perfecting their designs. Some teams have all new kids each year, so in this case, who is doing the perfecting? The adults? Teams that don't participate could put their old robots up for sale to new teams (That's probably a little extreme, but maybe not)
When you start to place the focus on winning, it is too easy to see winning as the objective, then, if you don't win, you have nothing.

Sorry, but I have to give a thumbs down to this approach.

Elaine

[archiver]

Posted by michael bastoni of team #23, PNTA, from Plymouth North High School sponsored by Boston Edison Co.

Posted on 5/2/99 3:48 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: changes to the game each year posted by Elaine Anselm on 4/30/99 12:21 PM MST:



Elaine,

I am not proposing we keep the game the same forever...just for longer periods of time than we currently do.
Imagine that the FIRST year was not 12 months...say it was 36 or 48 months....during which time we would
recruit new teams, partner with new institutions and yes like the
race car folks...sell old robots when we thought we needed to build new ones...

It;s about more choice and flexibility...not about winning...we are not
wrapped up in winning....we do it for the educational benefits...
some teams do it for the inspirational benefits...We actually do FIRST
cause it helps our students get into engineering school...we have that
well documented...

What I am proposing makes that MORE possible...not less...so please maintain your point of view.
Please stand by your attachment to changing the game every year...
But think about what you would say to another person who is MORE into it
than you...what if someone proposed we play twice a year and change that game
twice a year??????

So all I'm asking is that we do not hold 12 months sacred....who said
12 months was a inviolate number...why not 6 months?

Or more sanely,,,why not 36 or 48?

I invite all of you to look outside the box just for a minute...and tell me what you see?

Am I Alone in the woods?

Mr.B

[archiver]

Posted by Frank of team #97, Psychedelics, from CRLS sponsored by MIT.

Posted on 4/28/99 2:21 PM MST


In Reply to: a box with wheels posted by Joe Johnson on 4/26/99 8:14 PM MST:



We didn't have the plywood box, but we had some alliances that
couldn't do anything but drive. If I remember right, one (possibly 2)
of our partners were ever able to get on the puck. That severely
limited our ability to score. One round we had a robot that could just
drive around.

I think there should be some way of seeding teams based on performance
in regionals. The teams that did well are rewarded by being paired with
another good team. There were many good teams (WildStang, Bomb Squad,
Beatty, and Delphi to name a few) that we all know are some of the best
teams in the competition that seeded well below many other teams. 540s
were rare especially compared to their frequency in Detroit. It seemed
as if all the good teams had really weak pairings.

Everyone should be able to compete in Nationals though. These robots
take a lot of time and effort (not to mention money) to build and teams
should be able to take them to Disney. But for the students to be
truely impressed as Dean wants, they have to see the big boys..those
teams that bring an excellent robot every year. These are the teams
that inspire. Two of my fellow MIT students
never heard of Bomb Squad until they were walking by their pit and took
a look. My friends were really impressed, but #16 didn't get the big
attention they deserved because they were not in the top of the pack in
seeding.

The competition has never been exactly fair, and it's always tried to
be hard on teams that lose early on (remember last year's bracket), but
this year something really seemed amiss with the final seedings. Just my
two cents on the matter.

Great job everyone! See you next year!

Frank

[archiver]

Posted by Mike Kulibaba, Student on team #88, TJ², from Bridgewater-Raynham Regional and Johnson and Johnson.

Posted on 4/28/99 2:53 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: a box with wheels posted by Frank on 4/28/99 2:21 PM MST:



I feel kinda bad for the people that got stuck with a 'plywood box' or somebody who could just drive. The reason why we got to be the number one seed is because we got partnered up with great robots in ever round except one. Our robot is a good robot but there is no way we are the number one seed if we don't get allianced with the teams we did( Thanks Wildstang, Woodside high, X-Cats for our 3 highest rounds)but if we get allianced with someone esle I don't know if we get those scores. That's why I think the National competition needs to be only the elite teams that go to the regionals and have a good robot. If A plywood box cost my team a chance to make the top 16 or make it into the finals, I would not be a happy camper and also it's not in the spirit of the game to lose cause the robot at the national competition, which is suppossed to be the best of the best, costs you a match because they don't work. It is about being there and about having fun but it is about being competitive and having a working robot. I commend the team for trying but I just don't think that is far to the teams that had to play with them. If My team was just a box of plywood I wouldn't show up at the nationals, I think it makes a mockery of what this competition is trying to do. It is a competition and when it comes down to it in the end it is about winning. I'm not saying winning is the most important thing because it is not, being there with a working robot and putting in the months and years of working on the robots and fundraising to get there is a tremendous part of it. Plus learning about engineering and making long lasting freindships are the most important part of it. But you can't me for all the work everyone puts in to this great program that people don't want to win. I worked harder this year then any other year and if we just sat there for each round or barely moved or what not I'd feel bad that my team cost some other team the chance to win because of our robot. I'm sorry if I offend people by saying that but this is the way I feel. What do people get out of having a plywood box.

