![]() |
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
Some were caused by one of the chute doors being sticky, and not falling correctly. Field issue, but they couldnt fix it, and still gave out the cards. I think it being a card is a bit too harsh. Thinking about the safety things, I think I came up with a way to keep it safe, make it not have a competitive advantage, and give less cards. Add a safety zone 5 inches into the chute. Red card if the HP extends past that line inside the chute Keep regular G6 Remove the cards from G6-1 - keep the foul That keeps the HP safe by not allowing them to put their hands inside the chute, which honestly I never saw and shouldnt happen anyway. And it take out the harsh card for if a tote gets stuck. You could also add a condition to G6 to make it so an HP in the zone cannot touch a tote if the chute door is propped open. But with the foul on G6-1 I dont really think thats needed, because that basically makes it so the chute door has to close in order to put another tote in without getting a foul. |
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
|
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
The whole thing surrounding G6 was seemingly intentionally vague for no real reason, but when our drive coach went in to the question box at Palmetto we were told we couldn't do it, even though D.Allred and 4451 were doing it during the same event. It's the same referee crew that didn't know you could unload yellow totes from the field before the match and tried to convince me that the robot touching the cans in the staging area in auto was barely legal, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ |
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
|
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
|
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
|
Re: Week 1 Observations
It was interesting sitting at home and watching different alliance compositions compete.
Dallas was the battle of the superpowers, with 148-987 and 118-624. These two alliances mostly competed as individuals, with each robot doing their own thing. However, sometimes in eliminations, 987 would grab a stack from Robin while Batman was out to get a quick score toward the end. 3rd picks only really came in to play when they needed to come in clutch and keep up average scores. These two alliances also showed that a less crowded field can be better, often putting up high scores despite having only 1 or 2 robots on the field. At Hatboro-Horsham, you also had the top two robots working alone, but their third picks were tremendously important, with the third robots of the finalist alliances working to grab containers from the step during teleop. The winning alliance had major help from 5407, who had an interesting mechanism for grabbing containers. At Waterbury, the number one seed and eventual champion alliance worked as separate systems for the most part, but the other finalist alliance was much more interesting. The alliance of 237-558-4557 worked as an amazing team. The alliance hinged on having all the recycling containers due to 237's auto. 237 and 4557 would make short stacks of 2-3, and 558 would work to add noodles to cans and cap the stacks. Most of their successful matches would end with 4-6 stacks of 1-3 that were capped with RC's. They took the winners to 3 with this fascinating strategy. The first seed and finalists at Indianapolis had similar teamwork, with 5188 and 1024 working to make stacks, and then 1024 would cap all of them. Most successful robots and high seeds took primarily from the feeder station, but a few of the competitive machines, like 987, 118, and 230 all took to the landfill, and a few alliances making short stacks also took from the landfill. Stacks of 5 and 6 seemed interchangeable at most events, but the shorter the stacks being made, the more important litter became to success. Matches in eliminations at most events were sometimes decided by which alliance more effectively threw litter. Lastly, most people's crazy score predictions were way off, and a very competitive machine is one that can make one full stack per match. High scores at most regionals were around 100. |
Re: Week 1 Observations
Unfortunately after 24 hours i can no longer edit this post to add more observations. However i will continue to add observations of other people and such on the reddit version of this thread.
http://http://www.reddit.com/r/FRC/c..._observations/ |
Quote:
Was amazing being part of the Waterbury district final! Seeing 237, 558, and 4557 develop and implement their strategy made this mentor proud. |
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
The major scoring this year comes from lifting recycling containers onto the top of stacks. Yes, totes are worth 2 points each, but if you can build a stack 6 totes high and then put a container on top, that container is worth 24 points and there's no path to advancement in this game that doesn't involve lifting those containers up very high. There's no question that's an engineering and manufacturing challenge that relatively few teams can achieve. |
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
Go to the Question Box, and ask the Head Ref for a clarification Show the Q&A and confirm that dragging will not be called as a foul At Lake Superior, dragging was not a foul. What is a foul is: When the HP lets go of the chute door, if the door does not fully close - then that is the foul. So, push the chute door closed, and don't let go until it is fully closed. |
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
|
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
|
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
Case in point: My team's alliance was given a red card for G14 after our 1st semifinal match because we had back-to-back matches and our alliance partner tethered their robot as many teams have done in the past with back-to-back matches, during the field timeout. We were about to do the same to get log files when the head ref came out to give our alliance the red card. Now, I'm not disputing the penalty, it's clearly in the rules (though easily overlooked by teams used to previous years). But I feel the consequence of the penalty far outweighs the action. In the past, a red card gave you zero points, and the counter was reset, so you could recover from that. With the advancement structure being average score, you're basically hosed from a single red card, with almost no ability to recover. So my warning to everyone is: don't tether the robot on the field. Ever. My plea to FIRST is to change this rule. I understand the safety implications in Frank's written notes about this in the team update, but this is another example of the infamous "beatings will continue until morale improves" |
Re: Week 1 Observations
We just came back from a week one Indiana district event, I noticed that the landfill can be a bit too crowded to make larger stacks of totes. The quarterfinals at the event were rather exciting, as the 8th seated alliance (The CyberCards, 1720, and 1741) took first and held it until the last quarterfinal match.
