Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 

Travis, this is a really good idea. If you guys are coming to the CORI event this year, we are still considering some rule tweaks. (Including changing some of the tech fouls to fouls.)

I read through these threads and I feel as though there are two distinct threads going. One is frustration with administration of the game (registering possessions, inconsistent fouls, cycles not starting on time) and the other is frustration with the basic rules of the game (you have to rely on your partners).

On the first subject I agree. At the start of the year (and even more after Crossroads) I have felt that what is needed are dedicated scorekeepers, so that a few more eyes are watching the match and the referees are focusing on fouls and not scoring. At Crossroads there were a number of matches with such problems. It may have just been my distorted perspective because I was refereeing there, but it seemed to me that at Queen City there were fewer big issues. It helped that the head referee had already refereed this year.

I am planning on recruiting enough volunteers for our off season event that we can have two people at each of the near side pads to watch for and record possessions, trusses, catches and scores. That way someone can stay focused on field at all times. Then the far side referees can focus on foul calls. This is not the first time I have felt that dedicated scorekeepers were needed. And in my opinion this is not the worst year for such problems. I think the inconsistent minibot races in 2011 might have been the worst example. "I know your bot slammed into the top of the tower first, but that wasn't hard enough to trigger the sensor, so you lose." Though the "automatic" scoring last year was certainly an issue. And there are always some issues. I can remember several times when controversial calls or no calls decided a match in the eliminations at a regional.

As for the complaints that this year's game makes good robots particularly vulnerable to bad alliance partners in qualification and thus to particularly unfair rankings, I am not buying it. As Sean pointed out already, I think nothing will ever beat 2007's match selection algorithm. I completely agree that this game is one in which one awesome robot cannot beat an alliance of three pretty good robots all on its own. The key is all on its own. I have yet to find even one parent or supporter (non team members) who went to watch this year and thought the game was boring. The consensus among the parents who have been to multiple competitions was that this one was more exciting and easier to understand than any they have seen since 2011. In spite of this being our worst on field performance in that time.

(Note: I am not directing this at posters in this thread. These observations were from my own observations.) I heard a few (not many) members from a few "good" teams being snarky about "bad" robots/teams needing to "read the rules and understand the game." And then complain that they got beat by a couple of mediocre robots and a box on wheels. When one of these comments was made, a team member for 3494, the Quadrangles asked the student "Why is it more important for them to do what you want than for you to do what they want? You are a team and you have to play the game together." Any response by me couldn't have improved on that.

I think it showed in the Quadrangles play at QCR. In my view they had were one of the two or three best performing teams there after the Bomb Squad. They had a good robot, but they (as well as 3266 and 3324) seemed to me to be the best of the teams at Queen City at adapting their style of play to compliment their allies. Their alliance in eliminations (with 868 and 3506) played very well. This is not a diss aimed at team 16. Their robot was just so good that almost everyone seemed to try to let them direct the flow of the game, and they were able to race down and help their allies with blocking or defense, then scoop up a ball and race down and score with it almost at will. And they showed in the finals that two teams that play well (2665 and 447) with an awesome robot are really
hard to beat.

I think that some teams who usually have really good robots are used to being able to dominate a game on their own. That is really hard to do in this game. I think that is a good thing. I think the laments that this system is really hurting the mid range robots is a little disingenuous. This year a team with a decent ball gatherer and a decent drive train can be a really effective robot. If they can score in autonomous and make truss shots they can be a top robot if they drive well.

We have never had one of the "awesome robots." So I would say that in terms of on the field competitiveness we are a mid range team. Our competitive experience at Crossroads was certainly frustrating. We had some cRIO issues (a couple times when other robots drove into us) that messed up our autonomous until Saturday morning. We scored in every match, but we had some relatively bad luck in terms of alliance pairings and fouls. We didn't get picked for eliminations, which hasn't happened to us at a regional since 2011. (Just to highlight an anecdote to show that random chance is not the exclusive bane of this year, in 2011 we didn't even get picked for eliminations at Buckeye and yet went 9-1 with a number 4 seed in qualifying at the Championships.) Yet my team still liked the game. They were down about not making eliminations, but certainly still had a lot of fun.

