Chief Delphi

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   General Forum (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Team Update 1-15-2013 (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=111324)

falconmaster 16-01-2013 10:39

Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 
I am very upset with this recent rule change. A rule change like this shakes the confidence teams have in FIRST. I though about this all last night. My team has spent a tremendous amount of time to make a climbing mechanism that fit the previous rules to find out that all this time was for nothing. I can see teams being more timid in the future because of this kind of action. Its not professional and looks like they had not put much thought into it. This climbing task is one of the most complicated ones that FIRST has asked us to do and playing with the rules concerning this is very frustrating. I understand that sometimes mistakes happen, but sometimes adjustments need to be made for those mistakes on both sides. Flexibility in the rules would seem to be the best solution rather than the hard steadfast "this is our rule" approach. I, however, am not paid the "big bucks" so my opinion may be wrong but it doesn't feel right to me. If I made a mistake and people suffered because of it and I wanted to keep the integrity of the game I would compromise for the good of the order. As Spock said "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one". Spock may not be real but his quote sounds good to me. My team now is redesigning possible new solutions, and will be buying or making new parts because that's life, such that it is........

Taylor 16-01-2013 10:39

Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 
1. This change is in direct contrast not only to the rules but several Q&A responses. Why the contradiction?
2. I don't buy the "enforceable" argument - this program is built on implied compliance. Example: bag n tag.
3. I really really hope TU4 says robots contacting pyramid can be either/or.

Gregor 16-01-2013 11:21

Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tem1514 Mentor (Post 1216476)
Given that the rules for the game have changed may be, just may be the GDC will extend the bag date by 10 days.

We could only hope for a dream to come true..

I really doubt it. Refer to Tristan's post about game changes midway through the season. Some were arguably more of a change than this, and there was no build season extention.

Trent B 16-01-2013 11:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by rsegrest (Post 1216389)
Which is exactly where we were.

"...I get the feeling the kids won't be very phased tomorrow"

I'm not so sure I agree with you. For my small town team who just started getting noticed by the corporations (think funding) we have been courting for 6 years we were looking forward to possibly the best robot we have ever built/designed. We have (had) a corner climbing bot that we belived would be among the best climbers out there...now? Who knows what we will do until the team meets this evening. With limited engineering resources and funding this has the potential to hurt the morale of more than you may think. Frankly I know it has damaged mine. :(

Neutrino got burned on their design last year when the definition of the bridge was changed late last year. This is early by comparison. That's the reasoning behind Aren's remark.

Brian Selle 16-01-2013 11:39

Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 
This rule change completely invalidates our climbing concept. Countless hours of design, money spent on parts, fabrication started on a drivetrain, all for nothing. The rug has just been pulled out from under our feet. Simply demoralizing.

It's great to hear that the change helps some teams, but seriously... teams that have been following the rules and the spirit of the game are now being punished? It goes beyond reason. The only reasonable and fair way to change this rule is make it more inclusive (cylinder in any orientation, or vertical/robot oriented team's choice). I hope GDC reconsiders this change and/or clarifies the definition of relative to the ROBOT to be more inclusive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by falconmaster (Post 1216479)
A rule change like this shakes the confidence teams have in FIRST.

Couldn't agree more.

wireties 16-01-2013 11:53

Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by btslaser (Post 1216518)
This rule change completely invalidates our climbing concept. Countless hours of design, money spent on parts, fabrication started on a drivetrain, all for nothing. The rug has just been pulled out from under our feet. Simply demoralizing.


Same here - our mechanism must be re-positioned and our frame changed. This was a big oversight! Arghhhh...

pntbll1313 16-01-2013 12:25

Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 
This rule change may be because it was difficult to enforce the previous one, but it certainly wasn't impossible. We are engineers, and if you are building your robot fit inside a vertical cylinder you probably can find a way to prove that it resides in it. I know they aren't set up for it but maybe there are autonomous ways to call violations of this rule. Four cameras mounted far above the pyramids with a little logic to determine if there is a 54" violation? Maybe that's just a dumb idea I thought of while writing this response but I do think it could be enforced. I know someone could think of a way. Just because it would be difficult to do so is something is a reason they should have thought about before releasing the rules, or the Q&A, or the second Q&A...

Siri 16-01-2013 12:56

Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by pntbll1313 (Post 1216551)
This rule change may be because it was difficult to enforce the previous one, but it certainly wasn't impossible. We are engineers, and if you are building your robot fit inside a vertical cylinder you probably can find a way to prove that it resides in it. I know they aren't set up for it but maybe there are autonomous ways to call violations of this rule. Four cameras mounted far above the pyramids with a little logic to determine if there is a 54" violation? Maybe that's just a dumb idea I thought of while writing this response but I do think it could be enforced. I know someone could think of a way. Just because it would be difficult to do so is something is a reason they should have thought about before releasing the rules, or the Q&A, or the second Q&A...

