FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

http://www3.usfirst.org/roboticsprog...d-FIRST-Babies

Fighting the sentiments of a few with data from the majority. Go Frank!

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

I did not respond to this survey for either of events because I didn't have the time necessary to properly and fairly communicate all of the things that I dislike about this game.

Whether or not people realize it's a mess has no bearing on whether or not it is actually a mess. Fundamentally, it plays poorly, the referees do a poor job of officiating it and the field is broken. FIRST should strive to achieve better than that, irrespective of whether or not people think they're doing a good job.

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

I had no idea there was a survey.

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

A link to the survey is sent only to the main and alternate contacts for the team. That's how I was aware of it.

I'd be curious to learn more about how closely main/alternate contacts are tied, typically, to the evaluation of their team's on-field performance. That is, what is the ratio of NEMOs to engineering folks filling the role? Are NEMOs less likely to perceive problems with the implementation of the game?

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

I had no idea either, but I'm obviously not a main or alternate contact.

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

This feels a bit defensive to me. I believe it is fairly well know that Frank and/or other members of FIRST HQ monitor Chief Delphi. I feel like this blog was written to try to quell the wave of criticism over various game issues. While I certainly appreciate that HQ may want show the results, I wish the graphs showed a bit more information. Specifically I believe that the "Fair" responses may make up a significant portion of the responses. A graph of absolute quantities for each response would tell a larger story in my opinion. This sort of blog seems to say "Look at what we have done well" when many people are talking about the major issues in this game. The data here does not seem to match with the feedback I have heard from others.

All that said I still have the utmost respect for those in FIRST HQ and on the GDC. This is not meant to be a criticism on any one person, I just wish the data was a bit more complete.

Perhaps they should publish some of the raw survey data and let the people on CD draw their own conclusions.

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

^

I actually just earlier today filed a survey in which I rated the game "Good" simply because I like the concept and focus on teamwork. However, the rest of my survey was dedicated to discussing all of the issues, which I happen to see as less inherent to the game design than some, such as refereeing inconsistency, as well as some particularly contentious issues at our own event.

So it'd be nice if FIRST gave a little broader sample of data to inform us of the feedback, rather than show a little preview to calm things down.

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

It seems this was only one question (explicitly called out as #13) in a multi question survey, sent to only two contacts per team who are probably already inundated with FRC related email.

Results seem valid. :rolleyes:

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

The game is fun to watch, and I can imagine the students enjoy the sports-like atmosphere of the game. And the blog emphasizes one of the biggest issues with the game (the ref problem), so it's pretty clear some good will come of this.

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

All mentors registered in TIMS (and possibly also students in STIMS) can log in, click "Edit My Account," and scroll down to Email Broadcast Opt-In, to sign up for the email blast that all team leaders receive. Team leaders really should be forwarding them to the entire team (or at least the relevant information), but this is a good way to make sure you don't miss anything (such as an event survey).

EDIT: I checked my archived mail, and it looks like I only got a forwarded message from our team lead. I guess they only send the survey links to Main/Alternate Contacts of teams who competed that week.

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

I can't tell if the data is an April Fools joke or legitimate.

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

So you assume Frank is attempting to mislead us by cherry-picking the statistics he shares? Do you have some evidence for this, or is it based on personal bias and a very vocal few on CD?

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

I believe the evidence is that the survey was only sent to main and alternate contacts (probably accounting for most of the student:mentor ratio discrepancy), leaving the majority of FIRST participants unaware of its existence, and also that FIRST only posted limited stats on one particular question on the survey, which may or may not fully reflect participants' satisfaction.

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

The survey was sent to main and alternate contacts with INSTRUCTIONS that those people send the surveys out to the rest of their team members.

I received an email from one of my team leads asking to fill out the survey for our event, and I did so.

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

I did not assert he was lying. I merely provided some interesting reading on the topic of statistics and using them to convey a point.

If you'd like my opinion I'd currently be quite unlikely to share it given your habit of accusing me of things that I didn't say.

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

I would assume FIRST sends it out to these contacts hoping they forward it it to the rest of the team as necessary, rather than try and send it to every single person in STIMS/TIMS.

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

Ours forwarded it to all students and mentors as per the instructions.

Greetings Teams:
Please don’t forget to send this link to everyone from your team who participated in a Week 5 event: https://www.surveymonkey.com...
Your feedback is very important to us! Please be sure to tell us about your experience by Wednesday, April 2nd.


