Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

I apologize, I was under the misconception that it was illegal to put appendages into either low goal.

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

The balls bouncing out of the goals and some assists not being counted have to be the 2 biggest things out there so far. I have especially noticed that the assists that are left out most often are the third one of a cycle, at least it seemed to be the most prevalent.

I think it is true that a lot of teams look like they don't know what to do out there, but I think it already started to get much better by the end of the day. Keep in mind even for teams that practiced a ton before competition, they probably were not able to practice with 5 other robots running around the field getting in the way. This will take some time, like it does with every other game. I t is just more noticeable this year because there is only one game object. By the end of the day a lot of teams were really starting to learn how to trade off between dealing with the ball and playing defense effectively.

Also, while robot catching has not been prevalent due to the middle of the field often having complete chaos all over the place, throwing over the truss to the human player has been an extremely popular strategy and has been pretty effective in a lot of matches.

I think tomorrow will really give us a better idea of how this game can be played now that teams have gotten accustomed to the dynamic. We can't be too quick to judge about everything so quickly.

-Nick

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

G26-1
ROBOTS may not break the planes of the openings of the opponent’s LOW GOALS.

Violation: FOUL. If extended, strategic, or repeated, TECHNICAL FOUL.

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

At Central Illinois, the refs are not calling G3 when teams lose their bumpers. Considering it should be a foul and disabling the robot, this is a pretty big deal.

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

Robot parts left on the field seems to be called rather inconsistently. Sometimes it's a 20 point foul. Sometimes it's a 50 point technical foul. Seems REALLY harsh for such a violent game.

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

The fix was estimated even before week zero. I heard that given the number of fields it was estimated at over $60k. Where I totally agree something needs to be done, I also understand FIRST waiting to see how big of an issue it really was. However after week zero, and one day of qualifications, I think they have their answer.

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

- A beautifully flowing match (for at least 1 alliance) is such a rarity, but it wins matches by a landslide.
- Assist!
- Balls left over from auto are sometimes never scored, and this makes the audience cringe and makes you (probably :o) lose the match.
- Assists plus a fast 1-pointer are better than assist plus a slow/repeated-because-of-misses 10-pointer.
- I hope elims has filtered us down to the competent, so that a match might be a bit more exciting/high scoring.
- There have been matches where a single bot that can 10-point and knows what it is doing can win a match (no assists).

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

Is there a way to identify the "un-penalized" score for a match? Does the cumulative "TELEOP" score in the Team Standings on the FIRST website include penalties?

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

Teleop + Autonomous (hybrid) in the twitter feed.
FRCFMS

For example RTS +RHS = Red points scored

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

One thing I noticed that I dont understand at all is why the truss at the Southfield district does not have the vertical posts in line with the field boundary. I've seen at least two TRUSS scores be denied by the ball hitting those posts and bouncing backwards at other events. Why are MI teams playing on an altered field??

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

Short answers: Yes. Yes.

Break down the ways to score into Fouls, Auto, Assist, T&C, and Balls. From the FRC FMS, you have FP (Fouls), HS (Auto), and TS (Assist+T&C+Ball), so you can get unpenalised score from there. In the Standings, you have Assist, Auto, T&C and Teleop. Teleop includes every way to score not previously mentioned, so Teleop = Balls + Fouls. I've done basic comparisons between FMS and Standings pages, this analysis checks out.

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

I was told that the FTA said that during the driver's meeting, Southfield didn't receive them in their shipment from Manchester.

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

This. I expected a physical game, but wow, this reminds me of the years before bumpers.

I am surprised by the scores this early in the season. Teams are figuring out how to Truss + 2 Assist or to 3 Assist pretty quickly considering it's not even Saturday yet. I haven't seen a ton of matches today at CIR but it seemed like a good bot running single cycles was only effective very early in the day.

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

The last team needs to be entirely in a zone, if the robot is straddling between zones, it affects the assists.

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

This might be unpopular, but I don't think the bar behind the goal should be changed. When I first saw people posting about it, I pulled up the official drawings and found the part. If I was on a team, there's a decent chance I would have wanted to see exactly how the goal would look at competition, and at least try to adjust my shots accordingly. The rules also state that the ball must go through the goal and stay there to be scored. It's the same bar for everyone, and it was never a secret.

