Re: true, but I dunno...
 

Posted by Marc DeSchamp.

Other on team #125, someone who remembers Ramp N Roll, from Northeastern University and Textron Systems with the kids from Boston Latin School, Brookline High, and Milton Academy.

Posted on 1/12/2000 3:06 PM MST


In Reply to: true, but I dunno... posted by Daniel on 1/12/2000 2:53 PM MST:



I agree with you on some points, but at the same time I keep remembering the days of Ramp N Roll where the Tide robot would come out of the game with a score of 130+ points in a game where the scoring went by twos and threes. The excitement level was there for the whole time. But not all of the teams scored that high..... Some teams scored only twice in the game and played defense (much like what happens in alot of professional sports, either by accident or by design).
There weren't all that many slaughters that I remeber from that game, and it was always fun to see a team come back from being down by 30 points to even it up in the last few seconds. The upsets still occured, but they were achieved through skillfull driving, as opposed to luck (not to say that people don't work hard now). And even in a game where you can lose it all at the last minute, there are still matches that it hurts to watch (some 540 point victories by Clinton/Nypro spring to mind :-).
I think you're right about there being a 'happy medium.' Maybe an additively scoring game with lower scores (like hockey or baseball). Who knows? Maybe that's what's on the plate for next year.....

Re: what about....
 

Posted by Fran .

Other on team #166, Team Merrimack, from Merrimack High School and Unitrode/R.S. Machines.

Posted on 1/12/2000 9:34 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: true, but I dunno... posted by Marc DeSchamp on 1/12/2000 3:06 PM MST:



what about the good/bad luck of the old days...lets face it , if u got seeded with weak teams it was a hollow victory or slaughtered by getting put with the top team and don't forget the placebo...you were lucky to only face 1 robot....alliances at least minimize the luck in my eyes...there's 2 to battle the big tough guy ..

I always thought everyone was supposed to only work on there robot from scratch during the 6 weeks...not tweak all year or use the same drive trains......but that must be for those who like to solve problems not just win win win!

Fran
Team 166




: I agree with you on some points, but at the same time I keep remembering the days of Ramp N Roll where the Tide robot would come out of the game with a score of 130+ points in a game where the scoring went by twos and threes. The excitement level was there for the whole time. But not all of the teams scored that high..... Some teams scored only twice in the game and played defense (much like what happens in alot of professional sports, either by accident or by design).
: There weren't all that many slaughters that I remeber from that game, and it was always fun to see a team come back from being down by 30 points to even it up in the last few seconds. The upsets still occured, but they were achieved through skillfull driving, as opposed to luck (not to say that people don't work hard now). And even in a game where you can lose it all at the last minute, there are still matches that it hurts to watch (some 540 point victories by Clinton/Nypro spring to mind :-).
: I think you're right about there being a 'happy medium.' Maybe an additively scoring game with lower scores (like hockey or baseball). Who knows? Maybe that's what's on the plate for next year.....

Re: Declawed games
 

Posted by Justin.

Other on team Blue Lightning Alum from RWU sponsored by FIRST-A-holics Anonymous.

Posted on 1/12/2000 2:39 PM MST


In Reply to: Declawed games posted by Marc DeSchamp on 1/12/2000 11:04 AM MST:



Hello All,

Marc, I do have to say that you hit a lot of how I've been viewing FIRST recently right on the head. However the reference to people getting mangled in industrial machinery was a bit much...your message would have garnered more respect if you had maintained some in it.

That being said let me explain why I agree with Marc. In recent times there has been a great deal of talk about gracious professionalism. It is evident that many believe this is the core principle upon which FIRST was founded. However as I recall FIRST was about creating an _competive_ sports-like event that exposed high school kids to engineering. As I recall the concept of gracious professionalism was added later. Now I'm not bashing gracious professionalism I think it's a good philosophy. However like everything I think that it has a place and I believe that place is off the field. Now this doesn't mean I want to turn FIRST into a Robot Wars either, I happen to feel there is a lot more fun in competeting in a game rather then just beating up on the other guy.