EDIT: I do agree the couple days after competition is hectic so emails may not be forwarded until it is too late to respond. There probably is a disparity I just don't know the best way to handle this other than the method they currently use.

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

What I see in this blog post is a 40% reduction of very good ratings and a 400% increase of very poor ratings.

I don't think this is something to brag about.

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

Emphasis mine. No where in the blog post did I see anything even close to resembling bragging. In fact, he even states that the results this year are not as good as Ultimate Ascents popularity.

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

First, you can figure out the "Fair" responses, as that's the only missing response from the graph. Week 1 has 12% poor, 66% good, so fair was about 22%.

Second, while I don't think anyone's trying to lie with the graphs and survey results, I think they should be taken with a sizable portion of sodium chloride. This is a summary result of a somewhat vague question of an online survey that apparently wasn't well advertised and was not administered particularly scientifically.

As others have pointed out, "What's the quality of the 2014 game?" is a vastly different question from the quality of execution of the game. Also, I'm not sure "lots of people after you liked the game" is an appropriate response to the 10% of week 1 teams that were disappointed with the game.

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

I find it kind of strange that week four's survey was sent to me on the Friday of week four. We had no issues week four other than not doing so well. But week five's survey never came, and we had all kinds of problems with week five...

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

I'm pretty confused as to how people are reading between the lines as well. Frank clearly says it's not up to par, and that FIRST is trying to resolve issues as quickly as possible.

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

Another interesting note, that I missed at first read, and perhaps others did also. Frank says there have been 3600 survey respondents, while there were only 2300 throughout all of last year. So certainly an improvement. And, 3600 is by no means a small number, though it only comes out to 2 or 3 per team.

Another thing to consider is that survey responses may be biased to the negative side, since people may be more likely to go fill one out if they have complaints than if they are satisfied.

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

I've actually liked the game a lot. Yes, it has its points of frustration, for sure... and it's not Ultimate Ascent... but it is very good.

I think it's hard for many of us as engineers and perfectionists to say "yeah, the game is actually quite good" when there are still flaws in it.

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

2-3 per team would be a really good sample actually. The fact is that it's unlikely clumped to a handful (handful here being somewhere between 100 and 1000) teams rather than randomly distributed among teams. Furthermore, teams that competed more often will be over represented (125 competed week 2, 4,5 and will compete 6 and 7).

This is also correct, negative things are also more likely to stand out in our minds. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/24/yo...pagewanted=all




Please note, this post merely asserts that there is likely not an even distribution of votes it does not claim that this is good or bad. It also merely provides source material for interested parties on negativity and recollection.

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

Frank,
Thanks for sharing the survey feedback. Unfortunately, I was not able to participate in the survey after our two events. These opinions are my own, not my full team.

The game design was a significant paradigm shift with limited game pieces and no "end game." Encouraging more teamwork is definitely an admirable goal. However, making game more sports-like is not the best approach.

Sports have many subjective rules that both teams and refs understand after years of play and abundant visual references. Having no reference point for subjective fouls or possession calls was frustrating.

Additionally, two thirds of my team's contribution to our alliance was focused primarily on the drive base of the robot - setting picks or defending. This is common for sports but translates poorly to the "sport" of FRC. I personally prefer contributing to our alliance through the scoring section. All teams pour a great deal of effort into scoring functions. I feel some teams were not given the opportunity or had very limited chances to use what they built.

We did enjoy the challenge of building a machine for Aerial Assist. Overall our team and students gained valuable experience in our second year. We achieved many "firsts" and look forward to next season.

David Allred
Mentor 4451 ROBOTZ Garage

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

What I love about the first graph:
week1->week2 showed definitive improvement. The negatives went down from ~12% to ~7%, and the positives jumped up from ~66% to ~78%.

What I don't love about the first graph:
There is no appreciable change from week 2 onwards.

I do like some things about the second graph, but I don't believe the sample sizes are large enough to conclude anything definitively.

I will add my name to the list of people who don't understand why others view this as bragging. If I missed a sentence that sounded prideful, please quote it for me, because I have read it twice without seeing anything like that.

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

This might not be what you're intending, but this reads an awful lot like "screw what other people think, my opinion is the correct one."

That's not a particularly productive view to have.