I coach cross country and track and field in addition to robotics. We have a saying we use a lot: "You can't control the quality of your opposition." My CC team won a big school state title in 2011. That same team would not have been able to win in 2012 or 2013. The team that won those two years was way too good. I had a 4th place team in 2010 that could have won in several years earlier in that decade. The second place team in 2013 is also in our district. They would have won most of the other years in the past two decades.

Which brings me back to my original point. You should be striving to win. And you have every right to expect the people putting on the event to do everything they can to make the event enjoyable and fair. And to be upset when mistakes, particularly avoidable mistakes, mess up results. (I am not telling people to stop complaining about the mistakes and issues. That is part of the process of improving. It is also part of making other people think about issues. When I talk to someone like Travis and hear what he is upset with, it makes me think more clearly about what is wrong and how to correct it. Hopefully this will make the Central Ohio Robotics Invitational a better event. Hopefully it also gives insight to those with the power to make changes in the regular season.) You also should remember that sometimes things will not go your way. Try not to confuse the frustration of things not going your way with the frustration of things not "going the way they should." Try to remember that winning is explicitly not the purpose of FRC competition.

Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 

The issues I see:
1. The game requires more interaction between alliance partners to successful. That is a stated goal of the GDC. It certainly meets that goal. Personally I few this as a positive.
2. The field hardware (pedestal lights in particular) & MMI design have big issues. This really should be a major focus going forward since it very fixable.
3. The penalty point values are out of line with scoring. This is especially painful since teams often don’t know why the penalty was assigned even after the match. So it is hard for teams to modify their match play. This is much like the minibots in Logomotion.
4. A very hard game to referee. I don’t think the referee training is up to snuff. The referees have the hardest job at the competition. They are required to make judgments in real time with little chance of correction. Not a job I would want. Thanks to the volunteers that take it on. Many game rules are kinda sorta the same year to year, but change enough that you can’t make calls on last year’s rules. (I know that is a Duh, but it happens) Case in point is robot interaction with contact inside the frame perimeter. That changed even during the season.
I think this is a good game that should be a great game. Fortunately the management at First sees the same issues. I am looking forward to next year’s game.
5th week teams should fill out that were emailed to the teams contact. It closes today.

The answer to the too few seeding matches to get an accurate rank is scouting. It is one of the things that separate the good teams from the great teams.

Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 

The interesting part of this is the diversity of the customers themselves. It appears some like the game as they are more "productive" than in the past, others dislike it because they are less "productive". Some really focus on the fouls, while others seem to let it slide and simply just enjoy the competition for what it is.

One of the sayings I have is "Everything is a compromise", this game included. Something will be gained and something will be lost.

It would be interesting to get the numbers. The survey seems to be one tool with indicators and it appears to me between 60% and 80% overall and around 90% positive rookie responses the game appears to be liked by more than disliked.

Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 

I am well aware of 4967 since we played with them and they are very good but I also think they are more the exception than the rule. Most rookie teams would benifit from some help from verteran teams and I would submit the veteran teams that helped out would also benifit by seeing new ideas that might be able to be implimented or gain a strategy they had not thought of.

Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 

^^^^^^
This.

I once had the opportunity to visit with a ref at our competition. He shared with me something that I carry in my heart to this day. And yes I know some of you are going to say, 'Yeah right, whatever' but here is what he said and I believe as well..

"Yes, I want to beat you but only if your robot is competing at its very best. This isn't all about winning. This is about working together to help everyone compete at their very best."

Inspiration comes in many forms from within FIRST. Some teams find inspiration in winning and others simply in accomplishing the challenge of building a competitive robot each year. We fall into the later category. We are an 'average' team that tries to improve in some way each year. We find our inspiration in that fact and in what is possible. We compete against some of the best FRC has to offer in terms of talent and capabilities and I tell my team, 'If you cannot look at what they accomplished and appreciate it as a feat of engineering prowess you are not here for the right reasons.'

Yes, I get caught up in the competition. Yes, I enjoy a good match. Yes, I want to bring home a blue banner BUT it is not the end-all-be-all of my team and should not be what keeps us all coming back.