|
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
|
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
|
Re: Week 1 Observations
In past years, we have been specifically asked to tether on the fields if we had back to back matches. We were asked to do it this year as well. Thats weird that you guys got carded for it.
|
Re: Week 1 Observations
Whats the reasoning behind no tethering on the field? The red cards in FRC follow the general pattern of being safety related (don't let your robot wield totes in an aggressive manner towards refs), GP related (be civil) or just actions that would break the game (don't throw auto totes that you took off the field into the auto zone during auto)
Tethering doesn't fall into any of those categories at least not that I know of. |
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
That was a fast response... Can you get me a box of thin mints? The cookie dealer I know is out. Either way an observation I failed to have until now is just how bad fallen stacks are. I didn't bother pitching the idea of a tote flipper because of the limited amount of them on the field, and its biggest use would be when a stack fell over. The totes as resources are interesting because when right you get points, but when things go wrong and they fall over you have the potential to lose using them all together. That is something very hard to do in physical sports or activities without adding levels of complexity. The GDC did a great job of making the field another player in this game. I normally felt like the fields in past games punished teams who didn't invest heavily into drive bases this was a nice change from that. Although I still do not like straight mecanum... |
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
|
Re: Week 1 Observations
The red cards make some sense during a normal match and while attempting to get into transport configuration. Franks explanation is reasonable. During a field timeout, it will only delay matches for teams to have to recharge pneumatics off the field, when it could easily be done on the field as it has been done in every year I can remember.
Another rule that will be changed at most off-seasons if not sooner by FIRST, I'm sure. In general I don't understand why the FRC rule book needs to be so strict. Everyone is out here to play, have fun, and yes to win. The VEX rule book gives the head referee a lot of room to give teams warning before and after they commit offenses before drastic action is taken. Why isn't this the same in FRC. When it comes down to it, warning a team and explaining the rules is just the civil thing to do. Rule enforcement should change through the event and year, everyone is learning in early weeks, why not be kind and cut teams some slack. Later in the event, if you have warned them and they are still not following then there should be repercussion for their actions. First strike rules seem far to harsh for an organization that prides it self on being gracious. We talk about cooperation and wanting to compete against teams when they are at their best. I don't know any competitive team that goes into an event wanting to win by having another robot tipped over or not working, let alone red carded for minor non-match actions. This is one of the reason I have never been an FRC referee. |
Re: Week 1 Observations
I know that at Inland Empire, we were calling fouls during practice matches. And if we called a foul at that time, we generally went over to the team and said "hey, we called a foul on you, here's what it is". By quals, most teams had figured out what sort of actions would cause a foul/card. (Though one of the first fouls called in quals was a yellow card--that was also the last team to touch their controls during auto!)
