Re: 2013 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

Biggest problem this year? Low number of matches. DC we got 8 matches for 60 teams. There was simply no hustle. The ranking algorithm this year was quite decent but needs time to work. 8 matches meant we saw ~2/3 of the field. Champs was the same issue but instead of 2/3 of the field it was 40%. It also means your season is more or less at the mercy of the scheduling gods. This was compounded by the, as Jared put it, teams that weren't Championship caliber issue. I had matches at CMP where my partners put up a combined 6 discs. Is this a championship or is it an exhibition? If it's the former then we need to be a lot more selective.

Just tell me who to contact about it and we'll have them broadcast online (at least audio) and recorded to be posted online next year.

Re: 2013 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

I don't get how you can say that Hall of Fame status indicates ANYTHING about money, but it may be just me. Hall of Fame teams are such because of their efforts in raising awareness, transforming culture, and having such a HUGE impact on their local and global communities. Go to these hall of fame teams and talk to them about their programs, they don't let down!

Re: 2013 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

And if you'll notice, not a single 30 point climber was in the Finals on Einstein. Expanding it to division champions, only one team, 1640 Sa-BOT-age, was a 30 point climber. FIRST may dictate what point values are assigned in a game, but teams dictate what is the most effective method for scoring. a team's analysis of risk/reward for scoring dictates what's most effective for them to accomplish. Building a full scale pyramid is hard and it takes up a lot of space and have ideas on how we would re-do it if another challenge like it arises.

Point is, you don't necessarily have to build every single feature to build an effective robot. Listen to Karthik's conferences and monetary barriers cease to exist.

Re: 2013 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

Ugh, no.

Walking through the HoF area has always been the highlight of my championships for the last 10 years. I regret I didn't make it there this year.

Re: 2013 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

This is completely wrong. I took time to visit each and every one of the Hall of Fame teams and each of them have their own problems. Some even struggle to come to the championship each year. For example, the team that won in 2009 (I forget who they are) had an awesome robot with a 30 pt climber this year, but they worked in a small portable classroom where the ceiling was too low to set up a full sized tower. So, the team build a shorter version of a corner and were able to be successful without building a full tower at all. While it is true that many of the teams are well funded and have good resources, not all of the teams there are rich.

Re: 2013 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

Obviously not, but there still should not exist field elements which cannot be simulated by a team with limited funds. "Funds are easy to get" is not a valid excuse; like it or not, believe it or not, there are teams who do not have a large amount of resources, and placing the blame on them for having limited means rather than on FRC for designing field elements which can't be constructed without access to a metal shop with a skilled welder is nonsense. Having limited resources is a burden enough - you don't need to compound it by denying those teams the ability to accurately test their mechanisms, to boot.

Moreover, even with a fair amount of resources, the pyramid was a pain. We went to a full-sized practice field in Virginia about a week before build season ended, and even their professionally-made pyramid was having problems.

Re: 2013 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

You do realize that having limitations and learning and finding ways around those limitations is one thing the FIRST build/competition seasons are about, right?

Re: 2013 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

I'm getting conflicting messages here. Do you not want to recognize the teams who have made significant impacts in their communities (and regions, and continents, and the world...etc)? That's what the HoF does - it showcases the role model teams that have done more than just build a robot. I mean, I'm sure that these teams would continue to be inspirations without the recognition (it's not about the recognition, it's about the inspiration), but showcasing what they have done to promote STEM (and other values) in their communities adds another element of inspiration to aspiring teams. For instance, it's hard for someone on the east coast to know what the Holy Cows are doing without the recognition.

This has been beaten to death a million and a half times in many different ways (some teams can afford to travel/some cannot, some teams can afford multiple regionals/some cannot). I understand that not every team has the same opportunities for sponsors, but...simply playing the "it's not fair" card isn't going to help. Lower budget teams can have the same powerful machines as high budget teams, and money doesn't even guarantee that you'll have a perfect, game-winning robot - it's useless unless you know how to use it properly.
:deadhorse:

Also, you seemed to imply that HoF teams are just those with lots of money. I hope that I was reading that wrong, because that's simply not the case.

Re: 2013 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

The presense of teams like 341 and 359 that have the funds to do absolutely mind-boggling things doesn't strike me as "unfair" in the slightest, it pushes me to keep going harder than ever. But what I find truly impressive about many hall of fame teams is not just what they are doing now, but what they grew from, and often some of the limitations that they face even today. No matter how hard you work at obtaining resources, it's always possible to sit on your hands and complain that you don't have enough to make a difference, or to win against those that are a little better off. But so many teams find a way to do incredible things despite this. Team 1100 has been an inspiration to myself and many other teams over the years, precisely because of the incredible things you do on and off the field despite sometimes limiting resources, and I hope you and your teammates will continue to inspire us rather than demand those above you be brought down a notch.

