Re: 2014 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

FIRST, please put all scoring category information into the team standings. With the foul points worth so much this year, there should be a resource more reliable than twitter for teams to find out who is getting penalized. In addition, please put more information about the previous match into the final scoreboard display. There is enough room on the display to show 2 more scoring categories.

Re: 2014 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

It would be far preferable to put it in the Match Results Page instead of the Team Standings Page, so we could have the info for each match rather than just the totals.

Or better yet, provide an API to the data instead of a web page that has to be scraped.

Re: 2014 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

To be honest after hearing this its a little disappointing. I know the first year of districts isn't easy and will take a few years before everything settles in but doesn't this hit a level of unfairness? I noticed it at a few of our events up here and while it didn't bother me I was curious to hear about if FIRST would grant extra unbag hours for certain situations.

Like Dave said NE events were strict on not opening the doors until 5pm many of which had no practice matches on Day 0 due to the field still being setup. At UNH week 2 the event organizers did express that there were scheduling issues with the venue which lead to these issues in a "perfect storm" situation. For starters they weren't allowed into the facilities where the pits were until 4-5 pm meaning as load in would normally start they were just getting to setup. Load in was pushed back to 6pm which didn't bother me too much but we've overhauled our robot in 3 hours so every hour is precious especially when its your first competition. There was an issue with load in due to the small parking lot and area to unload which meant only 3 teams could unload at a time so all teams were to line up in a parking lot around the corner and wait to unload. I arrived at the lot 45 minutes before doors open and didn't get into the building until 7:30 and there were still teams in line after me. Pits closed promptly at 10pm with about half of the inspections pushed off into the next day. *UNH was a well run event so I am not putting the event or its organizers down it really was a perfect storm*

If you still got 6 hours of unbag time you realistically got an extra 2 hours compared to teams in NE, 3 more compared to teams first in line at UNH, and 5 more than the last teams in the door. That's also for one event double that for two events because all NE events were 5pm-10pm at most.

I hope this doesn't sound like a whine its just a concern/observation I had after going through the districts this year and somewhat of a flaw I see in the unbag times. It wasn't a huge deal for our team but I know of many teams who had a lot to work on and the extra two hours would have meant a world of difference. This all probably comes down to the same arguments about expanding the witholding allowance which is never fair. Its brought out certain years and some years teams hurt by weather don't get an expansion. The years it is expanded the teams who had no days missed get the advantage because they were never hindered in the first place.

Re: 2014 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

Absolutely this.

Re: 2014 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

Partway through the season, Aidan gave the head refs permission to add additional referees and have some of the referees focus entirely on ball tracking and scoring. That's why, at the later events, you saw the four referees at tablets and 2-3 others without tablets. The specific arrangement and duties varied depending on how the head referee wanted to run it, but the referees at the scoretable-side pads were doing the ball tracking and scoring.

Re: 2014 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

The assertions in that linked post are just sad. FIRST really is stuck in the dark ages when it comes to properly exposing data and making it available in a timely manner.

In my opinion, TBA should be adopted as the official online scoring system. It already has an API, so simply getting the right data into TBA accurately and quickly will solve the problem since TBA has the rest of the infrastructure already.

Another thing that would be great is official client libraries for teams to build into their scouting systems (Probably Ruby, Python, iOS, Android would cover what most teams are using).

Re: 2014 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

We didn't miss it - trust me, 1923 used every possible second of their unbag window.

I guess I misworded myself. My suggestions are, either get rid of the load-in-practice-time, or go back to a practice day on a normal schedule. Keeping students (and parents and volunteers) there til almost 11pm just to be able to practice on a full field wasn't really fair to them. And it certainly needs to be consistent across all the events...

Re: 2014 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

This is something that I wish Blair and Andy had done more of during their time behind the desk. Getting some sports style announcers was awesome. But in my mind they were under used, why wasn't 27 interviewed? I mean they just won the biggest award. I think everyone wouldn't have minded 5 more minutes between matches to get some more details and interviews from team members.

I had a long discussion about this yesterday with someone. And to summarize FIRST is full of nerds. Engineers like their data, I mean I practically live in excel. But publishing more data doesn't help FIRST. Sure it makes more of us numbers people happy, but it costs FIRST time and money and doesn't really serve a major purpose for them.

Re: 2014 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

Not to be too harsh, but I disagree with the above. If the person to whom you were speaking holds a high-ranking position within FIRST it is truly discouraging.


"...doesn't help FIRST... doesn't really serve a major purpose for them"

Seriously? If FIRST is truly about inspiration -- and not just the robot -- then it certainly does serve a major purpose. There are a lot of students (and mentors) out there who are very inspired by analyzing the numbers. Look at all the effort students put into this aspect of the program.