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

There are around 20 fields. I find it hard to believe FIRST couldnt find a solution under 3k/field.

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

I personally think this game will evolve well in the coming weeks. It is frustrating when there are issues early on that seem obvious to predict but they will most likely correct it enough to make it competitive in the coming weeks.

Unlike most people apparently, I have seen a decent amount of close games and they get very intense. Yes, endgames have some inherent excitement, but seeing frantic strategies develop to score quick points is something that seemed rare in close games in the past.

There was a pretty crazy ending at Central Illinois where the match was tied and both alliances inbounded their balls around the 7 sec mark. Red launched the truss shot first, got the 10 pts, and then the red ball collided with the blue ball on the other side of the truss, preventing blue from tying it up again.

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

I saw some close matches, Palmetto was usually pretty competitive, there was a nice buzzer-beater shot and a couple times where an alliance needed one last shot but couldn't score it. I think elims tomorrow will be fun:D

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

I agree with everyone else here that the issues of the balls bouncing out and the refs not catching all the assists and fouls is a big problem. With that said you need to have someone paying attention to the whole match so in case you lose for a reason you shouldn't have you can go and discuss it with the head ref.

Another pet peeve of mine for this year is seeing alliances playing matches with only two robots. This is totally unacceptable in my opinion. In past years you could get away with this because all you needed was one strong robot to win it. But now with the addition of assist points the third team is very vital which is why I believe that unless your robot is totally disabled and not even able to move, you HAVE to get your robot out to the field to help play defense and help in the assist process. Obviously this will not be such an issue come later weeks but to not go out for a qualification match at all just irritates me.

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

One question: Should referee scoring stations be positioned here, like in this image? http://i.imgur.com/Ufs5xZFl.jpg It honestly gets in the way of the Human Player.

This game is hard to play well. Given that powerhouses aren't setting the high scores, it's anyone's game IMO.

We'll see what inland looks like tomorrow. If you want a good webcast, check out citruscircuits.org/live Full HD, full field video! Hope you all like it!

-Mike

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

The refs have their work cut out for them this year! They said the scoring panel touchscreen icons have to be pushed several times to get it to respond, which is causing delays in the pedastal lighting up. Also they have to watch robot interactions on one side of the field and then quickly turn around to catch the start of the cycle on the other end. They say this is the hardest game they have had to ref so far. Some have been reffing for 6 years now. Hopefully everyone shows patience with them.

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

Great points Doug!

I wish we could just grab the ball, and refs would call a foul if it was too early. We have some great refs at IE, I really hope that translates to great matches!

-Mike

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

What I really don't get is teams clearing off missed auto balls. Is it really that hard to push a ball into the low goal? You don't even have to collect it, it can just be pushed!

Teams need to play in zones. There are so many times when I see two robots on the same alliance go after the ball. What should be happening (at least what I feel like) is that there should be one robot in each zone. Then when you don't have a ball you are playing zone defense.

By the way are we really going to ignore the fact that 148 and 624 got a the ball hot goal auto their first time up? I watched it on a webcast and it was the most intense action all day because of how close they were to missing/making it.

And how about those mecanum drives? Has any team really found it that much better? The ones that are going well are the drives with omni wheels. They are able to just spin out of there. Also I'm pretty sure most traction drives could push mecanum drives.

One last not. The less time that you have, the better. It means you are picking up the ball quick and racking up those assits. I saw several times were a team took a while to collect the ball, even more time ti get the ball stable on their robot just to miss a high goal.

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

Can confirm that panel response times aren't that great. In regards to the picture, I believe there is no actual protocol for where exactly the panel is supposed to.be placed...I had to move mine around multiple times during field reset just to avoid robots coming on/off from hitting it...

And since this may be a bit of a misconception, Refs do not determine assists. Only Zone Possessions.

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

148 and 624 put up 200

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

I'll first say that I empathize with the hard working volunteers and respect the work done by the FIRST organization to design all of the aspects of this game.

That said, I am pretty concerned about the pedestals not lighting, the assists not being awarded, and the excessive human player penalties. This game has a lot of potential, so I really hope those three major issues are addressed somehow.

Any alliance that gets eliminated this afternoon due to incorrect scoring after having clearly won on the field is going to be pretty crestfallen. It's a bit like scoring a touchdown, kicking the extra point, and kicking off to the other team, then receiving only four points put on the scoreboard. The scoring is certainly more complex than football, but when teams don't receive the correct points for their actions, the level of unfairness is the same in Aerial Assist as it is in football.