I, for one, like this game quite a bit. There are issues, yes, but the fundamental design is the best FIRST has had in a long while. FRC has gone too long with three robots playing in parallel rather than three robots playing as a team.

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

I am an Alternate Contact, and only received the survey email after our week 5 event, not after our week 2. MrBasse mentioned receiving it after week 4 but not 5. It may be that they only send it to multiple-event teams once, and hopefully randomize which event.

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

Her opinion is just that, her opinion. This game has caused a number of reactions both good and bad which I feel are valid and should be considered by FIRST. As subjective as this game is, opinions will range based on the volunteers running the event and the teams participating. Some have been good while others have been downright difficult. Needless to say FIRST can and should make changes based on the reactions of their paying customers. I respect that Frank and FIRST are actively looking into this response, but I still believe there is work to be done on that front.

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

What do you consider the 'fundamental design' to be? Is it the simple, high-level description absent of all rules? Is it the full rule book?

I certainly understand and agree with the many claims that foul point values are completely out of whack for most infractions, that rule enforcement is arbitrary and varied, and that a team's performance is very closely tied with the capability of randomly assigned alliance members. I think the decisions that led to the implementation of those rules were flawed, but will concede that others can disagree and I have no irrefutable evidence that supports my position.

However, the field does not work and the referees are not able to credit teams appropriately for accomplishing rudimentary game tasks. Can anyone reasonably refute either of these claims? Fundamentally, FIRST did not provide a product that lives up to the expectation they set at kick-off. The result of a survey should not dissuade FIRST from understanding that and taking corrective action; and I do not necessarily believe that it will.

There are, in my opinion, too many people in FIRST that use the notion, true as it may be, that "it's not about the robots" as a get out of jail free card and as an excuse for poor performance. I'm getting pretty frustrated by that.

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

I think if a survey was sent to drive coaches only, the results would be much different.

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

Agreed. The game is actually quite fun, but after a frustrating, FMS and referee error filled match, there is nobody on a team that has been inspired. If anything, kids are discouraged from putting hours and hours of work into FIRST after playing this game.

In fact, I am wondering if there is a single drive coach (with a few years of FRC experience) of a competitive, elimination round, non rookie team that is happy with the game.

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

Couldn't agree more.

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

I'm sure I am in the tiny minority (especially here on CD) that has actually found this game the most challenging and strategic in recent years. I have had fun devising strategies that get "box bot's" involved in the action. Last year we had a great robot that could win matches by itself. This year we have a great robot as well but we need everyone to do their part. I am easily one of the most active coaches on the floor running to and from alliance driver stations. It's fun trying to choreograph a match, especially because the dynamics change so often with defense. Last year was a fantastic game, (my favorite) however we could simply run cycles, tell our partners to play defense, and win. This year has so much more involved.

Of course there are many bad aspects of the game. Losing a match because of a bogus call, missing assists points, and other things that I'm sure this thread will evolve into as most other threads have lately, are so frustrating when they happen. I agree there are a ton of things that were not thought out and should have been improved with this game. I just thought I should say that I still have a great time coaching it.

This is just my opinion of the game and I know most people (on CD at least) hate the game. Please don't bother trying to convince me how much it sucks, I've already read countless pages of that :p

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

I really do agree with a lot of what you're saying. I had a fantastic time at our first event as the drive coach. The depth of strategy and quality of gameplay were the best I have ever seen. All three robots on our alliance were contributing and smart members of the team.

My perfect and happy time with the game ended at a second event, where bad calls, field issues, and fms problems ruined my day.

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

Same.

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

One ball per alliance, score generated by all robots on the alliance working to get it into the goal, with a wide open field and lots of potential for defense. I think that is a fundamentally very good design, and far more interesting than anything FRC has done in the past.

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

Do you believe that the drive coach's opinion is more important than the main or alternate contact? If so, why?

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

If the NFL wanted to know the effect of new pass interference rules, would they ask someone from the front office of a team or the Head Coach?

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

Use some common sense man. You wanna know the effect of rules on a game, ask the people who deal with them directly on a constant basis.

And those front office people are only on there because of NFL politics.

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

I am a drive coach with (now) 2 years of experience on a non-rookie team that made it to elimination rounds at both of our regionals this year. And I have to say... I LOVE this game! I'm a huge fan of everything strategy-related, so the strategy component of this year's game really excites me, especially compared to last year's game.
So yes, there's at least 1 drive coach who meets your criteria.