FIRST is a competition, a competition is meant to be competative. Life is not fair we all know this. My point is that when the arm breaks on a machine the team should not blame that on FIRST or the game and say that the game wasn't fair because their arm broke. There is a legal concept called assumption of risk. This clause protects for example the NBA from being sued when a player is hurt playing basketball. By steping on to the court the player acknowledged that there was risk involved in playing the game and accepted the liablity for themselves. Yes it inhales audibly when a robot gets broken but we can't blame that on FIRST or the game. There is a certian assumption of risk taken when fielding a robot.

For the record I do think that the days of Hexagon Havoc were much more intense, but I'm not going to bash FIRST for lessening the intenseness. Perhaps a lot of it has to do with rookie and verteran teams. Veteran teams know how to build a strong robot that can take a lickin' and keep on tickin' (not that there aren't rookies capable of this). Rookie teams may not be as prepared and may not have the resources to build that kind of machine. I realize this is a second issue all together but I was talking to on of my former teachers and we were debating the concept of having a class structure within FIRST. Class L FIRST so to speak where the veterans would compete and a different class for the rookies??

Good Luck to all this year,

Justin

Kicking a dead horse but what the heck...
 

Posted by Paul Donovan.

Coach on team #296, Northern Knights, from Loyola High School and Arial Systems and Nortel Networks.

Posted on 1/12/2000 9:38 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Declawed games posted by Justin on 1/12/2000 2:39 PM MST:





I think you have touched upon a significant issue here. I can understand why some of the vetran teams may feel somewhat frustrated, but I think if you put it in perspective it may be easier to swallow. We have a similar debate every year in our football league. Some teams have greater resources than others - more practice time, more money for coaches, more experience etc. They naturally become stronger teams, and those who don't have the capacity to match resources want to do one of two things:
1- Regulate what resources are allowable to make it a fair, competitative league OR
2- Force the stronger teams into a league of their own.
Neither is acceptable to the STRONGER teams because they feel they would be scaling down in the first case and in the second case the fewer number of teams would make the league less fun.

The problem is, you can't have it both ways. If expansion is desired then regulation is required.(How's that for poetry) It gives all teams a more competative league. If the 'level' of play is the concern, then the elite teams need to accept a much smaller competition and less expansion. FIRST desires expansion - the huge numbers are a big part of the fun and excitement. The massive effort to organize the events makes much more sense when more kids and companies are reached by it. I think FIRST does a great job thinking up contests that produce exciting matches for ALL teams without taking too much away from the stronger teams and robots. (the weak & mediocre teams also get paired with weak robots and no-shows)
As for the 'violence' regulations, to me that's a bit like football helmets and clipping penalties. They exist BECAUSE CONTACT IS DESIRED without destruction. (Were leather helmets and high-low blocks more exiting?) As the abilty to create 'super robots' increases, the need to 'protect' robots also increases.(Especially for the newer teams which gets us back to the previous argument)
Sorry for being so long winded - just thought I'd throw in my two cents.
Good luck to all!

HUH?!?!?!?
 

Posted by Andy Grady.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


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

Posted on 1/12/2000 7:18 PM MST


In Reply to: Declawed games posted by Marc DeSchamp on 1/12/2000 11:04 AM MST:



Wow, that is all I have to say. Im sorry but anyone who considers last years game 'wussy' must not have been watching the same game I was. Our robot came away from that competition with more dents and breaks from robot contact than any other of the robots that I have ever been a part of. I cant even count how many matches I saw last year, where the contact between robots was far greater than all the other years put together. And this year I am expecting it to be just as high contact as ever, why do you think FIRST added the ramp and pole. Sure the new point system may call for teams to score for each other now and then, but this game isn't Battlebots or Robot Wars, there is more to it than just beating the hell out of each other. Skill in using your mind in the heat of competition is a must, and yes there will be alot of brute force. As for alliances, sure I moaned about them a bit in the past, and my team was on the short end of a few small quirks in the system, but overall im glad they are back. It was a great pleasure to be able to meet different personalities from different teams all over, it really exemplified what this program is really about. Gracious Professionalism, teamwork, and creating enthusiasm about science and technology. But of course thats just my opinion :)
Good Luck All,
Andy Grady, DWC/Alvirne

Right on... & Predictions
 

Posted by Andy Baker.