|
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
Beyond that, if they try to push single totes onto the scoring platform, they're likely to get yelled at by their partners for "cluttering" the field and getting in the way. There's certainly a place for a less advanced team with a good driver to pick up litter, but that would require engineering and manufacturing an effective noodle grabber which would mean that they aren't a less advanced team. Last year, it was about all 3 robots on an alliance working together, this year leaving the third alliance robot off the field in eliminations has been an effective strategy. |
Re: Week 1 Observations
Things I learned from webcasts:
1) This year there are more HD webcasts and fewer "potato" quality webcasts than in years past. That is a good thing. In particular, the Michigan, PNW, and Dallas webcasts were phenomenal. Although I don't know why Dallas had to disable embed, meaning you can't watch alongside other events on The Blue Alliance. 2) I found the black-on-white numbering scheme to be very difficult to read from afar, particularly when numbers can be mounted at any height. Some teams had them low, some high, some on large panels, others taped onto superstructure. The high numbers were the worst to read, because of all the visual clutter in the background at that height. And black on white does not pop whatsoever against the gray aluminum structure that 80% of FRC teams use. I guess this is one downside of extremely liberal robot rules...with bumpers, you always know where you need to look. #bringbackthespinnylight 3) The litter mechanic is my least favorite part of this game, and maybe my least favorite FRC game mechanic ever. Human players have long been a part of FRC, and I have no problem letting them directly contribute to the score. But the noodles become land mines for both alliances, blocking access to totes and recycling cans, invalidating swaths of the scoring ramp, and getting lodged in drive trains. There is nothing inspiring in watching an effective robot get a "noodle flat tire" or be unable to load because of a piece of litter (and it is basically impossible to design a robot that is totally impervious). I also find it simultaneously depressing and ironic that "throwing your trash into your neighbor's lawn" is in many ways just as effective or more effective than recycling :) It's certainly easier... 4) This game did not pass the "wife" test (my litmus test for the crowd-pleasing-ness of a game is to show it to my wife). The scoring was easy for her to understand, but she did not find it interesting to watch in the least. (As background she really liked 2006, 2011, 2012, 2013; tolerated 2007, 2008, 2010, and 2014; and despised 2009). 5) I do not know how the refs are supposed to judge the state of 3 robots, 3 yellow bins, and 3+ recycling cans simultaneously and instantly at the end of autonomous mode. There were times on the webcast where I swear I saw an auto stack in contact with a robot (the scorer or a partner) at the end of autonomous, but the points were awarded anyways. 6) One more thing about webcasts...many events cut from the field feed to the "Thank You Sponsors" roll the SECOND that the match ended, meaning that the viewer could only guess whether that last second cap was successful, or whether that precarious stack finally tumbled... Quote:
|
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
|
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
|
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
|
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
|
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
|
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
|
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
|
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
With regards to the numbering on robots, I can't tell you how surprised I wasn't how the numbering turned out. Bonus points to robots at Palmetto with vertical and split numbering, as well as teams just throwing on the number plate they get in the pits and rolling out to the field with them (this actually happened). With regards to the game being hard to understand, I really don't know how the GDC expected it to be easy to understand. I know hindsight is 20/20 but to improve the understandability of the game, I would have done this: 1) Get rid of Litter 2) Divide all remaining point values by 2 (not really necessary, but it helps later) 3) Instead of gratuitously stamping the FIRST logo on every game piece even though the banners, scoring overlay, and logos on the field walls apparently aren't enough, and replace every logo with the point value stamped on to the object. Every tote has a big white "1" printed on each side and each can has each FIRST logo replaced by a big white "x3" stamped around the cylinders. 3-a) Change auto point values so we don't see the most useless auto period since 2010. Tote set is worth 6, robot set is worth 4, and stack set is 12, but the containers are x3 to your auto score for both consistency but also to encourage better auto play. 4) Replace the gold totes on the field at the start of the match with gray totes, or a different color. Keep gold totes off the field. Allow the new totes in the staging zone to be scored on the bumps. Stamp the +1 on those 5) Replace the vision targets no one uses with the "grabsomefeet" co-op logo on the cans. On each side of the step have a display that shows the current point value of the co-op stack. In eliminations, have the display show the seeds playing in the matches. 6) Maybe have displays on top of each backstop showing how many points currently sit on each backstop. 7) (Totally optional and a little crazy) Somehow get the bumps to illuminate where a scored stack is placed If I had no clue what this game was when I saw it, I would wonder why teams are throwing scoring objects to the other alliance, why teams are delivering yellow totes to a center object in qualification matches for a lot of points but don't ever touch them in eliminations (when points matter more, right!), why a stack of 6 totes tall is not worth any more than 6 totes laying alone on the bumps, and understand exactly how much cans help. I'm pretty sure as much as 11 years ago FIRST had scoring object values printed on the objects (Frenzy, right?). This way I could look at the field and figure out exactly what was happening. You count "1, 1, 1, 1, x3... that's 12 points!" You see the co-op display and know how much that is worth. Post-match overlay could be really good if some thought was put into it. One idea I have at 2:30 AM is this: 1) Take a screenshot of the field before the field gets the green lights. 2) Have the first overlay take up the lower third, like the small one we see in the playoffs, while you see the field screenshot. 3) After that screen, move to a screen that shows the final score of the match as well as a sample of the standings. Have 16 slots to show at once. You get the top 10 + the 6 robots in the last match on the screen showing their rank and change arrow, QA and change arrow, Co-Op score, and Next Match. The teams not in the match are not highlighted while the ones from the match are highlighted in their alliance colors. If one of the teams from the last match are in the top 10, you show the 11th place team, 2 means you show up to 12th, and so on. One concerning thing I have gotten out of this game so far has nothing to do with FRC the program. FRC is a product. A game like this is hard to sell as a product to potential sponsors, volunteers, media partners, schools, etc. |
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
|
Re: Week 1 Observations
Autonomous mode was very important. Very few teams were able to score very many points in auto, so our 20 point auto gave us a huge advantage.