I've read lots of ChiefDelphi and I understand everyone's complaints about this year's game. However, I think it's important that we don't be too harsh on the GDC. They tried to be different and innovative! Maybe it didn't work this year... but so what? If all we do is say "You did it wrong! We hate it! We liked Ultimate Ascent!", then the GDC will stop trying new and different things, and the rest of the games we play until forever will be largely the same. And sure, Ultimate Ascent two or three years in a row might be ok... but wouldn't it get old eventually? As long as we ask for different games every year, we'll have to just accept that fact that not every game will be perfect.

There's always going to be someone who's unhappy (As evidenced by last year's polls), but if you're the one who's unhappy, lets please please please not bring down everyone else.

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

I don't necessarily believe we're mad at the attempt GDC made. It's a bold attempt, I like that. I love the strategic complexity of the game. If I was mentoring a team right now I'd mention a lot of things.

But the idealized, theoretical way that GDC probably envisioned this game and how it actually plays out are two very different things in my eyes.

As has been said before, sports style games are fun, but remember that modern sports and their rules are backed by decades (Some centuries) of observation.

I also fully support *respectfully* criticizing aspects of the game and GDC decisions. There's a difference. We can be harsh towards the GDC.

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

I think common sense was used.

There is much more to the success of an FRC game than whether or not the 4 individuals per team around the field thought it was the best game. How about things like student and team retention rate? How easy it is for "outsiders" to watch? How interesting is it for experienced FIRSTers to watch? Is the field affordable, rugged, and able to be reset quickly? The subjective, "Are students inspired?" aspect? Now, I'm not saying Aerial Assist is the best game by all these measures, but it certainly isn't the horrendous game that some people are trying to pretend that it is.

I am honestly tired of hearing people complain about this game... so I guess I'll join the party of complaints by complaining about the people complaining. This game isn't bad.*

- This game provides a way for simple, effective robots to do surprisingly well. I've seen plenty of robots here in New England, particularly ones made by rookie teams, that were designed to do a limited skill set very well... and they've been quite successful. No, not more successful than the more complicated (and effective) robots, but still enough to do very well in their role.

- You may complain about qualification matches being too dependent on your partners' capabilities, but I've seen the WLT ranking system do a great job at putting the best robots in/near the top. This may be partially due to the district system (high match to # of teams ratio), but it's done a very good job. Good teams win more qual matches, even with the occasional tech foul, delayed pedestal, or inconsistent partner. If qual matches are such crap-shoot how are the best teams at many events able to go undefeated?

- Game pieces are robust and (sufficiently) available. Looking back at Rebound Rumble, Logomotion, Rack 'n Roll, or Aim High with rose-tinted glasses? How about the fact that these game pieces actually survive events and don't vary as soon as "fresh" game pieces appear? Yes they can pop, but I think it's probably happened in our team's 38 matches only once.

- Match turnaround is straight-forward and quick (after the first dozen matches). 'nuff said.

- Matches are strategic... match strategy varies and there are several viable strategies for winning depending on your alliance's composition. You don't need to truss and catch and shoot high and get triple assists. You can choose one or two elements and play to your alliance's strength (although I'm guessing this will decline as you get to higher levels of play).

- Auto has a significant impact on the match outcome, but is by no means a lock or insurmountable obstacle.

So there you have it... a few things that are positive about this game. Try to mix things up and think of some more positive things rather than just seething over the fact that you lost matches over weird calls, missed assists, or feel let-down about how your season ended. No, this game isn't perfect... but neither were any of the prior games and don't expect that to change.

I disagree with both of those claims. At the 4 events I have attended the field and the referees have generally done a good job; malfunctions or botched calls have been uncommon, not the norm. Yes, week 1 events were rough around the edges, but that's hardly enough to ruin a game.

I haven't drive coached this year (despite being involved with strategy, scouting, and pit work), but I'm happy with the game, and so are other drive coaches I know.

*So you insist, "Well, that's subjective!" OK, well I can insist it's a good game, you can insist it's a bad game... end of story.

For the record, I too find the subjective nature of many rules frustrating. I too think the refs are over-burdened. I too think this game has flaws... that doesn't mean that the sky is falling though.