I personally feel our greatest accomplishments are what we (my team, FIRST, and everyone who competes in it) inspire my students to do. They are going on to bigger and better things in college and in life. They are better equipped to deal with disappointment, leadership, and teamwork. They are entering their careers earning double and triple what I earn as a 10-year high school teacher and even better than that, they are mentoring middle and high school engineering (mainly robotics :D ) teams in their towns. That is my ultimate goal and reward for every hour I spend away from my family during build season. It is what keeps my engineering mentors coming back year after year and it is why I will continue in FIRST for the foreseeable future.

Please, stop beating this game to death. The game is what it is love it or hate it. Like some things in life it's time to accept it for what it is and make the very best that we can out of it.

Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 

This isn't the first year that CD has gone wild over how much they dislike the game and it won't be the last.
Remember that: No game will please everyone. Also, the forum's "consensus" could very well be a vocal minority.
Every year there are people who don't do as well as they would like, so they come here pointing out "flaws" with the game. What people seem to forget is that every single competition on the planet will have similar issues. If they aren't apparent, it's because they have gone through a long process of correction or because we've grown up with them.
Also, the secrecy of the game challenge is one of the things that defines FIRST. There are other robotics competitions that are the same every year. It is inevitable when trying to come up with something unique and interesting that there will be side effects.
I agree that there are problems with this game's design and implementation that might have been prevented, but let's not overreact as if this is a problem that we wouldn't face doing anything else competitive and exciting.

Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 

I think if the GDC had given us lead time about the increased interactivity this year (e.g., see how the FTC GDC is giving an early statement about the water game next year), more experienced teams could have helped with managing the expectations of the newer teams. The older teams could have said "don't spend time on trying to accomplish every task, instead focus on doing specific tasks very well." As was pointed out, a single robot doing poorly had a much less impact than this year. In 2012, we nearly tied an alliance of three robots that placed 2-3-4 at our regional when our two alliance partners didn't even show up. I can't imagine that we could pull that off this year. (And I don't have a problem with that so long as we can prepare.)

Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 

This is standard advice I (and I'd hope many others) give to new teams every year. Unfortunately, it's not always followed.

Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 

You're aware that yesterday was April 1st, right?

Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 

This. I think a lot of people are overlooking issues like this.

For instance--and I'm not implying this is what Kevin meant--there's been a lot of 'vocal minority' explanations floating around. Let's posit for a moment that this is true, and the general majority has no abnormal issues with the game.

While this postulate is certainly a positive, it overlooks the importance of that particular vocal minority. I don't say this as a back-patting method. If you woke me up on 3 January 2014 and said that Jim Zondag is going to write 'Spanking the Children' on this game, that Karthik would stop MCing Ontario*, that I'd personally know of multiple key and certified volunteers considering not participating as much next year, that my very-veteran head refs were going to warn us of the hardship, that they'd rightly need a vent valve to relieve the pressure of the question box and later apologize for a wrong call that ended an elim run, that we'd stress personally about possible missed assists and fouls, that top coaches and strategists would be unusually upset over by game quirks, that refs would stay up nights with a competition-Thursday team update...If you gave me a list of half of the top mentors and volunteers that have expressed uncharacteristic concerns about this game on CD or elsewhere, I would have been terrified. Not because I'd trust them that there's a problem(s) with the game, though I would worry, but because FIRST objectively relies on much of this vocal minority. These are our district organizers, our volunteer coordinators, our head referees, our FTAs, the volunteers, mentors and students that make the grassroots level (and above) work.

I suspect I've just opened up a can of flames. To be clear, I have the utmost respect for every one of these people. I'm not saying we're going to have a mass exodus here or that anything about it is somehow shallow, though I wouldn't blame anyone for leaving. Nor am I implying that anyone is somehow better or possessing of a more valid opinion than someone else. FIRST does need key volunteers though, and I'm worried by even the few (but unprecedented) number of discussions I've personally heard about people not returning. As Mr. Sevcik's BEST example indicates, continuing at this level is fundamentally jeopardous to FRC's volunteer base. We need to understand what's going on here to prevent it from continuing to erode this support.

