Re: What we learned from week 1
 

(This was originally Dustin's idea)

I humbly suggest to the GDC that a tape square connecting the four legs of the pyramid be added to the field, and G30 be re-defined such that when any part of a robot is on/inside the tape line, it gets G30 protection. It is WAY easier for the referees, drive teams, and the audience to see whether a robot is touching something on the floor plane than a pyramid with more complex 3D geometry.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

While this is a good idea. It is currently unfair to the teams that specifically made design choices knowing that lining up against the side of a pyramid to shoot from was not going to be an easy task. By adding the take you've taken the difficulty of getting into the safe zone out of the equation.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

I'm not sure if GDC intended for it to be difficult to get into the safe zone though. It currently is really tough to tell when G30 is violated. When I look back at our quarterfinals matches at palmetto, there are multiple infractions of G30, but it's definitely hard to tell and I almost can't blame the refs for not catching them. There needs to be an easier way to catch G30 infractions, or add the tape around the pyramid.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

This is what happened in Finals Match 2 at Traverse City. 2474 was in contact with the pyramid and in the process of shooting when they were hit 4 times by an opponent. The contact was deemed consequential, and we were awarded 4 technical fouls. The final score of 184-90 included 80 penalty points (too bad we couldn't have run that up without them...).

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Yes, this is true. But it makes G30 calls a lot easier to see while not invalidating anyone's design (besides, robots with soccer flags or similar to align to the sides of a pyramid have a second advantage: a mechanical aid or visual fiducial to help aim their shots).

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

I imagine G27 and G30 are topics that will be on the conference call, as well as the frisbee counters (I think by Championships they will have to pause play because there is a good chance all 28 frisbees at the start of the game could easily find their way in and near the goals during auton by then) and other fun things.

For now, I suggest this to teams. There are driver meetings at events. Sometimes there are 2 or more. Bring up both rules and associated crucial Q&As. Have the drive coach keep certain rules on their person at all times in the form of an index card to quote while in the yellow box(something I intended to do last year, didn't and lost a crucial match because I couldn't cite the rule). Make very obvious contact pieces on your robot like brightly colored "bunny ears" or flashing lights denoting contact with the pyramid, which will also help you with lining up the robot. Keep everyone honest, including yourselves.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Looking at the long run for FIRST I am extremely excited in how this year is going. As others said, the playing field is leveled and this is an important step in making FIRST a much more teamwork driven, competitive spectator sport. Now teams have to scout, and clever game-day strategy can trump superior robot design. FIRST isn't only about the robot, and this change can foster better teamwork and make FIRST even more exciting. No one wants to see a match where 3 bots work and of those only 2 score. A match of 6 robots, with different skill levels (like in the elimination matches of previous years) is a lot more exciting than a match where the outcome can be predetermined by robot design.

Some teams have expressed disappointment in thinking their specialized design (e.g, 30 point climb + 20 point dump) has turned out less effective than they thought. This is a product of what I see as a move towards teamwork driven competition. A fully autonomous climb, while a feat of engineering, is not the best team player. Teams with these kinds of robots will need to focus on clever team matchings (macro-strategy?) rather than in-game strategy (micro-strategy?). This reflects another aspect of this years game: trying to stop teams from being able to do everything. I think some teams are having trouble adjusting. This year (for the vast majority of teams) the winning alliances will not be composed of robots that can do everything. Now, regardless of which strategy you pick (climb, close shooter, ground pickup, etc), you can still contribute to an alliance.

However, something that may not be as obvious is the effect of this on team sustainability. Beneath the obvious reasons for loss of teams (money, mentorship, resources) lies a more fundamental and psychological factor of sustainability: Team morale. I suspect many new teams that come into the competition unable to compete become so discouraged that they don't want to come back next year. For newer teams (mine included) qualification matches became a game of chance: we would scan the match schedule in the hopes of being paired with a team that could actually score. This left much of my team discouraged, and many of our members quit. This applies to many newer teams. An encouraged team that comes into the competition able to contribute to their alliance is much more likely to be determined to become better. In order to become better they will then seek fundraising and professional mentors. Making a game where an alliance of rookie teams could work together and defeat a veteran team through strong teamwork and preparation could help solve the sustainability issue in FIRST on a psychological level, and without the need to invest millions in sustaining grants to discouraged teams.