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

If the fix was estimated at $60K, then it was the wrong solution.

Slapping some plywood up there would fix things, but probably not provide the look FIRST is going for. A hundred feet of nylon rope wrapped around the rear two bars and secured with zip ties would solve the problem and not look too bad. Even 1/8" clear polycarbonate isn't that expensive.

But just shrugging your shoulders, giving up and doing nothing is unacceptable. This is an organization that is supposed to provide inspiration for kids to become engineers. Don't tell me that there isn't a simple, cheap way to solve this problem, because if our team were faced with a problem like this on our robot, we'd find one.

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

Some stats from the Twitter data for Friday's Qual matches:

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

Average scores with or without fouls?

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

All the stats labeled "scores" in the previous post are the final match scores, as in "Red Alliance won the match with a final score of 119 to 87"


Here are some additional stats:

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

Ether, how many matches do those statistics cover?

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

370 Qual matches, for:

ILIL
MICEN
MISOU
ONTO2
SCMB
TXSA
WAAMV

Friday Twitter data

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

Agreed.

I noticed this when we were practicing on the field here in Georgia (Thanks Walton). I suspect that FIRST knew about this and decided to leave it.

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

..and also decided to provide teams with instructions to build a field element that was substantively different than the real field?

I don't buy it. If the bar knocking balls out of the goal was meant to be part of the 'fun', that characteristic of gameplay should be present in the low-cost field parts.

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

Low cost fields always have 'differences'. This is a known byproduct of using different materials/designs and should be looked at before the competition.

Not sayin' it's right ... but it was in all the field drawings

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

Quick links to Week1 Match Results and Team Standings:

CASB Match Results
CASB Team Standings

ILIL Match Results
ILIL Team Standings

MICEN Match Results
MICEN Team Standings

MISOU Match Results
MISOU Team Standings

NHNAS Match Results
NHNAS Team Standings

ONTO2 Match Results
ONTO2 Team Standings

SCMB Match Results
SCMB Team Standings

TXSA Match Results
TXSA Team Standings

WAAMV Match Results
WAAMV Team Standings

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

The foghorns are back. I've been watching fairly casually and intermittently, but I've observed at least four field faults and/or match replays. Two yesterday were announced as scoring errors, and the one I just saw was announced as an error in transition from auton to teleop (gave an alliance a new ball before the auto balls were gone). Never did find out what the deal was on the fourth one as I had been watching with no audio.

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

Things I've noticed watching matches this morning, besides the massive human player penalties:

1. Ball pickup must be awesome, every time.
2. Every time your ball hits the ground, your opponent can screw you.
3. Accuracy is king--if you can't shoot, don't try.
4. Truss points win games, but only if it doesn't result in an uncontrolled ball.
5. Robots that can take a direct load are much, much faster than robots that can't (due to #2).
6. This game is much more interesting to watch than I expected it to be.
7. Team communication is not where it should be for most games.
8. Defense is crucial and absolutely killer, but if you need two robots to stop one, you're gonna have a bad time....

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

When was the last time a team field drawing matched the real field? I don't even want to think about trying to build a pyramid last year that came anywhere near what was at competition. Teams should understand this by now, and rookies should be mentored by teams that already know. This like when teams complained about discs bouncing out last year after they shot them into the goal at 100 MPH with 15000 RPM on the disc. FIRST changed their design for that, but I don't think they ever should have.

The field drawings have shown this potential since day one, if a team didn't address it in their game analysis they will face the consequences.

We might have problems with our high goal shot from a certain distance, but we have a range to shoot from if we find an issue. I think it is a great engineering challenge.

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

I understand the frustration (and agree it sucks) but a round metal bar that long and that high off the ground plus required support would run up costs for teams on the low-cost version, correct?

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

I flipped on some webcasts today and honestly, for someone who has been out of the loop for the entire season (since week 2), the game is very difficult to watch. I was expecting that the two balls would help focus gameplay, but it seems that robots almost forget what to do when they don't have the ball, milling around and making the field a mess. Just like 2009, the game is focused not on the goal but on other robots.

