Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 

Personally I really like that idea. It would be one solution to the problem for sure. I can only imagine the discussion if it were to be implemented however.

Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 

As I've posted elsewhere, I think the problem is that the GDC didn't give the teams sufficient warning that this would be a full alliance game with team play required. Just building a robot in 6 weeks is difficult enough, much less trying to improve the robots of other teams. Instead, if the GDC has announced in September that alliance play was going to be emphasized and that teams should start improving the skills and abilities of all of the other teams, then relying on another team would be much less risky. (I have more thoughts here: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=128301)

Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 

Why?
In most team sports you need to rely on others. The alliance (match team) is made up of individuals (in this case individual teams). If you haven't planned on playing well with others, then you have not planned well.

Do you truly believe that your seeding had nothing to do with your robots performance, and was only due to a random number generator???

After playing this game, I believe that the game (this year more than any other) is won in the strategy session before the match, and that those that did a poor job at maximizing EACH robots strength (not just their own) are the teams/alliances that will do poorly.

The highlighted section is why I completely disagree with you. Teamwork (especially within the alliance) is a thing that is valued. Those that do not (and will not) play well with others should not be rewarded.

Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 

When I play soccer, I don't show up on Saturday and take the pitch with 10 random other people. Tell me one, since you claim "most," legitimate sport in which you have random teammates.

I didn't see any alliance last year that didn't have some depth of strategy in the eliminations of CMP. I never saw a one robot carries all. Whether it was blocking a full court shooter, preventing a 50 point climb, or coordinating cycles and rotating defensive play, everyone had some sort of strategy. And I think you're making a blanket statement by accusing all the teams that haven't had the best schedules of "not playing well with others" or "not strategizing before a match."

Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 

Keep bringing it strong. We went from 4th to 10th as a result of one really, really bad tech foul call that cost us a win (which numerous others on here have panned upon seeing the video of the call). I find that drop to be a huge roadblock dropped in our path by a failed system - one that prevented us from having the appropriate chance to pick our alliance and have more control over our elimination round journey - an opportunity that we had EARNED but were denied.

And that was just at one event. It so happened to be the one in which we were operating at our highest level this season. We've been smacked in the face by so many different types of game management transgressions this year, I've gone numb to it all.

My only hope for any type of recovery from this season of blar is an invite to the Championship off the waitlist, which as I've said before, I am very, very doubtful we will get.

Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 

This is not a 'Pig in a poke'. When you signed up for FIRST, you knew you'd have random teammates. That is 'part of the challenge'. This is not a new rule from FIRST.

On the first day of competition you received your match schedule. If you did not go to each and every alliance partner (at a minimum) and MAKE SURE they could drive (drive train worked) and move during autonomous (just a few lines of code) and pin the ball for an assist, then you did yourself (and your alliance partners) a disservice. Helping to fix alliance partners BEFORE your match really helps this year.

Again, this game is won (more than most FIRST games) at the strategy sessions BEFORE any match, and is won by maximizing EACH robots capabilities, not just having 1 robot carry the alliance.

Last years strategies are not this years strategies. Last year was one of the worst in terms of teamwork between alliance members because 1 'uber' robot could carry an alliance. Again, this year teamwork starts before the match. Those that fail to plan are planning to fail.

Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 

Check, check, and check. But if you've been reading, teams have done this, and this year is different because you DO have to rely on your teammates to maximize points scoring, unlike last year, you're right. But what's to prevent the other alliance fom completely rolling over you due to a randomized schedule? The average team barely has the resources to manage their own robot. Now I'm hearing that if they want to win, they need to be bringing up all the other teams in their area, and then fixing mechanical and software issues for every one of their alliance partners at the regional. That's just spreading teams too thin.

To even further what I'm saying, we pretty much did exactly what you've been saying. But I would consider our team to be fortunate due to a relatively large base of members and experience.

Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 

1> If an 'uber' alliance forms against you, it won't matter what year or game it is, you'll most likely lose unless you are also on an 'uber' alliance
2> If it's because your alliance is made of 'brave little toasters' then this is your year, because (unlike last year) those 'toasters' can actually help your alliance (as long as the alliance plays as an alliance and not a collection of teams). <-- This more than all else.

I know that is is very difficult to rely on total strangers, and this game does require that. That said, collaboration is a good thing in FIRST, and I suspect will be part of the next few years games.


Which is why the elites are still rising to the top.

Average teams are average for a reason.

... and we didn't because we are still building our program (but we're heading in the right direction :D ).

Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 

That isn't what I said at all. My point is that we need to cut this culture of negativity and focus on what specifically is contributing to the bad experience. The game as a whole works on multiple levels, provides a decent bit of action under certain circumstances, and has roles for each "level" of team. The game isn't fundamentally broken, there are just a few key aspects that are not positives.

I don't think you would believe that someone would actually argue that the existence of fouls is the issue in a game.

Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 

Daniel,
That was Abhishek criticizing this game for being too rough on average teams. Not for being too rough on elite teams. He's noting that elite teams with 50+ highly experienced students and mentors have even MORE of an advantage over average to average-plus teams that can just about manage to build a decent robot and keep it running. We simply don't have the time and resources to rebuild ten other robots at the competition so they'll have alliance mates that can help with assists. I know a heck of a lot about robots, but I'm the single best resource my team has and I don't have time to fix all the robots that I'd need to fix to give us assist-capable alliance mates in every match.

I think perhaps the side claiming that bad robots are a severe handicap haven't quite clearly explained the huge difference we see between this year and last. In Ultimate Ascent, the contribution of robots on the alliance was more or less linear. 3 robots cycling meant 3 times the points. 2 robots meant twice the points. A slow or non-functional robot could, at worst, block a feeding station and slightly slow down cycle times. Elite offensive teams were free to let other teams try their hand at scoring or climbing, or whatever they wanted to do. Elite teams felt safe letting other teams show off their robots and try to do what they designed them to do.

In Aerial Assist, a slow or non-functional robot is rather more harmful to an alliance. 3 working robots assisting efficiently means 4 times the points of one robot. 2 robots is twice the points. And slow or non-functional robots can severely hamper your offense, because they can (purposefully or not) hold up the only scoring object you'll ever get, completely choking your scoring abilities. This year, a bad robot can easily lose you a match through trapping a ball, missing an auton shot, or getting a deadly technical foul. This year, elite teams that want to win matches and control their destiny have to highly manage any of their alliance mates that are less than capable.

You have an intake that chokes on balls and jams occasionally? Perhaps you should go play defense. You have a good intake but a questionable shooter you're really proud of? Sit by the HP and run your intake in reverse the whole match so we can get that first assist. You seem to be having difficulty with your shooter and intake. How about we take that off and add some PVC so you can possess a ball briefly and get us an assist? No, we don't want you trying to do anything else with the ball because that will slow down our cycles...

You're right that winning these matches takes much more strategy and cooperation among teams. The downside to that is that the less capable teams are going to get told rather often that they shouldn't be trying to use that 50% working shooter they've been working on all season. They should be team players and drive around pinning balls to the wall to get that critical assist.

It's not about the robot, but students do spend 6 or more weeks building that robot, and they're kind of invested in seeing it work and do what they designed it to do. A game that encourages a team to give up on a system because it's not working 100% is a pretty frustrating game for a lot of people to play.

Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 

On the one hand yes. On the other hand, I've specifically stopped helping with BEST robotics and stopped pointing people in their direction because their game designs are perennially silly, overly complicated, and not very fun to play or watch. I'd rather spend my time on and point people at VRC that has entry fees and kit costs than at the free-to-teams BEST simply because their game designs are so lacking. I'm not saying FRC is there yet, but it's not impossible for them to get to that point.

Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 

Interesting thoughts about BEST. I hyper-agree with your analysis of their games. We still use it as training for our new students and for upcoming student leaders in the fall, because of the similar timeline, and because our budget goes to FRC. Still, it's interesting to see a mirror of my opinion in your post.

Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 

Something like: 4967 (who won Gull Lake as #2 seed) clearly doesn't need more time, why should we give them more time? :rolleyes:

Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 

Thank you. all of it, exactly what I was thinking too.

Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 

Actually, this was the point of this thread. My OP was a bit rambling, and lost the original intent which was this:

We are both customers and salesmen for FIRST. As customers, we expect a quality product that meets or exceeds our expectations. My expectations were not met this year. As a customer, I don't feel I got my money's worth. To be clear, I didn't invest any of my money (my company invested a good bit) but I invested hundreds of hours of my time. As salesmen, we need a product that is easy to sell, that any person off the street could walk up and say "that's cool! I want to buy that!". This years game was not an easy sell. Watching most of the qual matches was painful, confusing, and boring.

I am not saying I won't be a customer and salesman next year, I just hope that by letting the vendor know we are not satisfied with his product, the vendor will make the necessary adjustments to improve next year.