Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 

I blame whoever made the decision that dedicated scorers weren't needed and placed the extra work on the refs.

Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 

This is exactly what FRC is about. If you measure your success by winning you are doing it wrong. Yes winning the game is awesome, and I get wrapped up in the moment as a mentor, but this year's game is about teamwork. We knew our biggest challenge going into Wisconsin was figuring out how to help getting less able robots to help get assist points. We still don't have any great insights, but it sure is awesome when you win a match with the help of some partners that didn't think they would be able to contribute.

It isn't as if less able teams aren't trying to win. They want to win just as much as you. But as veteran teams we need to find ways to help them become more successful. You cannot just tell a team 5 minutes before a match that they have this and that responsibility and then just ignore them when they don't come through. If you find yourself showing up to Regionals without competitive teams its up to your team to reach out and help them during build season. This organization is much better when we collaborate and help each other out, instead of letting new teams flounder and eventually die out because their students never get a chance.

Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 

I do agree that the game concept is not awful.

Most years, the elite teams could, by themselves, win most qualification matches. There were so many 2012 robots that couldn't get any balls in, or had extremely low accuracy. This year, a single elite team partnered with two boxes on wheels can do nothing against an alliance of three very mediocre robots.

Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 

Your own anecdote shows that there are plenty more factors in play than simply game design and reffing. The scheduling algorithm can carry certain teams or doom others to mediocre qualification records, regardless of game. The not-so-random algorithm in 2007 skewed rankings towards functional younger teams. Similarly, this isn't the only year a "box on wheels" has ranked in the top 8, and having them rank in the top 8 is proof that the disadvantages presented by lower quality partners is not a dominant factor in the ranking system.

Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 

I believe it would be more inspiring for more teams to work with other teams during build to make them capable partners in a game where it was clear on day 1 that viable partners were a necessity. I know that is probably a pipe dream given the constraints of a six week build and the limited resources of even "successful" teams.

Playing devils advocate, why should you "clearly not have to" deal with it. Most adults have had to "deal with it" hundreds of times in thier lives. Why should this be any different?

My answer would be for the amount of money spent going to these competitions, one has a reasonable expectation that the competition is played out fairly to all.


Going back to the original question of buyer's remorse, I feel that the game still accomplishes the goal of "For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology". That is what I signed up for. It is a proven means to inspiring the students on my team for sure.

Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 

I must have misunderstood your original post. My apologies.

I do think your climbing helped you more in Duluth than it did at North Star. There is also something to be said for the fact that the 1st seed selected you in Duluth for your climbing ability, but the same climbing ability was not selected until coming back up the serpentine at North Star. But it sounds like this is irrelevant.

You have a good point. There are ranking inconsistencies every year, produced by the schedule. However, some people (myself included) feel that there are more severe inconsistencies introduced by the foul points, the field reset, and the inconsistent and unreliable refereeing.

The point of the ranking system is to predict robot performance in elimination rounds. An inaccurate ranking system is one that fails to do this. In elimination matches, the higher seed alliance (or the one which beated the higher seed) is red, while the other is blue. So blue winning is what is considered an upset, and is generally thought to be correlated with an inaccurate ranking system. It's just statistics, not an absolute.

From watching their performance both in Duluth and at North Star, 3883 improved their game and consistently demonstrated excellence at the game tasks during qualification matches, more so than many of the 28 teams who outranked them. Yes, anyone's judgment will be flawed and subjective, but I watched many of the teams at North Star play and actually put some thought into this, I hardly think it's just because I "like their robot."

My point is that there are ranking anomalies because of the refereeing. The schedule is a randomized draw every year, but the claim is that something makes the rankings less accurate this year, and I believe I have shown some evidence of that. The refs make an admirable effort to catch everything and do it right. However, we have had the misfortune to interact with some who are not so professional about making mistakes or missing calls, and some even stray from the rules and updates openly. This may be because they already have too much to worry about, but whoever is at fault, if anyone, it's a problem, and I would like the situation to improve. We can argue about this stuff, or we can recognize problems and try to improve.

Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 

A bit off topic, but this stuff is amazing for quick robot mods (especially for building quick backboards/hoops to hold the gamepiece).

http://www.homedepot.com/p/SharkBite...B100/202033006

Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 

We ended up designing an Assist mechanism that passively contained and possessed the ball, easily loaded by a Human Player, until the drive base accelerated and it would dump it out. Made from Home Depot PVC pipe and fittings for <$15.

We marketed several of them at our event, but found it very difficult to work with the teams that had not read the rules and did not know how the game played. Even making the assembly and use as simple as possible, human players would have difficulty loading it and drivers would have difficulty using it. We learned a lot from this experience, mostly that these teams need help long before the event starts if it's going to be effective.

We have been using the same PEX pipe for various catcher and ball guidance prototypes. Really great stuff.

Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 

Give us Colin back. I know that was his idea.

Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 

Perhaps on offense, rules can be changed to credit an assist for mere CONTACT with a ball in a unique zone. Are you a statue of sadness? Partners can just plink balls off your motionless frame and get credit for the assist. Problem solved! Woot woot.

Defensive possession rules would remain the same as before.

Let's rolllllll for it.

Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 

[quote=Mastonevich;1368054]I believe it would be more inspiring for more teams to work with other teams during build to make them capable partners in a game where it was clear on day 1 that viable partners were a necessity. I know that is probably a pipe dream given the constraints of a six week build and the limited resources of even "successful" teams.

I agree with helping other teams but obviously the 6 week build schedule makes it difficult. I would like to see rookies and perhaps 2nd year teams have an extra week of build season after bag night for veterans so that veteran teams would have more opportunity to help without loss of their own build time.

Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 

You're kidding, right? 2 boxes on wheels and a robot that can do nothing but pick up the ball can still turn out 31 point cycles. Put a launcher on one of them and you're talking 40-50 point cycles.

I don't know if anyone has noticed, but "elite teams" like 254, 118, et al are still winning regionals. 118 cleaned up in Alamo and I can tell you as someone who went there only 10-15 robots could even play the game. When I mean "play the game", I'm telling you our scouting meeting eliminated 32 of the 64 teams on Friday night because the robots could not move, had repeated no-shows, or demonstrated a lack of understanding how the game is played. 422 is not an elite team, which is why we went 5-5 in quals. 118 is an elite team, which is why they went undefeated. As a drive coach who personally worked with them, their robot is a well engineered machine, but what really mattered was the collection and execution of data from the competition.

Please go look at results of regionals. Elite teams are still winning regionals.

People who have giant issues with the core tenets of the game are people who refuse to accept that some games do not cater to their teams. I don't think it's breaking news to anyone that this is the most fundamentally unique game in the 3v3 era, if not ever. And because it is unique and because of the turnaround for FRC games, there are blemishes. This is not an inherently bad game. The core of Aerial Assist is the part that is very well received. In both surveys I turned in, I marked the game as "very good" but detailed out what everyone already knows: the administering of the game is damaging to its potential and transitively the potential of teams that play it.

I'm mostly concerned that FRC is going to take feedback from the wrong people: those who fail to understand the difference between the game achieving its core objectives and the game functioning at its correct capacity. I think FRC's GDC has earned another shot at trying a game like Aerial Assist next year instead of reverting back to more traditional games.

The ranking system has been and will continue to be at least a litte screwy, and this year's ranking system ranks somewhere behind Ultimate Ascent's pretty good sort and far ahead of the comedy that was 2012 and 2010 sorting.

Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 

Is this necessarily a bad thing? Also, as noted above, I'm not sure it's true.

Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 

After reading the rules at kickoff I told our RD that she'd need more ref volunteers to act as dedicated scorekeepers/assist trackers. I can't tell you how disappointed I was to later discover that something I recognized after 2 hours with the rules was technically impossible due to the design of the scoring system.

Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 

I'm kind of disappointed this seems to have gotten lost in the thread. Beyond the technical issues (pedestal, slow ref touch screens, confusing defense rules, weird interpretations of possession at some events, overpowered fouls, etc), this is the real beef I have with this game.

OP, if you really feel like FRC was a waste of money this year, there's no reason for you to of continue to compete next year. Not that I like the game, but I don't think it was so terrible we won't register next year.