Engineer on team #45, TechnoKats, from Kokomo High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 1/12/2000 8:44 PM MST


In Reply to: HUH?!?!?!? posted by Andy Grady on 1/12/2000 7:18 PM MST:



: Our robot came away from that competition with more
:dents and breaks from robot contact than any other of
:the robots that I have ever been a part of. I cant
:even count how many matches I saw last year, where
:the contact between robots was far greater than all
:the other years put together.

Exactly what I was thinkin', Andy. Team 42 could both dish out and take loads of punishment last year... that made the game more exciting, in my opinion.

For all of you who thinks that this year's game is tame... maybe you haven't noticed the bigger field. Bigger field = more room for acceleration = more speed. I have a few predictions due to this increase in space:
....1. Robots will get to over 10 mph.
....2. Robots will go airborne.
....3. Robots will break into two separate pieces:
.........a. one part hanging
.........b. one part lying on the floor, 15 ft. away

Maybe some will call it a 'wussy' game, but I don't think so. This will be a game of velocity, momentum, and robust design.

Andy B.

only 15 feet?
 

Posted by Daniel.

Coach on team BORG (Berkeley Operational Robotics Group) from Berkeley High School sponsored by (working on the sponsor, too).

Posted on 1/13/2000 2:23 AM MST


In Reply to: Right on... & Predictions posted by Andy Baker on 1/12/2000 8:44 PM MST:



I agree with Andy very much. Here's the kicker:

In year's past, balls or tubes (or whatever) were the only 'points' on the playing field. Starting last year, FIRST introduced a new concept -- robots ARE points. A robot on the puck, or a robot on the bar is a large (in fact the largest) addition to a team's score. Now lets translate this: you pretty much have a bounty on your head. Now we all know this caused havoc in old westerns, and I have seen and expect that it will cause havoc in competition as well. Last year was by no means a 'tame' competition. I saw no bunnies hopping through fields of grass. These rules are just to teach us when shoving is appropriate and when it's not. Expect king of the hill this year.

It's gonna be brutal.

-DL

Agressive is a strategy
 

Posted by Andy Grady.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


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

Posted on 1/13/2000 9:24 AM MST


In Reply to: Right on... & Predictions posted by Andy Baker on 1/12/2000 8:44 PM MST:



Andy Baker will be one of the first to tell you that agressive is not just in the game, its in the strategy. I will use the technocats robot as an example. Their design last year was built for agressive play and in almost all their matches that is what you got, (my team knows this because we had some great agressive matches against them). It was a rugged machine and their arm was used for many very tough purposes, including stiffarming other robots and jamming towers. There are many teams who decide not to be agressive, but instead passivly go for points...that is a choice of strategy and is not the game's fault. Maybe the reason why the game appears wussy is because teams are being more careful how they approach the game. If you want to see a more agressive game in the future, don't ask FIRST to change their games, ask the other teams to be more agressive on the field.

Suppose
 

Posted by Tom Wible.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


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

Posted on 1/13/2000 9:52 AM MST


In Reply to: Agressive is a strategy posted by Andy Grady on 1/13/2000 9:24 AM MST:



Suppose a robot which composed of nothing more than a battering ram on wheels was used to clear the ramp, would that be considered intentionally damaging other robots? Or would it be considered part of gaining control of the ramp? I think FIRST has made it CLEAR that this would be acceptable by stating that robots need to be made robust enough to withstand vigorous interaction, and recommending bumpers for avoiding damage. DAMAGE DAMAGE DAMAGE !!! Can you say ROBOT WARS?