I think it just isn't very fun to watch. None of the tasks are instantly interesting to the public (climbing was cool no matter what) or immediately obvious what robots are doing: putting basketballs in hoops simply made sense but robots picking up and dropping balls just looks disorganized. With the lack of an endgame, there is no task to wrap up the match so it just kind of fizzles out.

This is an odd change of direction because in the last few years, the games were only getting better and better with regard to that, and the GDC was making a conscious effort. I wonder if they thought this game would be interesting to watch and it isn't, or if they didn't have that as one of their primary goals anymore?

Edit: I've been watching a little more and am warming up to the game a little bit. Good alliances, like the 525/1986 one in Illinois that manage to actually execute a strategy make the game much more interesting. I based my original post on qualifications at GTR, so maybe I spoke too soon.

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

I'm watching the Palmetto Eliminations right now, and I have to say this is fun! As a sports fan, I'm seeing everything I love: matches coming down to the last shot, hard hitting defense, robots hitting shots with said defense in their face. Haven't seen a tech foul in the 3 matches I saw. Sure the teamwork could be better, but I think that will come soon.

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

A ref committed a field fault in finals at Alamo just now and then when contested said it didn't matter....

Balls going out of play are the biggest problem with consistently.

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

This game ranks right up there with 2003. May even be "better".

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

What happened at the end of Alamo? I just caught the end where they announced that 118's alliance won.

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

Probably one of the best matches I've ever watched, it was a tie 85 to 85, red alliance had already won the first final, texplosion played amazing defense, robowranglers were scoring great, so were robonauts, but in the end after further review robonauts alliance won by ten points! Can someone post a video of that match?

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

Yep, I am glad that I waited to post until after I had watched the elimination matches today.

Eliminations provided for a consistent alliance to execute a good game plan. But it was interesting to watch how they had to improvise when defense arose. Co-opertition indeed.
Alamo Final 2 just finished, whoa what a match! The human player caught an errant truss shot and inbound it as he fell out of his boundary area.
It ended in a tie, but I think a truss score that I thought was missed may have been added upon review. (uh-oh, booth reviews)

GDC done good creating a game that is complex with reasonable point values (Except for some of those fouls).
Referees were better today. (must have been some calibration) They are still being asked to do too much though.
This game should get better and better through the next eight weeks.

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

Apparently they decided after review of the cycles that the real-time score of 85 to 85 was wrong. I believe it would have been a tie otherwise.

Would like to see a video of that match, not because I think they were wrong, but just to see what happened...

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

Are you talking about an excess of defense? I think most of that is teams not knowing how to pass the ball, or lacking any kind of strategy to counter defensive robots. Yeah, there's more defense then recent years, but is that really a bad thing?

Either way, you can't deny it makes for exciting games!

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

Yes

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

I like it.

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

My appendages do not.

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

Neither do my eyes as a spectator.
Most of the time matches look like the goal is to run into each other while throwing balls around.

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

Anyone have any clue what happened in Alliance 2 vs Alliance 6 semis at Centerline? It originally said that Alliance 2 had won, then there were two more matches played and Alliance 6 won each one

The webcast wasn't up for the matches. Can anyone confirm what happened?

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

To those asking about alamo, finals 1 showed a tie but after further review the refs said alliance 1 won. The head ref committed a field fault and when contested said it didn't matter. Finals 2 showed a tie real time but the refs came back after and said alliance 1 won. A huge penalty wasn't called on 118's human player.

The finals had to be replayed a few times due to field connection and functionality. A misfire caused a robot to almost take out the MC

I have no understanding of how real time scoring cannot be correct in this game. The biggest problem is a consistency on putting auto balls that miss back in play and the fact that entire assists are being wiped out when a ball leaves the field.

I haven't played this game yet but from attending a regional I'm almost not looking forward to it...

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

I am talking about even if your team runs "the perfect cycle", each robot is relegated to defense for 2/3 of the match.

Even the announcers are like, "team blah blah blah is not moving, something's wrong ... oh wait, they are just waiting for the ball" ... so dumb.

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

I hearken from days of yore, before bumpers were required.... It's seemed to me for years that people make their appendages too fragile and to extend outside their perimeter much longer than necessary.

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

It seems to me that the perfect alliance would score in autonomous, get into position, and then never move.