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

Here's the Week 5 survey link, my people:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/FRC2014TeamSurvey-week5

Wouldn't want anyone who competed last week to feel left out!

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

Uhh... are you sure they want you sharing this? I was under the impression that they limited the survey to 2/team to try to give their sample a more or less even distribution across teams.

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

"Survey for mentors & student team members from FIRST Headquarters is open only until midnight Wednesday April 2"

"please forward link to your team and encourage them to complete it - thank you!!"

We're all on the same team, are we not? Kum-ba-yah.

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

For statistical purposes, "What do you think of the game?" is not a useful question. Respondents could be referring to the quality of the rules, but more likely to the overall idea of the game "giant balls being thrown through holes while other robots assist."

Additionally, the respondents are self-selecting, which additionally calls the validity (statistically speaking) of the survey into question. In order to get the most accurate representation, a random sample needs to be taken.

In addition, there aren't any crosstabs available, but all of this is covered under "The usual caveats... apply" paragraph stating that this is NOT a scientific survey. But you don't "tease" this sort of data unless you're trying to quell some serious dissent in the ranks. This is evident in the "burden placed on our volunteer referees" comment, which has to be the largest understatement of the month.

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

The only way to quell serious dissent in the ranks is to implement meaningful change.

c.f. Einstein 2012

This is worse. Ain't just 12 teams denied the appropriate opportunity to shine to their full potential. And is this not a similar situation, where the governing body, via their inaction and/or incomplete attention to design detail, failed to sufficiently catch and address significant flaws that ended up adversely impacting teams? I see no difference here, except instead of wireless communications hardware/firmware, we're talking referee->field interface hardware/software, game/foul rules, and referee training and preparation, and we're talking a significantly greater number of teams impacted.

FIRST took very proactive and well-received steps to correct the Einstein 2012 situation. I expect NO LESS from them in addressing this current situation.

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

I think it is a reasonable assumption that anyone who presents you with data is trying to sell you a particular version of a story. The contrast between Frank's wording and IndySam's explanation of the same chart is a great example of how two people can read very different things from the same data!

My reading of the data is that a significant portion of the people who respond to optional surveys in FIRST e-mail blasts think that both Ultimate Ascent and Aerial Assist are good games. I would wager that these people would say the same thing of any FRC game, but I of course have no data to back this up.

Now that Travis has posted the link on CD, I expect the week 5 results will be different and no longer representative of people who respond to optional surveys in FIRST e-mail blasts.

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

G.I. Joe taught me that knowing is half the battle.

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

This tread sounds like some of my students after they get a test back. These students who have not done well and complain that the test was "a bad" test for various reasons. I would then post the range of test scores. They would not be significantly different than the results of the last test. The students would still insist the test is bad or the teacher didn't teach the material properly.

It's amazing how folks can see data right in front of them and still insist their original opinion is that of the majority when it may not be.

So much rage this year. So much misplaced rage.

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

I would love to see a survey of a group of people who had no stake in the outcome of any one match, but were absolutely very involved with the play and execution of every match: the referees.

Here is an unbiased group that can let their feelings be known without being accused of sour grapes or team bias.

Why not ask them?

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

^^^ This ^^^^

Many refs are long-time, committed FIRSTers who are generally a rational bunch.

To the refs: your perspectives can shine light on making the next game better.

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

Anyone notice the data makes a little bit of a smirk/smile, and it was posted April 1?

Just wondering.

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

I would wager significant money that their responses would be skewed towards the negative, due to the fact that they were overwhelmed all year. I think that the results would be fair and very indicitative of this game's true colours. If the refs aren't happy and confident, the game just doesn't work, since they directly control match flow. I in no way blame the individual referees. I know many who are some of the best in the business, and even they are overwhelmed.

This year was a very good experiment for the FRC GDC and FIRST as a whole. It showed us how some really great ideas don't translate well into portions of FRC games, with some current team cultures. It also showed the true character of some folks this year, through both their frustration and resilience.

-Nick

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

Actually, this season, the teacher decided to randomly yoink the test out of a large percentage of students' hands before the normally alotted amount of time for taking the exam ran out. Each and every bad foul call, pedestal delay, missed assist, unpenalized instance of damage, etc. yoinked additional valuable time away from the students trying to pass the exam.