Tom Wible
Team #131

Re: HUH?!?!?!?
 

Posted by Samuel Lindhorst.

Engineer on team #240, Mach Vee, from Jefferson High School and Visteon.

Posted on 1/13/2000 10:53 AM MST


In Reply to: HUH?!?!?!? posted by Andy Grady on 1/12/2000 7:18 PM MST:



We were rookies last year, but we understood enough reading the rules to understand we had to build the thing tough. At the nationals, we lifted with a competor trying to tear our lift system apart, and he came pretty close, but we had enough to withstand it. We had far more powerful robots throw us around, kick us off the puck, try to tip us over by grabing our top mast and pulling for all it was worth (see kids what a low CG gets you!), and basically just tried to survive out there some rounds. More than once I was thankful we built it low and heavy, with welded steel angle.

We did get a few licks in too, but really taking the punishment is more important in getting a score than being the junkyard dog, especially one that only dishes it out and can't take it. More so this year, as Daniel says below the post, it's going to be brutal, and I agree. Around that hill, you better be ready to hang there and get hit incredibly hard.

Your comments puzzle me, all the older teams I talked to commented on how physical last year's game had become.

Maybe you need to get out of New England and come on over to Ypsilanti for the little love-fest we have there. The teams are great, all the usual tool-borrowing and techinical advising, excited kids and screaming parents are there, but when Woodie steps out of the ring things get pretty rude, pretty fast and you had better come prepared. We'll kiss and make up afterwards, and lend you tools to fix the damage. :o)

Sam

Re: HUH?!?!?!?
 

Posted by Andy Grady.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


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

Posted on 1/13/2000 4:07 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: HUH?!?!?!? posted by Samuel Lindhorst on 1/13/2000 10:53 AM MST:




Sam Wrote:
'Maybe you need to get out of New England and come on over to Ypsilanti for the little love-fest we have there. The teams are great, all the usual tool-borrowing and techinical advising, excited kids and screaming parents are there, but when Woodie steps out of the ring things get pretty rude, pretty fast and you had better come prepared. We'll kiss and make up afterwards, and lend you tools to fix the damage. :o)'

Not to down play all the Michagan teams, i know you can get pretty rough, but we practically invented the idea of agressive play here in New England :)
Good Luck,
Andy Grady, DWC/Alvirne

Re: HUH?!?!?!?
 

Posted by Samuel Lindhorst.

Engineer on team #240, Mach Vee, from Jefferson High School and Visteon.

Posted on 1/14/2000 3:59 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: HUH?!?!?!? posted by Andy Grady on 1/13/2000 4:07 PM MST:



: Not to down play all the Michagan teams, i know you can get pretty rough, but we practically invented the idea of agressive play here in New England :)

Oooooohhhhhh. :) I see. I guess I can understand why if play is that tough in New England why you might want to stay home. :O)

We have a few inventions of our own here in the Midwest. For example, when we were bored on Sundays, we invented the NFL.

: Good Luck,
: Andy Grady, DWC/Alvirne

You too, and have a great year... :o)

Sam Lindhorst, JHS & Visteon

Re: Declawed games
 

Posted by Justin Ridley.

Engineer on team #221, MI Roboworks, from Michigan Technological University.

Posted on 1/12/2000 7:29 PM MST


In Reply to: Declawed games posted by Marc DeSchamp on 1/12/2000 11:04 AM MST:



I agree with you that they have been in a sence 'declawing' the games a bit. Some of it
is bad, but some of it is very very good. I think it's absolutely wonderful that someone
can't just run up to my robot while I'm just sitting there raised up 8 feet and tip me over
maliciously. I agree your robot should be robust, but robust or not if you take a tumble
while extended 8 feet something is gonna break. And to see something you've put
your heart and soul into for 6 weeks break is a bit different than 'breaking a nail'. Now I
will admit, I don't like the bumper idea either, nor do I like the scoring system at all, and
I agree with many of your points concerning those. But it'll make this years game pretty
interesting and adds a new level of strategy. While there's stuff that we don't like,
somethings FIRST has changed has made the game much better and I don't think it's
any less exciting. I'd like the fact that full contact is legal and robots can do things to
stop others from scoring points, but certain things such as intentionally flipping a robot
in open field does just not belong in the FIRST competition. And one other thing. .
.seeing someone's robot 'getting mangled' is not interesting, it's down right horrible.