A change is coming, and everyone, veteran teams included need to be conscious of it. Those that rely too much on robot design and not enough on teamwork may find themselves performing worse in this year than in others.

EDIT: I need to work on concise writing.... o.o

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

1) The floor pickup during autonomous is huge. I definitely think you will see at least one team on every championship alliance with this capability. This past weekend at Hub City we were up against 1986 in the semi-finals. When they single-handily rain 42 pts in 15 seconds right above your head there is a psychological impact not to mention the 24 pts you need to make up.

2) Defense is huge. Fast <30" robots can significantly slow down the shooters. At Hub City, I was really surprised to see 1801 slip through the cracks until the #1 1986 alliance got them on their 3rd pick. If anything the other alliances needed a defensive robot like this to beat 1986. During one of the qualification matches I saw 1986 either stopped or running for their lives when 1801 was playing defense against them. They were still able to get to/from the feeder station but their cycles times were significantly extended. I'll bet they were pretty darn happy to have them on their alliance instead be playing against them during the elimination rounds.

3) I wish there was a little more point incentive to go for the top climb. 10, 20, 40 pts like last year's bridge would be great. It's a huge risk and hard to do... it deserves a special bonus. It's also a huge crowd pleaser... the whole stadium gets loud and lights up when a team is going for it. I think the 30 pt climbs will become more important as the season progresses but you have to do it fast or it's not worth it.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Scoring is very fair this year. Not nearly as one sided as years like 2007.

When I did the averages, they came out to be around 19 pts in Auton, 19 pts in Tele, and 16 pts in climbing per alliance.

I suppose this could be improved slightly by finding a way to increase climbing scores just a hair, and the way to do this may be increasing to 10, 20, 40 like others have suggested. But eliminating the 10pt climb will drop that average down severely, and raising the 10pt to something else will raise the average severely too.

I don't expect these scores to change too much. Comparing to years like 2008 where every method of point scoring was viable and would win you regionals (see 148), there was absolutely no change in scores from week 1 to week 6.

Last year, as more and more teams began balancing, the scores went up 33% from week 1 to week 6 but I don't see more teams climbing to 30 because of one fact. About half the teams I've seen climb, climb on the inside or would be hindered by a robot climbing on the inside. At champs, yeah I bet we'd see 3 corner climbers. At regionals, I don't expect it to be as prevalent and teams will continue to pick robots for their shooting ability, not their preferred climbing area. Especially since their aren't enough climbers to guarantee a climbing alliance.

If there is an increase in scores, it'll be because of more 10 pt hangers, or robots perfecting their shooting and finding those sweet spots.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

We would prefer to call it running to the open lane. :D

This.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

What 1712 learned:

1) If you can't score in autonomous, you won't get picked.
2) Remember to adjust your arm counterweight after you remove weight from your arm
3) It's hard to change and test code in the district format. Just not enough time between matches and it takes too long to deploy to the cRIO.
4) It's really easy to play smart and effective defense.
5) Most teams do not play smart and effective defense.
6) It doesn't take very long to hang for 10, but it takes a while to reposition after a botched hang.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Agreed. The first time I saw them do that, I was in total awe. I could not believe they pulled it off. Again, congratulations to 1405, 3003 and 1559, but watching 48 shut down 1559 was super amazing.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

I don't see the problem here.

As I can see it, the pyramid was clearly intended to be a protected part of the playing field, in the same way that the bridges and key were last year. When speaking with our partners and drivers at the last event, we always played the game as if this were true. Once a team got close to their pyramid, you back off and let them on their way regardless of if they were touching the pyramid or not. What is touching from one angle may not appear to be touching from another (witnessed this first hand) and that is due to the structure of the pyramid.

With all of that being said, all the tape would do is give observers, referees, drive teams, scouts, etc a good way to tell if a robot is in the protected zone defined by the pyramid. I don't see how this hurts anyone's design decisions because if you designed a robot to play any aspect of the game that involves the pyramid (which every robot does at some point) you'll benefit from the pyramid being defined by tape on the floor instead of the physical structure.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Currently, to be in the safe zone you must be touching the pyramid. Lining up to shoot and also making sure you are touching the pyramid is much harder than just driving up close to the pyramid and aiming.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Pretty sure it is quite easy to drive up to the pyramid, touch it, aim, and fire all in less than a second. It just depends where on the pyramid you are trying to touch/shoot from.