Besides, there's an R in FIRST. Recognition. Should we be recognizing teams that go above and beyond, making the most of resources that they've gained through a combination of hard work and being at the right place at the right time, and doing incredible things that we should all be striving to emulate and exceed? I would sure hope so.

Re: 2013 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

A design challenge in which you don't know the parameters or can't test in them is a poor design challenge. I guess you could construe it as indicative of actual work environments, but it still doesn't make for particularly good game design. It doesn't help that it's far more of a burden for small teams than for large ones with lots of resources.

The thing is, FRC is usually very good about making their games accessible for teams with limited resources, be it rookie teams or veteran teams with difficult situations. That's what makes the pyramid this year so unusual, and it certainly ought to be brought to attention.

Edit: I apologize for the profanity.

Re: 2013 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

I know others have touched on it here and there, but the finale was an absolute disaster.

It worked fine in 2012 because there were multiple places for teams to go, so the load of people was distributed to a comfortable level. But packing all the teams into the Science Center like that? Just terrible.

Not only is it uncomfortable, and not fun for anybody, it's unsafe. People were getting bumped around and elbowed all over the place. Not to mention that the food (which was fantastic, and plentiful last year), was far less than what was needed for the volume of people at the event. We had to stop at a McDonalds down the highway just so our team members could get some dinner. We met up with team 303 there, and many of them expressed the same issues.

I heard there was talk of asking for our money back, and frankly, I'm for it.

Re: 2013 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

In what ways were design parameters of any part of this year's game not known? And I would love to show you teams that are small in many ways and yet still achieve just as much as larger teams do, but the list is far too large to put in a CD post.

Also, seeing as your rookie year was 2008, you havent been introduced to very large game components; even though you should remember the overpass from 2008. But even the year before you joined, 2007, had to be one of the worst game elements to make, the Spider. Our team had little resources back then to actually make one and yet if you didnt make one that year you pretty much could not make a working robot. Knowing what we had at our disposal, we constructed 1/4 of it and used it to the best of our abilities. You dont have to have a NASA facility to work at or the brightest GM mentors, all you have to do is use what resources you have to their peak efficiency.

Re: 2013 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

Exactly. We were fortunate enough to weld our own pyramid and had several teams take up our offer to use it, and yet we still found that virtually all of our consistency issues were due to its complexity (knuckle geometries) and cost (particularly the powder coat).

We should have planned for both better, and I certainly don't fault FIRST for that. What I dislike is that it moves the objective out of many creative and passionate teams' reach. Many such teams made the entirely correct Karthik-esque call: drop it and do what you can do well (that whole 10 units of robot awesomeness thing). Good on them, bad on FIRST for setting up a game that makes a potentially inspiring challenge so strategically unappealing to so many teams.

FIRST, please don't do that again.

Re: 2013 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

This. So much this. You said it better than I ever could have.

Re: 2013 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

While I am sure this has been addressed, I want to make sure it is mentioned. Camera angles. Right now, for those who don't know, the official streams involve zooming in on "exciting" parts of the match and displaying fully on the screen. While I understand FIRST is trying to make it viewer friendly, there are several flaws to this methodology. We can see them best by seeing why it is used in most sports and why.

• Baseball: used to follow the ball and to observe player stances (think pitcher) during stagnant periods of play. Note that camera often goes to a wide shot.
• Football: used heavily during replays and play analysis. Camera also follows ball at wide angle during play.
• Soccer: same as football
• Tennis: used between play to show players, neglected during play
• Swimming: used in replays, other than that FOV is kept in a position to keep all swimmers in view

Based on a very small sample size, it would appear that in order to avoid missing action, these sports give coverage of large portions of the field during action-packed moments, saving zoom-shots for after the play. Note that there are some differences between those sports and FRC, most notably the fans caring about 1/6th of the players much more than the other 5/6ths, and there being many game pieces.
THE SOLUTION:
Make the stream Michigan-style; fixed, full-field, top-down view of the game. If you HAVE to zoom in, save it for a separate stream and/or instant replays. And yes, instant replays would be AWESOME!!!

If I have one final note, it would be that getting matches up on an official youtube page would be very much appreciated! I am sure teams would love to help out, but the team-led coverage in Michigan is exceptional, and FIRST could use to learn from it.