Some high-performing students may have been better able to still "ace the test" given the artificially compressed environment foisted upon them. Others who very well could have passed the test if given the full allotted time will never know if they actually would have achieved that goal because THE TEACHER NEVER GAVE THEM THE FULL OPPORTUNITY TO SUCCEED THEY WERE ORIGINALLY PROMISED. ;) ;) ;)


Also, the survey email I received from the (very good, nice, and wonderful) Pittsburgh RD also contains the following:

"A note about surveys:
Seriously, we are working hard to NOT over-survey you guys! Both FIRST HQ and I need team data in order to write grant reports and funding proposals. Last year we had only a 27% return on student surveys at the Pittsburgh Regional, and ~1% (yep, one %) return on HQ surveys from our event. The only way we can ensure having regional competitions is to have evaluation processes in place that work. I thank you from the bottom of my heart for your patience and care in responding to our surveys."

I don't know what a good number is for an estimate of the total students/mentors in FIRST, but let's assume (very conservatively) 20 students/mentors per team on average. 20 * 2700 = 54000 potential responses. 3600 responses out of a possible 54000 is a mere 6.6%. And this doesn't include the fact teams are given the chance to respond multiple times if they attend multiple events.

Honestly, I'd like to see more team members SPEAK UP and contribute to these surveys regardless of opinion, such that the statistics drawn from them become more relevant and worthy of reporting.

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

Shouldn't the fact that there is so much rage this year mean something? In my time participating in FIRST, have never seen so many people that really don't like the game. If everything was truly rainbows and unicorns, there would be a lot fewer dis-satisfied customers.

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

I think the numbers, no matter how non-scientific they are, say something else. It says there is a vocal minority that does not like the game. Here's what I don't understand about the rage about Frank's data. Everyone seemed to agree that last year's game was a good one (I thought it was inherently boring myself). Frank's data from last year supports the idea that it was a "good" game. Frank pulls out data about this year's game. This data is VERY similar to last year's data. This can't be right. This game is "bad." The data is flawed. How can one set of data be accurate on one hand and another inaccurate if it is the exact same tool that was used to collect that data?

I think folks are upset for another reason, but they are focusing their rage at FIRST, refs, the GDC, "crappy robots that win," "teams that don't read the rules," the RNG. The list goes on and on.

Heck someone said they were tired of hearing "it's not about the robot." Folks need to evaluate their priorities. This rage is misplaced and misguided.

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

So as IndySam pointed out, a 400% increase in "very poor" ratings means most people like it?

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

There is a really bad trap most people fall into, when presented with data they tend to trust it. This is dangerous.

I'd be willing to bet you I could survey folks and get a drastically different answer. Heck, I could do that with the same folks. Furthermore, I could take the exact data and present it in a manner which paints the opposite picture. My point is, just because there's data doesn't mean that the conclusion being painted is the correct one, merely that it is the one we are meant to be seeing.

And before someone jumps down my throat AGAIN. Everyone has an angle. Even this post is meant to make you think one thing while ignoring the opposite opinion. For example, I've conveniently left out any evidence that Frank is an upstanding individual, instead I focused entirely on discrediting the usage of data (visualization) as a method of determining ground truth. Even this statement is here to make you trust that I DON'T have an angle that I'm trying to sell you on, don't be fooled, I do.

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

Well geez, now I don't know what to think.

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

Those who find favor with the game think the data is favorable, and those who choose to make even mroe threads listing the same complaints see a sharp increase of negative results. Everyone has an angle. My angle is that the game is a mixed success because it is supposed to serve 3 masters and in the end only serves one well and the other two have vastly varying results.

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

Just wondering, how does this game compare to, say, Lunacy, in everyone's opinion?

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

Even in Lunacy, you weren't 100% out of luck if your partners couldn't possess game pieces well.

-Nick

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

so roughly 1% doesn't like the game. That's roughly 35-40 folks who took the survey. I could totally live with that.

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

Does your best student complain too, or just the regular group of slackers? If so, he/she is probably just mad about something else, right?

The people who fill out these surveys on teams rarely know what the hell is going on on the field. Make it drive coach or refs who are mandated to take the survey and you'll see the difference.

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

That's right, because human players scored a lot of the points! I can't count the number of matches in Lunacy where human players outscored robots...

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

This year's more fun to watch, that's for sure. It's also focused on cooperating as an alliance to score high, rather than human players(who accounted for ~50% of points in lunacy, if I remember correctly). This can be incredibly painful, I know, but it's an interesting game mechanic that made for interesting, exciting strategies this year.