Kuli

[archiver]

Posted by Nate Smith, Student on team #74, Holland FIRST Robotics, from Holland High School and Haworth, Inc..

Posted on 4/28/99 6:49 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: We just got Lucky, but more importantly posted by Mike Kulibaba on 4/28/99 2:53 PM MST:



: The reason why we got to be the number one seed is because we got partnered up with great robots in ever round except one.

and the other side of the page...

our team performed consistantly throughout the entire competition, but you wouldn't know it by looking at our 196 ranking(which is probably why we didn't get selected, but that's another thread)...

except for one round, we kept the other team under 100 points, with several rounds being under 30 pts. In 3 of our six rounds, our ally broke during the round, once falling to lose the 3x multiplier that could have won us the round.

i've been in favor of this alliance thing from the beginning(to a point), but now i'm starting to have my doubts...

Nate

[archiver]

Posted by Dan, Student on team #10, BSM, from Benilde-St. Margaret's and Banner Engineering.

Posted on 4/28/99 7:48 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: We just got Lucky, but more importantly posted by Mike Kulibaba on 4/28/99 2:53 PM MST:



What's the story behind the plywood-box team anyways? I might understand the box if there robot was lost in shipping, but I will never understand why they were allowed to go on field. :-Dan

[archiver]

Posted by Tom Wible, Coach on team #131, chaos, from central high school manchester and osram-sylvania.

Posted on 4/28/99 8:23 PM MST


In Reply to: a box with wheels posted by Joe Johnson on 4/26/99 8:14 PM MST:



I think that the moment this team knew they were in trouble, an announcement should have been made in the pit.
Then all of the teams who had people available, should have come running with spare parts and brainpower to get this team up and running. I'll bet we could have come up with a working robot pretty quickly.
I think it would be great to have the opportunity to help out a team like the 'box' team.

Tom Wible
Team 131

[archiver]

Posted by BDH, Other on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled lake Western and TRW.

Posted on 4/28/99 8:50 PM MST


In Reply to: a box with wheels posted by Joe Johnson on 4/26/99 8:14 PM MST:




I don't know if its been said yet but I remember the team because it's the only one I looked at with Chris and Dave before we went to Epcot for lunch. The team was from Miami, Was a high 200 number and had no big sponsors. They were there because they wanted to build the robot and compete like everyone else. Their only problem was they didn't have the big money(and probably technical help) to back them up. The robot did work long enough to make it to the center of the field
Brian

[archiver]

Posted by Andy Grady, Coach on team #42, P.A.R.T.S, from Alvirne High School and Daniel Webster College.

Posted on 4/27/99 8:54 AM MST


In Reply to: alliances posted by Austin Martus on 4/26/99 7:00 PM MST:



I feel that FIRST should probably get rid of the alliance thing all together. Who you are paired up with can decide your fate no matter how good or bad you are. For instance, my team was sitting in the top 16 all weekend we were holding on to 7th when we came to our last match. Our alliance partner couldn't provide their robot, which made it two on one, we came out of that round with only 9 points and we were knocked out of the top 16. Now it is part of the game, but if we were gonna go down I would have liked to have gone down with a partner so that I wouldn't have to look back with a 'what if'. But hey, those are the breaks.
Congrats to all,
Andy Grady

[archiver]

Posted by Jeff Burch, Engineer on team #45, TechnoKats, from Kokomo High School and Delphi Delco Electronics Systems.

Posted on 4/27/99 10:30 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: alliances posted by Andy Grady on 4/27/99 8:54 AM MST:



>>>> Sorry for the cross post. I posted this same message on a similar thread in the General Forum but it probably fits in better here.

I agree there are some kinks to worked out in the qualification process, but I think the alliance concept is the best thing to happen to the competition since it moved to Epcot. The alliances really emphasize the importance of scouting and our students took it much more seriously this year than in the past. In previous years we pretty much had a strategy and tried to stick to it in each match and the scout sheets rarely forced a change to this strategy.

This year it was extremely important to know the capabilities of other teams, and not just the ones you'll play with/against in the matches. To win, your strategy needs to adapt to mach the capabilities of your alliance partner and opponents. You also need to find alliance partners to pick or that will pick you. We got to know other teams better and made more friends on other teams this year than ever before and it's all because of having alliances.