" it costs FIRST time and money "

This floors me. The data is already being generated. Just provide it to someone (like TBA) who values it and will gladly volunteer their time to make it available to students who are inspired by it.

Re: 2014 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

This. A million times this. I might be a bit bias, but TBA has more than proven it can handle being an official point of reference.

FIRST needs to focus on delivering correct data in a timely fashion (aka, instantly). If they can't do that than how can you expect them to deliver videos of matches in a timely fashion, something that is much harder to do.

Without match (and event/team) information videos are useless.

Re: 2014 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

Agreed. This also bugged me a bit. A 4 team alliance is a 4 team alliance. Not a 3 team plus an "unshowable" pinch hitter. It's sorta how there is a thought some have expressed in the past that "2nd picks are lucky free riders" in previous games... IMHO it shouldn't matter when you were picked; you're an alliance member just as much as your partners and should be treated as such.

Re: 2014 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

I don't have any knowledge of how the events were being run where your team competed, but FiM districts were attempting to adhere to a pretty strict schedule/closing time. Unload was pretty solidly 4-10pm, more-or-less kicking teams out at 10, to prevent too much volunteer burnout.
And on the other side of the coin, there's nobody there forcing teams to stay until pits close. That's the teams decision and right (granted teams are obviously going to stay as late as possible to get the most practice, but common sense should come into play if everyone on the team is exhausted/falling asleep).

The way I understood it, the 4th robot was an alliance specific backup robot. Maybe I misinterpreted this change, but I saw it as a way for alliances to pick the robot that would be the replacement bot (and also allow switch-in matches for more repair flexibility) rather than being auto-assigned one. Hockey players that are scratched from a game do not dress and therefore do not participate in the pre/post game handshake as well. I would relate these two events as similar in nature.

Re: 2014 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

I think a good compromise would be to do some kind of introductions during the Einstein "test matches" while all four robots from the alliance are out on the field. I think those matches would also be a great time to have a quick rundown of the elimination rounds from each division.

Re: 2014 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

It isn't quite like that from the way I read the game manual. It's just like IRI; you present a lineup to the head ref for each match, which states who is going to play the next match. They aren't a backup robot, they're a 4th member you have as a strategic option. Yes, if one breaks, the 4th becomes the replacement, but that's not the sole purpose. But if you look at the upcoming match and predict that say the 4th member would be better suited than the 3rd, you can make the switch. For example, say the opposing alliance has a weakness to heavy defense and the 4th robot is an excellent defender but the 3rd is more offence oriented... they're just another card in your hand that you can play.

Likewise, during alliance introductions, the 4th alliance member is announced with the other alliance members and they are also is considered a defending champion if the alliance wins, so IMHO, they also should be part of the handshake.

Re: 2014 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

I would really like to see some clarification and/or modification of the rules regarding withholding allowance and the definition of COTS parts. Currently, as best as I can tell, a motor with terminals on the wires is considered a fabricated component when it comes to withholding allowance, but the same motor is a COTS component when used at the beginning of the season (because otherwise reusing a motor from a previous year would be illegal, as it was fabricated outside of the build season).

Specifically what I would like to see is the withholding allowance move away from definitions using the words "fabricated" vs. "COTS" and instead use a system of "identical spares" vs. "upgrades". I think "identical spares" should be unlimited in quantity and weight. This includes COTS or custom gearboxes, motors and motor controllers with modified wires, assemblies that may be prone to damage, etc. - anything that is inside the bag on stop build day. Identical spares should be defined as the same material serving the same function fabricated in the same way and identical in form, weight, material, and use. Secondly, the "upgrades" should be limited similar to withholding, though perhaps a lesser limit (15-20 lbs), as the "identical spares" can be unlimited. Upgrades include anything that is kept out of the bag on stop build day, and anything that is fabricated after stop build day - anything that will be added to the robot to upgrade it after it is unbagged. Raw material is still separate from either definition and allowed in unlimited quantities.

The benefits I see to this system include...
1) Stronger teams are significantly less limited in their ability to bring in popular spares that will enable them to help all teams be competitive
2) Unlimited identical spares helps ensure all teams will be competitive as they can have replacements ready to go.
3) Eliminates fuzziness about withholding weight of spares that were fabricated during the six weeks vs spares that were fabricated after the six weeks, and in general is somewhat more enforceable.
3) The definitions don't conflict with those that are used to define what parts can be reused from one season to the next.
4) The definitions better convey what the purpose of the withholding allowance is for (if indeed it is for upgrades, i.e. assemblies that were withheld).

One situation that would need to be addressed in this system is how to address instances of teams bringing in entire assemblies that can be added to partners to make them a more useful member of an alliance. Overall I think this would clarify a lot of the withholding confusion and be more in line with the spirit of a six week build season.