Grabbing containers from the step in auto is very important. Lots of capped short stacks are a great way to get points without the worry of super high stacks. It also lets you score many noodle points and makes it more difficult for the other alliance to deal with containers. The field has some weird behavior with talking to the driver station. From time to time, some driver stations just don't connect to the FMS. Restarting the driver station and disabling/re enabling the network adapter fixed these problems. It is extremely difficult to transport a 78" tall robot. You cannot tilt it, or you will violate the transport configuration. To fit through a doorway, you need a cart that almost drags on the ground, which won't go over bumps in the ground. You can't tilt the robot to get it through the doorway. Also, when carrying it, you must hold the robot upright. Coopertition impacts the rankings quite a bit, but isn't always the best strategy. 40 points is a lot of points, but it's hard to be sure it'll work out. Consistency is really important, so a capped six stack for 36 points (or 42 with noodle) seems like a better option, and takes a similar amount of time. Autonomous mode needs a five second delay to let the referees score things. The referees have .2 seconds to judge 30+ things Location of robot x6 Location of tote x6 Location of container x10 Contact between robot/tote x6 Stacked status of totes x2 and fouls for container grabbers. |
Re: Week 1 Observations
We noticed at the Georgia Southern Classic Regional that there were three common penalties:
|
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
1. RC specialist - Great idea until you realize it's a 9lb object that you need to accurately move to 70"+ in the air while only having 6" of it to grip on to. Oh, and you risk knocking over a stack. Not really viable. 2. Litter specialist - Robots aren't allowed to throw litter so the best you can do is clear it, viable but not anywhere near a solid pick imho. 3. Coop Stacker - Ignoring that if you can do this you can stack bins of at least 4... it almost requires a floor loader (which is kinda hard) and is worthless in eliminations. Though could possibly seed high and pick a stacking team. Likely wouldn't win. 4. RC grabber - Ok, this one works. Sorta. At early events they might have a chance but they are completely reliant on being picked since they effectively can't score any points on their own. Plus by CMP (or DCMP) they will be effectively overshadowed by greater speed and precision of the top tier teams who realize it's too important a role to be left to unreliable partners. So, I'm not seeing any viable options for lower resource teams to be competitive. I feel the MCC this year is a little sparse on the Minimum part. |
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
If only there were a legal way to knock over an opponent's stack... |
Re: Week 1 Observations
Just my 2 cents after participating in Georgia Southern Classic regional.