Several of my team members have been talking about one change we would really like to see next year that would make the qualifying matches a little more fair. I think there should be minimum functionality requirements of every robot before they are allowed to compete. This would prevent teams from getting paired with robots that can't even leave the starting gate.

This minimum functionality would be checked during inspection. Teams that meet these requirements at a regional would not have to be re-tested. Minimum requirements could be things like the ability to move at a minimum rate for a minimum distance, ability to turn, and at least one additional function related to the competition requirements (for this year: climb puck, grab post, hold a minimum number of floppies, etc.). I don't think this list is too demanding, but it would force teams to focus on having some basic functionality rather than trying to build the ultimate robot and ending up with a box on wheels.

Comments?

[archiver]

Posted by colleen, Student on team #126, Gael Force, from Clinton High School and Nypro.

Posted on 4/27/99 2:58 PM MST


In Reply to: Let's fix alliance problems, not trash it posted by Jeff Burch on 4/27/99 10:30 AM MST:




I definitely agree with you on that minimum functionality clause, because that would definitely reduce many of the qualms about alliances. I think that's most everyone's main concern with partnering up. If you know the robot can function, then you're only worry will be whether or not the are willing to compromise on a strategy with you (which is something that some teams just don't want to do). If the alliances were to continue next year, something about a robot's ability to work has to be taken into consideration.

And what about, like it Andy's case and other's, teams don't show up? Maybe points could be added to the team there, or at least subtract from the team that didn't show up (average in a zero for not showing up). In andy's case the lost, but i saw an impressive #176 robot, Aces High, win a match completely solo and their partner didn't show, that deserves something..

..so i think..

[archiver]

Posted by Jacob Etter, Student on team #177, Bobcat Robotics, from South Windsor High School and International Fuel Cells and ONSI Corp.

Posted on 4/28/99 6:06 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: alliances posted by Andy Grady on 4/27/99 8:54 AM MST:



i agree completely. let the bots go one on one none of the alliance bull**** it would be a much different comptition then. the best robot might even win once in a while, (shudder) what a thought.

[archiver]

Posted by Eric , Student on team #253, MRT - Mills Robotics Team, from Mills High School and Fairchild Semiconductor and NASA Ames Research Center.

Posted on 5/3/99 11:19 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: alliances posted by Andy Grady on 4/27/99 8:54 AM MST:



I liked what FIRST did for the finals in Florida. Why not have alliances
consist of three teams for the whole competition? Although you have
three teams, only two compete per match. That way, alliances can use
the two best-paired or functional robots while accomdating the robots
that still need tweaking.

Eric

jeztek@jps.net

[archiver]

Posted by Andrew Trax, Coach on team #180, S.P.A.M., from Southfork,Martin Co. High and UTC.

Posted on 5/4/99 3:44 AM MST


In Reply to: Three-team alliances? posted by Eric on 5/3/99 11:19 PM MST:



Unless there were some rule mandating a minimum number of games played rather than
just on the bench, like Little League, some teams would spend very little, if any,
time on the field. Imagine being on a team with a not so great robot and
watching rather than playing. That would be heartbreaking. I'd rather lose
than not try.
But there's no saying what will happen in the future. They may come up
with a game that puts three or more on a alliance AND on the field.

[archiver]

Posted by Dodd Stacy, Engineer on team #95, Lebanon Robotics Team, from Lebanon High School and CRREL/CREARE.

Posted on 5/4/99 8:05 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: Three-team alliances? posted by Andrew Trax on 5/4/99 3:44 AM MST:



I kind of like the possibilities of fielding alliance teams of 3, 4, maybe up to 6 'bots all playing at once on a bigger field. Does anyone know a reasonable limit on the number of separate RC systems that could operate in this context without significant interference problems?

Dodd

[archiver]

Posted by Joe Johnson, Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 5/4/99 7:00 PM MST


In Reply to: RC Limitations? posted by Dodd Stacy on 5/4/99 8:05 AM MST:



I think that FIRST has 24 channels that they use for the RNET's but I think that that is just a limit they have imposed upon themselves.

If we want to go to some other type of spead spectrum wireless lan type system, I think we could expand to as many robots as we could practically fit in a gym.

The folks at NUWC have proposed going to a wireless ethernet type card. The bandwidth on such a system would allow much more interesting control schemes as well.

Joe J.

[archiver]

Posted by Joe Johnson, Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 5/4/99 7:45 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Three-team alliances? posted by Andrew Trax on 5/4/99 3:44 AM MST:



Good Idea.

I tried to get some comments on a similar proposal about a week ago.

No takers.

Maybe folks didn't see it.

Joe J.

P.S. I think I will post it again, but as a new thread.