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

Something odd that I noticed is that oftentimes when there is very little time left after a shot, a team will get another ball, run under the truss with it, and attempt to make it in the high goal, why not go over the truss instead? It would be closer and it should be easier to do. It also gives possibilities for another high goal shot and possibly a catch. Any idea why this is?

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

4772 just made a block in autonomous (without moving, EDIT: other than extending its blocker), possibly the first robot to do so. Definitely cost the other alliance a lot of time...

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

How?

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

When I said 'without moving', I mean that they didn't drive. They just extended a blocker.

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

I know what you are talking about but I just don't think it's going to happen. Unless 3 teams collaborated during the build season the odds of successfully completing a cycle like this are low. However, a variation of this cycle is doable and very effective.

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

Defense is a good thing!

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

Why wouldn't a team that's waiting for a ball to cycle not just play defense in their zone? It would make the other alliance use up some time.

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

Because they'd be so busy scoring they wouldn't have time to get back into position!

...but yes, the less-than-perfect alliance will have to deal with the vagaries of life in robot-land.

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

Regardless of if this really is an "issue" or not, the fact that FIRST can't figure out a way to fix that goal for under $60k is really scary. Our "cheap and stupid" ball ramp that rolls the ball out the side cost less than $20.

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

I agree. Like in 03, once you're ahead in points, defense is the best strategy. My favorite part was when the announcer said a robot was broken, then the robot spun around to show they worked.

Other memorable moments included 148 spinning because their drivers were bored, 118 sitting and waiting 10 seconds for a ref to notice that they were waiting for a cycle, and when 190 got to restart their match (that they were dead in) because the ref accidentally lit up the pedestal before the auto balls were cleared.

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

Best you ever watched? I saw half a match of botched gameplay. Yeah, there was good defense, but man that was hard to watch. There were zero points scored in 45+ seconds.

I have seen zero credible sources suggest that a) FIRST would like to "fix" the problem, but cannot afford to, or b) that the cost to do so is $60,000. This rumor seems to have gained legs because one dude heard a guy who knows a guy that...

Maybe it's true, but who knows?

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

Yes, but not for a lack of trying, by some very good robots.

I won't respond further on this topic, because I've made my opinion known--at least until after next week--but thus far I very much liked how this played out.

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

A number of times this morning I said: "This is the worst game since 2003".

By this afternoon, I was saying this is the worst FRC game I've played.

...at least they can't put Championship at the Astrodome anymore.

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

I for one love the defense this year. It makes the game a lot more exciting and it adds pressures to the better teams that in past years just had to maneuver around to a safe zone to score. Teams will get better and scoring will increase which will make all the defense and scoring that much better to watch.

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

The Defense is crazy out there, it's certainly making for an interesting and controversial game. With the amount of contact, keeping robots (and appendages) working is going to be a big factor in alliance success.

The biggest thing that surprised me is how dangerous this game can be for field staff/volunteers. I've seen balls scored and take out DJ booths and railings, balls are constantly bouncing/being fired at field staff and referees, and a couple that have almost taken out the scoring table. With the steps taken last year to make firing frisbees safer, these 2 pound balls are ending up everywhere outside the field. I'm not saying that the balls are more dangerous, just surprised that there isn't netting behind the goals and sides of the field. It would be interesting to hear from those who have actually been by field level.

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

Seems marginally worse than 2008, since the game involves by its nature throwing a ball out of the field.

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

2008 had 'cages' to try and keep the balls in the field.

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

Instead of bashing FIRST and the game why not accept it for what it is and make the best out of it?

Defense should evolve into a heavy part of FRC if it's supposed to resemble competitive sports at all. (Which I believe it should) If you didn't build your robot strong enough to handle the defense then that is on you.

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

This guy heard it from a mentor of 18 years who heard it from an alumni who manufactured the fields. Also FIRST has grown immensely. I forget how much money runs through FIRST but it's a large amount. Working as a consultant at a large corporation myself, I know that all efforts receive a very substantial buffer. I'm guessing the large number came up as a rough estimation of how much it would cost to execute on the fix.

I completely agree that a fix should certainly cost much less than that, and that FIRST probably has chosen not to "fix" the problem as they clearly documented the specs for the field (minus some paint on the corners of the goals). I did not mean to attribute an exact amount to the estimate, I'm sure the number came out of a casual conversation.