Exactly. They did think about it on the Q&A...and ruled in exactly the opposite direction. <Q106> The potential for a ROBOT to violate [G23] will be assessed at Inspection per [R03]. During a MATCH, Referees will call infractions to the best of their abilities. It is in the Team's best interest to minimize any ambiguity during game play.
If you're not sure it'll work, at least don't answer the question until you're clear. They answered related Q&As multiple times (I count 4). I'm not convinced enforcement is the reason behind this change.

If anyone's interested, Q188 is requesting a rationale (as nicely as I could think of) for G23-1. We'll see how much trouble it gets me in--though they have offered explanations in the past.

PVCpirate 16-01-2013 13:04

Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tem1514 Mentor (Post 1216476)
Given that the rules for the game have changed may be, just may be the GDC will extend the bag date by 10 days.

We could only hope for a dream to come true..

They can't, at least not by that much. Week 1 regionals start on the 28th, which is 9 days after stop-build day. I would say the Monday of that week would be the latest they could move it to, but I don't think it will happen.

rsegrest 16-01-2013 13:08

Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Siri (Post 1216568)
If anyone's interested, Q188 is requesting a rationale (as nicely as I could think of) for G23-1. We'll see how much trouble it gets me in--though they have offered explanations in the past.

Ummm...maybe I'm missing something but I cannot find Q188 (and yes I have searched the latest Q&A pdf). What does Q188 refer to if you don't mind?

Note: Nevermind...just realized that Q188 is asking for rationale not giving one... *slapping forehead*...

engunneer 16-01-2013 13:10

Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 
I don't think they will change it again at this point. These seem to be the available options:

Revert the rule to pre TU3. This would create massive confusion and would shake confidence more.

Leave as is. This would only create moderate confusion (the is no confusion-less model at this point). This is the most enforcable, and likely way.

Allow teams to choose which version to use. This is the hardest to enforce but easier on teams. How will the refs keep track of what team on the field uses which cylinder orientation?

Remove horizontal restrictions when climbing ( leave the 54" pyramid buffer). Hurts confidence and adds confusion, but not as much as reverting TU3.

Any other options?

I think they will leave it as is because they want to encourage climbing and not many teams could both climb and shoot well under pre-TU3 rules.

M. Mellott 16-01-2013 13:24

Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by falconmaster (Post 1216479)
Its not professional and looks like they had not put much thought into it.

In the past, IIRC, games were developed by the GDC later in the year, which meant that there was less time spent on the writing of the rules, and as such there were occational errors. We dealt with the grammar/spelling errors and moved on.

However, that was not the case here, correct? I believe this game was conceptualized and developed quite a while ago. So, in theory, they had a lot more time to develop the rules, critique them, re-write them, brain-storm ways teams could bypass the rules, re-re-write the rules, rinse, repeat, until they had an iron-clad document. The wonderful folks on the GDC are intelligent, experienced people, and they should know ways that teams think, and write rules that avoid ambiguity. They should never have had to make this big of a rule change had the rules been properly vetted, and it looks bad on their part.

AcesPease 16-01-2013 13:27

Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by engunneer (Post 1216582)
I don't think they will change it again at this point.

Remove horizontal restrictions when climbing ( leave the 54" pyramid buffer). Hurts confidence and adds confusion, but not as much as reverting TU3.


I find the wording of the update to be very confusing, to the point where it may be that what you suggested is what they meant. Sadly I thought the rule was pretty clear before this update.

Cal578 16-01-2013 13:51

Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by engunneer (Post 1216582)
I don't think they will change it again at this point. These seem to be the available options:

Revert the rule to pre TU3. This would create massive confusion and would shake confidence more.

Leave as is. This would only create moderate confusion (the is no confusion-less model at this point). This is the most enforcable, and likely way.

Allow teams to choose which version to use. This is the hardest to enforce but easier on teams. How will the refs keep track of what team on the field uses which cylinder orientation?

Remove horizontal restrictions when climbing (leave the 54" pyramid buffer). Hurts confidence and adds confusion, but not as much as reverting TU3...

I bolded the last option because I actually believe it's a good one. I don't think it would hurt confidence; it might restore some (it would for me, because it's more reasonable, and fair to teams that already had a workable design). It would not be very confusing, and easier to enforce.

It would be good to hear from some past inspectors and referees on the enforceability question.

chadr03 16-01-2013 14:48

Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Gregor (Post 1216443)
Hope you are including bumpers in that, seems a bit much.




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 23:19.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi