Re: paper: Spanking the Children
 

Howell District - Match 56 @ 1:20 ish:

http://youtu.be/rXeaA72u3x8?t=1m20s

-Clinton-

Re: paper: Spanking the Children
 

Excellent writeup Jim. As someone who came into FIRST in 2002, I agreed with your analysis of each game.

I really can't understand the single ball rule this year. I think it the biggest downfall of the game and is the seed that encourages all of the negative gameplay we have seen thus far including the impact of massive penalties. What did GDC think the other four robots were going to do when they weren't in possession of the ball? Sit down together with a bowl of popcorn while they watched their respective balls get scored?

IMO the game would have been much more fun and exciting with a maximum of three balls per alliance on the field at a time. Each robot would have its very own ball to play with and they would all be happy. Instead we end up with "Ball? I don't have a ball- well this sucks... Oh look! That one has a ball! I'll go and hit him then..."

Furthermore, with three balls in play alliances would be able to score many more points and the fouls would have less impact on match outcomes. Robots who were incapable of scoring the ball could still contribute equally as an assister/feeder for scoring robots.

GDC - You screwed up. That's okay though, we all do it, but please take action to make this right. Failure to do so will foster far more resentment toward this game than admitting a mistake was made and fixing it. Please reduce the severity of the penalties or give the other robots a ball to play with.

Re: paper: Spanking the Children
 

I will preface this with I do not like this game, but I think you are wrong. If this game were to play how the GDC thought it was going to play out, all 6 robots wouldn't have to move and the cycle times would be fast and no defense would really be played.

Inbound(red or blue zone) > truss toss > catch(white zone) > pass to 3rd robot in(red or blue zone) > score in top goal

Robot wouldn't have to move and you could have <10 sec cycle time and at 60 points a cycle that puts the 50 point tech foul well balanced.

However they should have known that the game was NEVER going to play like that and adjusted the game accordingly during the design and rule making process.

Re: paper: Spanking the Children
 

I hope that something comes from your paper. Great job!!!!

Re: paper: Spanking the Children
 

Let's talk about soccer.
I know we played it in 2010, but I think there are a lot of parallels to the current game.
There are essentially TWENTY players who are actively trying to get posession of a single ball - or prevent others from doing so. There are debilitating and, to the untrained observer, confusing and contradictory penalties. The game is simple to explain, but very difficult to master. There are no shortage of silly and archaic rules (what do you mean, we're not allowed to pick up a ball?) yet it is the single most popular game in the world.
Because the game strategies have evolved and matured.
Because the players decided that there are efficient and elegant ways to beat the physical gameplay, and have implemented them successfully.

The rules are full of little blue boxes that essentially say, "Hey, teams, if you do these things, you'll be penalized. Try not to do them." We all get the same set of rules at the same time*. The onus is on the teams to avoid these penalties, not on the GDC for creating them.

*Yes, I realize there are game updates and Q&A rulings. But these are public, and all teams are playing under the same rules at a given time/location.

Re: paper: Spanking the Children
 

Where was the 'abstain' slot for those who have read it but do not have enough information one way or the other? What's the % error based upon your sample size? That pole is weak an inconclusive as-is.

The paper is interesting Jim, but I got the feeling that the last (and most important) page is just another rant for someone who is able to get on a loud soap box. Where are your actual suggestions? From everything else I've read that you put out, you're way smarter and more grounded than that.

Short term:
Decrease penalty points?
Add a safety zone?
Add a 2nd ball per alliance?
Increase value of assists?
Add a mid-tier penalty for mostly-inconsequential things? (After seeing 40's dirty plays in '08 Galileo elims, I believe intentionally possessing the other ball and/or tipping another robot should remain a big deal)

Long term:
Limit tractive drive train peak power to 1300W or speed to X ft/s?
Add a safety zone to every FRC game?
No more open fields?
Require full bumpers?
Remove the irrelevant autonomous rules?

Re: paper: Spanking the Children
 

I will preface this by saying this game has really grown on me. I found the matches at Crossroads by and large to be very exciting. I think Taylor's parallel to soccer is apt. I don't think the GDC was anticipating no defense. I think they said at kickoff and in the rules that we should expect vigorous game play. I have only been to one regional, but have watched (online) over a hundred other matches watching the teams of friends and 1014 alums compete. The parents and teachers who have been to a competition and/or watched online almost all have said they understand the flow of the game more than in any previous year except 2012. What I see is a game that cannot be dominated by a good robot. I think this is a good thing. This is a game when three pretty good robots, some of which can't do everything, can legitimately be powerhouses as alliances.

That said, the penalties seem out of proportion to the final scores. But actually not by that much. Just a cursory examination of data from a few regional competitions for a few seasons (mostly Pittsburgh, Buckeye and Queen City, because those are the regional competitions we have attended and for which I have data) shows me that there have been other years where where many matches were "decided by penalties." The quotations marks are because it is probably not as simple as comparing final scores with penalty points. Because this year has been much better than years past with getting the penalty scores posted during the match there are many fewer surprise reversals after a match is done. That alone has been a serious improvement. I remember many times in the past having a match end and then waiting for all the fouls to be tallied to see who won.

As Jim and others have pointed out, there are just too many 50 point technical fouls. I think that most of the contact inside the frame perimeter technical fouls could and should be just fouls. If you design a game where the robots pretty much have to expand outside their frame perimeters to gather balls you shouldn't call technical fouls when there is non-intentional contact. As for making it never advantageous to intentionally draw a foul, you can make all fouls deemed intentional technical fouls. Take the pinning rules. You could easily say that teams that don't back off in time get a foul. If they continue the pin for more than 3 or more than 5 more seconds, or through to the end of the match, it is a technical foul in addition.

As I have said in a couple of other threads, the other thing that would improve game play is having dedicated scorekeepers and let the other refs concentrate on fouls. But to do this they would really need to start at the beginning of the season so that each scorekeeper had a pad. Ideally one scorekeeper for each team could just watch for possessions and scores by that team. But you could probably get away this year with one scorekeeper watching each alliance.

I still think that with some easy to implement changes this could be one of my two favorite games, because the game play itself is so important.

Re: paper: Spanking the Children
 

The difference is that a single robotics team doesn't build a "soccer team"; we build a "soccer player". In the qualifying matches, your alliance is random. If you get randomly partnered with robots that DON'T build robots around these rules, you can get really screwed.

Re: paper: Spanking the Children
 

Welcome to FIRST. :o

Re: paper: Spanking the Children
 

It's been a long time since I've played soccer, but I'm pretty sure it'd be less appealing if players not actively engaged with the ball could hope to legally remove each other from competition by charging/pushing/tackling with significant leeway. (Yes, we have G28, etc rules, but one can still hope to completely shut down a player's offense for the match using only legal defense play.) If 16/20 or so players on the field spent their time sparring, it'd be a very different game to say the least.

So, kudos, Jim. We've won events as the primary defender, but I knew a kickoff that this'd be too far. At least offer a viable alternative to playing D so much, particularly since the clearest target often isn't even on active offense themselves.

To Jesse's good point:
* Short term - I think we play the game we've been dealt. I don't see a reasonable fix that could be made this late, but I'm open to suggestions. Minor improvements, but nothing that can change the rational cost-benefit on the amount of time and effort some teams spend trying to disable others. Better scoring/reffing, fouls, field management, etc is something that needed to have been handled from the start (speaking with my ref hat on), though there are some fixes occurring. So, we play. I've got 2+ more ref gigs and 1+ more coaching events, and I'll play the hand I'm dealt.
* Long term - Don't design games that deliberately limit the amount of time per match a team can spend play offense. I genuinely cannot understand how this was considered a good idea. Talk to the head ref advisers earlier. Get advisers that have actually built teams and robots and coached matches. I don't think it's a coincidence that the VRC GDC seems to avoid a lot of these complaints.

Re: paper: Spanking the Children
 

Lol This is a great read! Thank you Jim for putting this together. I am glad we are on the same page on this game, and most of the past games. :)

Re: paper: Spanking the Children
 

So don't complain about them - educate them as to the proper way to play the game. They all passed inspection, so they're not incurring penalties just by being on the field.
These teams you've been assigned - they are not "random robots" - they're your ALLIANCE PARTNERS. In every sense of the words. Treat them as such.

Re: paper: Spanking the Children
 

I like this game, as a spectator and a coach, though I agree that the penalties are a bit over-the-top. I do, on the other hand, think they're largely avoidable through prudent design and prudent game play.

On a side note, I saw several instances this past weekend where a human player tossed a ball toward/into an opponent's robot, in what seemed to be a clear attempt to force a technical foul. While I'd hope this would be called as a G14 if it ever happened, with the amount of things the refs have to watch, I'm not sure it would be.

Tricksy tricksy.

Re: paper: Spanking the Children
 

As a newcomer to FIRST in 2011, I've only experienced very good games until this year. In 2011, 2012 and 2013 the strong offensive robots typically won, and teams were inspired to build offensive robots. This year, however, the cards are stacked towards a defensive bot. What's the fun in working hard and building a strong, reliable scoring robot when a box on wheels can draw tech fouls faster than you can pick up the game piece? I feel STRONGLY that this game missed the mark. I hope that either the game is fixed or next year is once again fun to watch and participate in, because if this trend continues I don't know if I want to keep giving it so much of my time and energy.

Re: paper: Spanking the Children
 

Jim, nice write up recapping the penalty situation over the years. I agree that there is correlation between games that seem qualitatively "good" and emphasize defensive penalty risk. The past 3 years have been some of the best games to watch. Take the co-op bridge out of 2012 and I think you have the ideal mix of "fun to play" and "spectator friendly".