I did not mean to get people hung up on the dollar value, I just wanted teams to know that FIRST was aware of it, that it seems that the effect on the game was underestimated, and that FIRST's official opinion on the issue has not been reported.

Sorry for starting a beast of a rumor...

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

I think many were not prepared for the huge role defense would be playing this year. Having a strong drive base this year is very important, because you simply cannot score if you are being pushed all over the place.

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

;)

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

Driver for 1023 here (1st seeded at Centerline). Im sharing a few of my observations about this years game after competitng.

-Defense. Defense can shange a single power robot from running a 160 point match by itself to barely putting up 50.
-Penalties. While I was not here for 2010 like many people are referring to, I am aware that the majority of eliminations at centerline were decided by foul points.
-Technicals. After committing a technical, you're pretty much done. 50 points is insanely hard to come back from especially with defense.
-Referees. The referees missed fouls and missed called plenty of fouls. I believe it is because of how much responsibility they are given. Scoring and penalties and watching multiple (maybe all 6) robots at once. Its insane.
-Playing "dirty". Heavy defense and overwhelmed refs are not a good combination for a team that is trying to play the game with assists. Or shooting for that matter. Fouls could slip through unnoticed and damage would occur. Like it did.
-What I think should change immediately. Scorekeepers. They need to be there. They need to free up refs so they can focus specifically on fouls and making the right call. Or a technical foul should be decreased. Especially since the majority of technicals were forced by the opponent and ended up changing match results.

This is all based on my opinion and I am in no way singing out the referees. I just think they are overworked and overwhelmed.

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

Expect balls to be over inflated, because they all are.

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

I heard from Wil Payne that the balls were inflated to a good size.

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

We triple-tested our ball intake and shooter with over-inflated balls because we knew they would be. Everything inflatable in FIRST ends up over-inflated, and you have to plan for it.

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

A sizing standard other then "Eh, that looks alright!" should have been in place anyway, because the balls at Hatboro are rolling around more like hexahedrons then a round ball. What happened to sizing cubes?

It should be planned for, but the specs in the manual are terrible.

Pedestals - Should be a dedicated pedestal lighting guy or something. Heck, there already is! Why can't the guy standing behind the goal catching balls also control the lighting of the pedestal? Refs are way overwhelmed. Countless times dead ball cards have been raised, and it gets ignored for 45 seconds of the match until the entire alliance is banging on the glass with their fists to catch a refs attention so they can legally put another ball in play.

Scorekeeping vs Reffing - Theres a HUGE difference between the two this year. Like I said, Refs are overwhelmed. Refs should Ref. We need scorekeepers. (What about that dandy guy catching the balls behind the alliance station?)

Field Staff - Generally untrained. Wastes time in a match when a ball flies out of bounds and they have to figure out who its supposed to go back to. Why can't we just return it near the point it left the field?

This game places way to much on the people running the event. Props to the head ref at Hatboro for pausing matches midway through and getting it right rather then screwing an alliance because of a volunteer mistake/ped not lighting.

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

They're much more cubical than round, to be sure!

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

I said that relatively, it's a very minor issue. It's not something we encountered because we dont have a design dependent on it. However, we had a strategy depending on at least one other robot functioning in the match. Apparently I overestimated...

I can't remember or care what rank we wound up in Alamo, but I saw a lot going on in Alamo Week 1 from behind the glass. There were a lot of... interesting things happening, and this is coming from someone who was also behind the glass at a Week 1 event in NJ in 2010.

It's not worth a lot of time for me to reiterate thoughts from either the people at events or the peanut gallery watching online, but I'll add in Alamo-specific observations to some that may not be specific to the venue.

Game observations:
The adage "you're only as strong as your weakest partner": multiply the truth of that by a thousand this year. I came into the evnet trying to execute a solid strategy with teams, only to get burned by robots that did not function, drivers that didn't understand the game, and human players that DEFINITELY DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE GAME. I had to pull my human player off of the "islands" because I couldn't trust other human players to know how to look for the ball. We lost two matches because of this. If you have to pull out the rulebook and walk through with people, do it.

I don't know if this is the way things operate in the Lone Star State or will be indicative of the rest of competition, but there is no visible top 25% at events. Only 5 robots could earnestly play the game alone by themselves and win, while mid-top robots were thrown into a bind where they have to carry harder than usual.