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

Yeah, but you were very, very screwed if they couldn't move in auto or were disabled for some reason or another.

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

As opposed to 2004 wherein the only way to score other than hanging was the human player? 2004 that is considered a wonderful game?

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

I wasn't around in 2004, so I have no opinion on or knowledge of that game...

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

Everyone should go look at the baby pics….it will make you feel better

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

This. So much this.

Lunacy was a gigantic mess; human players scored more than robots, and the standard of play was terrible all the way through every competition I saw.

Aerial Assist rewards good robots and good teamwork, and has by far the most strategic depth of any game in recent memory, but suffers from inconsistent reffing and some field problems. The eliminations (at least at greater DC, and in a few of the streams I've watched) have a very high standard of play and are a blast to watch.

The two aren't even remotely comparable.

Hooray for broad-brush, unjustified, insulting generalizations. This kind of attitude is not going to win you any friends outside of the insular bubble here on CD. I hope you don't interact with other teams this way.

(As it so happens, I'm a drive coach, and I filled out the survery).

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

I think the some of reason that many long time FIRST mentors are pretty unhappy with this game is not due to the nature or general strategy of the game, but rather the implementation.

In 2009 we saw that robots would be traction limited and had to lug around a big heavy goal. It was pretty apparent from the beginning the game would be a snoozefest. Most people accepted this, built the best robot they could, and competed with it. Sure there were some penalties but they weren't game changers and the scoring was straightforward. Like most good games, the score could easily be verified by counting the game pieces in the goal at the end of the match.

This year, we have the opposite situation. On paper, the game looks good. It has tons of potential (Robots working together? To throw and catch giant balls? With a human player in the mix? Sounds AWESOME!). The issues this year have been mostly technical due to an overcomplication of both field hardware and penalty rules. This will leave a bad taste in any engineer's mouth because these issues are totally avoidable. Unlike 2009, the bad parts of the game are not inherently part of the game!

Some of the issues people have been complaining about are seemingly things that can be fixed with no team intervention (for example with a field software patch or rules update).

• Referee tablets freezing, causing pedestal delays
• Hot goals not turning on
• Missed assists/points due to referees having to watch too many things and having a bad interface to record the score.
• Rules which allow an entangled robot to force penalties on to their opponent (Waterloo SF1-3?)

Now, I'm sure our gripes do not fall upon deaf ears. There have been field software updates. There have been rule changes. While I love that the community's concerns are being heard, these updates have not solved the issues. What makes this blog post a bit hard to swallow is it seems like damage control. This is understandable, this is something every company will have to do at some point in time (though in the real world this comes with a replacement or refund).

We don't want to have the blanket pulled over our eyes. We want FIRST to fix the field. I promise we won't hold a grudge. Just fix the field.

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

I'm glad you can sleep well at night.

The following doesn't even take into account the game design itself. It is purely a look at the game managment problems this season, which have been well documented and widely accepted.

The Aerial Assist game is essentially being judged as guilty by association with the severely flawed game management quality control, which is entirely on the shoulders of HQ. If these issues never existed, the game would be much better received. Would it be perfect? Heck no. The single game piece factor, rules, impact of huge tech fouls, etc. would still be debated, and some would still revile the game. But it would not be viewed in nearly the same negative light by nearly as many.

Now, FIRST was willing to move HEAVEN AND EARTH to fix Einstein 2012, right? How many teams were GENUINELY affected by that exploit? 12? Perhaps a few others if the exploit was used earlier in the season in a certain northern state?

Now WHY IS THAT? What lit a fire under FIRST's keister? Could it be that the exploit - the FLAW - the OVERSIGHT in design THEY and their contractors were RESPONSIBLE FOR - was exposed on their biggest stage, in front of SPONSORS, DONORS, VIP's, MEDIA, and tens of thousands of team members and volunteers?

FIRST was E-M-B-A-R-R-A-S-S-E-D, and they felt their ability to raise funds and maintain growth would be directly threatened if they didn't respond proactively. So they did. Happy fun times ensued...although those teams that felt the burn as a result of their oversight probably still feel very blar that they had to endure that process.