---
Offensive trapping still is not being called consistently. It's not just that different referees see it differently (a flaw of the game, not so much refs), but because we are deliberately told to look for different things at different events. Seriously. Dear GDC: change the wording of G12d. I am not attempting to shield my ball by pushing it against my alliance partner or against the low goal. You answered the Q&A. Enforce it that way. garrgh.

*EDIT: I've since been informed that this one in particular may not be directly game-related

Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 

Thank you Siri for pointing out the toll this game has taken from the volunteers who are the life blood of this franchise. Plain and simple First screwed the pooch this year and has caused serious damage. That aside regardless of the problems of the game I feel that our team's goal of preparing our kids for a tech future have been met. We built a robot to play the game, worked thru some major people problems, taught them to work together as a team, and lastly they found methods and ways to deal with and play the game and win. Not our best year but some good life experiences have occurred on our team. Yes, First corporate you screwed up. Don't sugar coat it with stats and believe your own PR. Don't do it again next year.

Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 

All this doom and gloom reminds of those foreseeing FTC's destruction after the FVC split. Every one needs to reevaluate why they are raging right now. so much rage and so little perspective. Sounds like some folks need to spend some time relaxing with family and get away from robots for a while.

Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 

I really don't know where your getting this "rage" thing from. People have strong feelings about something they care deeply for but I haven't seen any rage a little anger maybe but no "rage." Saying people have so little perspective is condescending and not at all helpful.

Folks have a right to express their feelings about something they have pored thousands of hours and countless dollars on.

Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 

I'm not angry. I'm really sad. In the past 5 years or so, FIRST has lost so many great people like Woodie Flowers/Dave Lavery (from GDC) and Bill Miller and key members of the FIRST community like Karthik, Paul Copioli, and Jim Zondag have all expressed frustration with how the season is going. Tons of refs are unhappy. Most of the times when teams are eliminated, they leave, not happy that they're out, but they aren't really mad. This year, teams are angry and bitter because of their losses. Teams that seed first in small events are angry that they're third robot is a box on wheels, and can't beat the number 8 alliance. The combination of incorrect scoring, pointless penalties (1114 in SF in Waterloo), incorrect calling of fouls, and field issues doesn't inspire anybody. FIRST's survey (that they used to convince themselves they hadn't failed) doesn't accurately represent the quality of the game. If you went to the Olympics, and 10 countries didn't place in an event because of a scoring issue, then it wouldn't be a very good game, even if the other 100 countries all thought it was fair.

I am super, super frustrated about a few issues. Making major changes to the game at this point would only make people more upset. However, the lack of fixes for the field is just unacceptable.

We payed many thousands of dollars to put up with the incompetence of the FMS developer. Creating a device which turns on one light for 5 seconds, and then another light for 5 seconds is really simple. So is turning on a colored light when somebody pushes a button. If FIRST doesn't have the resources to do this with the over complicated field system, then use a light switch or a simple timing circuit. Expecting one second accuracy for a timed competition is not unreasonable. I had the opportunity to use a referee tablet this weekend. It is awful. I pity the refs who put up with them. There is a several second delay on the tablet for the screen to respond, an additional delay for the green dots on the field video display to appear, and an additional 10 seconds for the goal lights to turn on.

The tablets worked just fine in 2011, 2012, and 2013. Why did they have to ruin them this year?

Re: Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke
 

I'm not sure who's raging, but I will point out that while it didn't "destruct", FTC really didn't recover from that split in terms of number of teams and events. (A member of FTC HQ actually pointed out to us when we started our FTC team--her answer to our very-late KoP arrival was that they couldn't compete with VEX. No, really.) The point being that FIRST is fallible, and if you consider trying to bring issues to light to be "raging"... well then yes, I'm raging in the hopes that we as a FIRST community (including HQ) can overcome these challenges.

I haven't seen anyone predicting a raging self-destruct here. I haven't even seen anyone saying this game will have a long-term negative affect on FIRST. I have seen many people saying that these problems are detrimental and they need to be identified, root-caused and addressed rather than perpetuated for the good of the community. To that end, some of what we have now is purely complaining (I personally don't have an issue with this), some of it's already constructive, and much of the complaining can help inform construction.