If you want a visual representation of what kind of defense we're seeing in Aerial Assist, look here. That is a welded piece of 2x1, .125 in thick tubing, behind bumpers, totally broken. It's astounding. The "heavy defense" or what it should actually be called "pinning without fouls" will be prevalent as long as the game official setup is the way it is.

On the topic of Game Management Systems, Friday at Alamo had a few inbounders have grief with Tech Fouls. What isn't being considered are how some referees, at least on Friday, were not moving tablets out of the inbounder zone. It's hard to get a good pass off that is legal and controllable with that in the way, unless I tell my human player to throw the ball into the tablet and wait for a glare from a referee.

EDIT: In addition, the time wasted waiting for thigs to light up can be... enraging... in a high stress situation. In a match with 118, we had to wait 3 seconds with them at the goal for the assit counts to light up properly, then another 5 to light the pedestal. Things like that are killing the flow of matches and taking control of the game out of the hands of teams and into an inefficient managment computer (not FMS, but GMS).

This game is playing mostly as expected: qualification play is decidedly painful to witness, but eliminations can be the best they have to offer. The only caveat is that for a game that relies on live scoring more than any other event I can think of, getting the live score to reflect reality is as much of a given as 4 working robots in a given qualification match.

This game has potential, but they need to make a few administrative changes and wait hope that we're seeign Week 1 jitters and not season-long issues.

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

That looks more like a referee scoring station in a human player zone to me. :p

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

Teams are being dumb trying to show off how they score into the high goal by themselves. They should score over the truss and have a partner score it in the low goal for more than double the points (10 truss, 10 assist, 1 goal), and no need to try 7 times to make it into the high goal. Coaches especially are being stubborn on this on some... certain teams. Read the rules and know the scoring, especially before you try to tell other teams you haven't scouted what to do.

Yet again, non-roller intakes are terrible. Why any team tries to make them anymore baffles me. Stop trying to make pinchers happen, they're not going to happen!

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

Some roller intakes are terrible. Generally roller intake>non roller intake, but some teams I'm sure have made the pinch work (I'm interested to see how 4334 and 842 do).

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

I have to disagree with this. I have been watching many steams of robots that have intakes that do not use rollers. They work just fine. What I do recognize is that fact that it does take more time for them generally to pickup a ball than a good roller intake. They can be better than some roller intakes as well.

It disappoints me that you would say something like that when it really isn't true. I think that there are a lot of teams that would be able prove you wrong.

What kind of intake does team 148 have?

*Note*
MY team isusing a Non-Roller intake this year.

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

I am too. From our practice, it looks like our pinchers are a lot more effective than most rollers. Of course, that could be the effect of a "perfect scenario" without pressure on the drivers and with 5 robots in the way of vision.

Seems like the majority of the problem is rollers not bringing the ball in properly. And defense.

So much defense.

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

Sodizzle, you kept that very polite. I intend to expound on this.

Centerline was perhaps the single most frustrating FIRST event I've ever attended. The qualification matches went well. The FTA's were wonderful working through problems. The refs were working hard and while the game was difficult to play, it was fun.

At the elimination driver's meeting the drivers were told that intrusions inside the bumper area were going to be called.

What wasn't understood was that it meant that ANY intrusion at ANY time, even one initiated by the defending bot, was going to be a foul. For example: we were shooting. Not moving. Intake down. A defensive bot came up from behind at full speed and slammed into us. WE were assessed the 50 point foul.

In the next match, we went to pick up our ball that was stuck in the corner between the opposing goal and the driver station wall. Again, a defending bot saw a good opportunity and slammed into us from behind to stop us from picking up the ball. That pushed a portion of our pickup into the goal. Technical foul again, on us.

Shooting the ball to the human player, but get hit in the process and have him miss the catch? Technical foul.

Going to pick up a ball at the edge of the field, but get hit so your pickup extends outside the arena? Called a foul.

I use these only as examples out of quite literally dozens that occurred during the elimination rounds. I appreciate the hard work the referees and other volunteers put in. However, I think it's important these issues be brought to light in the hopes that FIRST provide some guidance for their volunteers to try to ease some of the issues we saw at the event.

There were SO many penalties that for quite a while they weren't announcing who was getting penalized for what. No one had any clue - spectators or competitors. The 'question' box for the ref was full (there was a line at several points). At one point, upon being questioned, they were unable to tell us what the fouls were for!