Now what is different about the pedestal delays and FMS/field control design flaws this year, and all other human-generated blar that has manifested as a result of these deficiencies? Have more teams been affected than 12 plus a few others? I would say so! I would say it's in the hundreds or more across the entire season. Have they been hindered in their ability to play the game to the best of their ability? I would say so! Have some been adversely affected in the standings to the point where their chances of securing a victory or even an alliance captaincy are dealt a crippling blow? Undoubtedly.

So where's the uproar from the masses? Where's the prompt response from Manchester? Could it be that since these transgressions are being spread out across numerous events, away from the spotlight of FIRST's greatest stage, that both teams and Manchester simply DON'T CARE that this is going on? They don't feel OBLIGATED to do right by all the teams who've been harpooned by these latest quality control issues? Maybe if the dollar signs aren't being threatened, and teams keep coming back, and people don't speak up and share their frustrations out of some misguided sense that such things just aren't GP, it's just. not. really. worth. anyone's. time. to. care. Let's just post some happy charts saying everyone and everything is swell and move on...nothing to see here!


That, to me, is the true tragedy of this Aerial Assist season.

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

^ You're not saying that it's somehow a new phenomenon that FIRST ignores problems until they become too obvious to do anything else, are you? Because that would be a pretty strong assertion.

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

You are equating wanton cheating by a third party to issues with reffing and a light going off? maybe it's just my gentle nature, but I don't see these two things being in the same state let alone on the same page.

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

Well, allow me to inform you: Human players were the only way the main scoring object could be scored. Not by practicality, by rules. Yet, many folks who were around consider 2004 to be a high point for FRC game design. We had 2 distinct game pieces, we had lots of them so there was no penalty for trying to play the game, there was no chokehold strategy. Matches were exciting up until the last second due to hanging being worth a ton of points but also due to the 2x multiplier ball... It was a great game.

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

He is comparing a field flaw to a field flaw.

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

I agree - FIRST knew about these latest self-generated system flaws much earlier in the season, and they still vetted and unleashed them upon the unsuspecting masses anyway. Since then, the passion with which they've communicated and implemented fixes has not come anywhere near what was undertaken following Einstein 2012.

So you're right....the net adverse impact this year is much worse. :)

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

If everything I ever built worked perfectly the first time, I'd be one hell of an engineer. The reason problems arise is development environments and production environments differ. FIRST isn't an exception to this.

As for software related issues with the FMS, I think FIRST would benefit from getting some more in-house developers to build, debug, and support their software systems.

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

Many have noted that the first time they took a look at the field control relative to the game rules, they quickly identified major weaknesses that would rear their ugly heads if left unchecked.

More eyeballs on the game and field design/vetting processes are needed. Perhaps even eyeballs from the *outside* that have not previously been privy to these processes.

It's a pity FIRST hasn't taken such advice in the past to add more internal resources to alleviate "quality control" problems with field design, referee consistency, and the like.

It's not like such things haven't been suggested before. Wayback machine, engage. Could you imagine the improvements in competition quality that could have been realized had FIRST invested more people and funding into a full blown quality control staff back in the day? If they stopped trying to design and release these games under self-imposed human, time, and monetary resource limits? The teams are the ones who should be operating under such limits in designing their bots. There is no need for the central organization to flog themselves in a similar fashion. Spend some money. Invest. Hire more creative minds to design and build the field hardware and software. Hire more creative minds to create and deploy improved volunteer training for key roles, and supervise and support those roles at competitions - namely, the referees. Make it easier on yourselves up front such that teams reap the benefits during the competitions - let's get it done! I mean a lot of the money FIRST holds in reserve is our fee money, right? Let's spend some more of it in support of the teams paying the fees!

(Wow, I missed the G25 Freightliner. I was even more of a pain in the $@#$@#$@# back then than I am now.)

Re: FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies
 

And any engineering organization should know this and design a test plan to catch as many of those things as possible.

When you are on the cutting edge (like Aerial Assist is*), there are inevitably some things you won't catch. Unfortunately, many of the things that were flubbed are not new problems. The HOT goal issue irks me to the core. That field logic has fundamentally one job, make one set of lights shine for 5 seconds, and then make another set of lights shine for 5 seconds. And after 5 weeks, that still doesn't work right!

*Credit where credit is due, Aerial Assist is fundamentally different to other FRC games. For the first time teams really are forced to work together, and a cohesive strategy isn't something you only see at the highest levels of play. And I think that's pretty dang cool.