Re: Declawed games
 

Posted by Isaac Onigman.

Student from Rochester Institute of Technology sponsored by Blue Lightning and First-a-holics Anonymous.

Posted on 1/12/2000 7:53 PM MST


In Reply to: Declawed games posted by Marc DeSchamp on 1/12/2000 11:04 AM MST:



: Am I the only one out there who thinks the games have been getting increasingly wussy
: as the years go by? What ever happened to the good old days of tipping, beating,
: bashing, and scoring as many points as you could in two minutes? ( SNIP! )
: All in all, I think that, over the last few years, the competitions have been getting more
: and more tame. This last act has simply served to completely 'declaw' the competition
: as we know it. I have seen the game go from the rough and tough Ramp N Roll,
: Hexagon Havoc, and Toroid Terror (note the exciting sounding names), to the softer
: and cushier Ladder Logic, and Double Trouble (which soud more like events on the
: Price is Right than anything else), and now this. Well, I don't know what kind of strategy
: FIRST's design guys are employing, but I hope they realize soon that it stinks.

(Dons asbestos bodysuit)
While I can't agree with everything that you've said in your remarks, I can agree with you that somehow, I feel that the games over the past few years have gotten 'cushier and cushier' The game with the floppies, well... that was just floppy :-S Seriously. The variety has been good, but the points of the games and the scoring methods have been decreasing in pleasentness for me. I always thought that the additive scoring was great, just like soccer, football, baseball, basketball, you name it. Instead, we have to determine the score of the entire two minutes, literally, in some cases in the last 5 seconds of the match, which I don't think is really fair. It takes the element of speed and skill out of the game, and leaves it almost entirely to luck. But that's Me.

Games are easy as you make them
 

Posted by colleen.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Other on team #246, a FIRST-aholic, from John D. O'Byrant High School/Boston Latin Academy/Madison HS and NSTAR/Boston University/Wentworth Institute of Technology/MassPEP.

Posted on 1/12/2000 9:00 PM MST


In Reply to: Declawed games posted by Marc DeSchamp on 1/12/2000 11:04 AM MST:



I haven't gotten the chance to read all the posts.. but really skimmed all of them and get the jist.

Basically, consider something-

FIRST has brought in gracious professional as a way to serparate the competition from, persay, RobotWars..

It's not a game of destruction.

But I must agree with Andy from DWC.. last year's 'wussy' game saw our robot take harder shots, lose more chunks of wood, and feel more pain..

However, contrary to past years, it was the only year our robot didn't have parts fall off because of those hits or be immobilized in any matches by other robots..

Reason-being? Many teams didn't concentrate on building a robot that was defensive but rather one that could win (a mainly offensive robot, even some changed perspective during competition, e.g. removing baskets or scoring devices)..

The best defense is an unbeatable offense

The game's rules may have got 'wussy', but the quality of the game and it's difficulty lies in strategy.. it's how your team plays the game that determine's it's *wussy-ness*.. it can be made hard or it can be easy.. it's all about how you play the game..

Remember.. FIRST makes certain rules and can choose to what high and detailed extent to which they enforce them.. gracious professionalism is presented to us as a way for FIRST to not have to make the tough decisions on rules..

bumpers i think are to help the rookies.. not everyone knows how to play rough, or has the resources and experience to fix on the fly.. it'll help ease the learning process..

don't forget.. bumpers aren't required.. if you think their wussy.. don't have them..

good luck
colleen

(i don't mean to be short and maybe sound mean but it's late.. i'm tired..)