I almost feel like we aren't playing the game FIRST intended us to be playing - offensive bots terrified to lower their intakes for fear of penalties while defensive bots battered away scoring more points in a couple seconds in penalties than most alliances scored on offense.

I am unsure if there was a single elimination match that wasn't decided by penalties. Hopefully the insights gained at Centerline can be used to improve the games going forward.

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

Teams who have broken roller intakes need to iterate more and smarter. Existing designs from the 3 day robots provide an excellent starting point for prototypes that is quite good and adaptable. If yours is bad, there is something seriously wrong (I do agree though that some are terrible). Messing up on your intake is the worst mistake you can make in this game.

Pinching claws simply are not safe in this game. They rely too much on the ball and robot being still, which never happens. They are also easier to break from what I've seen (being at bumper level puts them in harm's way). I would advise any pinchers to seriously consider a design change.

It is true. Those teams could have decent intake using a pincher, or a great intake with rollers. The ceiling is always higher on a roller intake.

Rollers.

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

I was little bit skeptical at first, but we are seeing the same. With control systems in place, our grabbers are currently working just as fast as well-designed roller intakes, and have advantages in some situations. Not to mention that death grip on the ball...

We hope to disprove every one of these points.

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

Roller

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

Rookie here, so my observations might not be as keen as some. Our team went down to the Southfield tournament in Michigan as spectators. A few major things stuck out to me.

If you can't shoot the ball accurately in auto, don't even bother trying. It is painful to watch 3 robots miss in succession, and have to watch them for the first 30 seconds of teleop just trying to grab the balls and get them to a goal so they can start cycles. If you don't shoot at all, don't even start with a ball.

If you miss a high shot, don't waste your time trying again, shove it in the low goal and move on. I saw many teams attempt 3-4 times before humbling themselves and pushing the ball into the low goal. I was surprised at how inaccurate the throwing mechanisms were.

If you have to park to shoot, you will get pushed. As soon as a robot begins lining up, an opposing robot is right in its way, shoving, pushing, doing anything to mess up your shot. Teams that can shoot while moving have the best luck at avoiding defense. In addition to this, having to lower an intake arm, or the like, in order to shoot, slows you down.

Human Players, if a robot has the ability to catch from you, please toss the ball into the robot rather than onto the field.

Finally, I was surprised at the number of teams who didn't have a secure hold on the ball. Simply spinning or getting rammed from the side was enough to dislodge the ball. This was very apparent during lining up for shots.

Pickup systems, whether it be roller bars or el toro, aren't created equal. They have to be done right to be effective.

That's my observations, I hope I didn't come across as too condescending. I'm sure I will eat some of my own words as I'm coaching our drive team next weekend.

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

Love it. Also I think that the major advantage 842 has over a roller intake is that they can set the ball down for assists and carry the ball around switch greater security (that's how it seems to me). Though they cannot roll it out, it should be easy for the pincers to fit underneath a roller intake making a pass a little easier and secure.

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

There is no functionality difference in this area. Both systems can set the ball on the ground quite reliably, quickly, and easily.

You do run into an issue when a pincher hands off to another pincher. The recipient needs to wait for the passer to back away, or else the claws can get tangled (which I saw in one match at Alamo, not sure the number, though). It's either that, or leaving the ball open on the ground.

Re: Week 1 Analysis
 

A few things.

#1: At Centerline, many teams came to us saying our field balls were over inflated. After spending lunch measuring every balls three times, they came out to ~25" diameter. There seems to be a discrepancy between the field balls and teams balls, but they are the right size, atleast at centerline.

#2: There needs to be a ramp of some sort on the overhang above the drivers. I can't tell you how many times the ball got stuck up there, and without having a pole of some sort to get it down, Field Reset has to run in there and dislodge it with their hands, completely disrupting the drivers.

#3: What 1023 and 1718 said was completely true. I saw so many penalties that made no sense I was amazed. Tech Fouls either need to be lower points, or the system needs an overhaul to help protect the offensive robots. This year seems to be going in the complete opposite way that past years have been. Instead of protecting scorers for an excited match, defensive robots are aloud to go ham with very few repercussions. This has nothing to do with the proficiency of refs but everything to do with them having way too much on their plate to do.