1. Noodles are god. One team carried themselves to second seed purely off the back of one really, really, really good noodle thrower. In one of the elims he went 10 for 10. Their robot wasn't on the level it should've been to succeed that much but because noodle scoring is so ridiculous they got very, very far. 2. Coopertition is necessary if you want a prayer at getting high seeding, you need to get the coopertition stacks. They inflate your average an absurd amount. Early on, my team didn't get it and it murdered our average. We had a game near the start where we got the coopertition stack and a couple totes in the center and that was it and that still bumped up our average a significant margin. 3. Containers fall, everyone dies. Nuff said. 4. Autonomous is critical. Bare minimum, you absolutely need to move to the auton zone. Because of one match in elims where an alliance member missed the auton zone by 3 inches, which meant we had slightly lower auton points than the opposing alliance, we lost the tie breaker that would've put us up to 4th place and let us move on to semis. |
Re: Week 1 Observations
I'm sure some team are aware of this but Ik others are not yellow totes do not count for anything outside of auto in the eliminations don't stzck them on coop don't stack them on platform they do not count,......... But by but but you CAN USE THEM IN AUTO a team came to me and asked why they were using the yellow totes in elimnations as they though they were completely useless
|
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
If your auto programs allow to get all 3 into the auto zone (or stacked in the auto zone) then they are extremely useful. If your auto cannot do these, then remove them from the field. Simple enough. |
Re: Week 1 Observations
Scouting and forming alliances in this game takes a lot of thought. You have to figure out who is good at what role for your alliance. Also, scouting wins regionals, as usual.
In the playoffs, it isn't about one single robot's versatility or capability (well, most of the time). It's about how well your alliance can work with each other. Our alliance won our regional because each robot had its own role and specialized in one part of the field and game. We combined those abilities, and no other alliance at the event could come close to our scores. Our lowest score as an alliance was higher than the highest score any alliance put up in the playoffs. |
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
There was a situation in the Eliminations where one alliance had to switch sides of the field. The robots had to be put into transport configuration to switch sides. Quote:
|
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
|
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
The larger problem I see is that a red card is *almost* an automatic elim DQ, rather than just a match DQ like previous years because of the average match score advancement criteria. |
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
FIRST is an alternative to sports in my mind, a way for students who are interested in science, math, and engineering to have their own "place." They spent six weeks building robots, and then (at least at our event) all the fan's and media's attention went to a tall athletic guy who could throw things well. That's pretty much just any other high school activity now. (And 4/13 students on my team are athletes, so I'm not anti-sports in general.) Sure, I suppose it is a realistic picture of the world the students will enter, but I thought FIRST was about changing the culture. |
Re: Week 1 Observations
The noodles were game pieces from the start I don't see why people didn't design around moving litter from day 1.
|
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
You can recognize the existence of the dogma in 2010 and train your human players to be acutely aware of it, but that doesn't make it a bad game mechanic. You can strategize around the 10 protected areas of the field in Logomotion, but that doesn't make it a bad game mechanic. You can recognize how the scoring weights in 2013 strongly favored throwing discs over Level 3 climbing in 95/100 cases, but you can still wish FIRST would have weighted the scores differently. You can play a slower but less ambiguous assist cycle in Aerial Assist so referees accurately count your assists, but that doesn't make the scoring method of assists by the referees a bad idea. Litter was seen as an issue robots would run into since Kickoff. Without looking at it, I think Karthik had mobility around litter as one of the top 4 requirements for playing the game. Litter was expected to be a total pain to work with. Game design has to serve many masters, and this makes game design difficult. Is it a game teams enjoy designing for? Is it a game teams enjoy playing? Is it a game that spectators enjoy watching? Is it a game that "serves itself" well (not allowing for rulings resulting from a wide gap of interpretations, having an intelligent seeding system, having a safe and expedient field cycle time)? Is it a game that fulfills the mission of FIRST and FRC? While the game design committee may have different priorities (serving one master before the others) this is the order of importance I perceive as a former student and coach in the organization. These are all of the masters an FRC game has to serve in order to be considered a success. One of the reasons Aim High and Ultimate Ascent make the top of the lists for game quality is because it manages to serve all of the masters with varying levels. The reason Lunacy scores so low? It was not fun to design for or play and wasn't easy to watch. Aerial Assist was fun to play and watch, but designing for it was pretty boring and the game did not serve itself very well. Recycle Rush may have been a fun game to design for and serves itself pretty well, but it sucks to play and watch. |
Re: Week 1 Observations
My life got too busy to continue mentoring, so I've been relegated to the position of robotics fan. The past few years I've really enjoyed cheering on my favorite teams via the webcasts. Based on week 1, I don't think I'll watch much this year. It's not an exciting game.
Every team's playoff strategy: Score the most points in the manner we can, and don't mess up. Maybe try to get the recycling containers in the middle if necessary. If all the robots are functioning well, as everyone desires in a robotics competition, most of the playoff matches are a forgone conclusion. If it wasn't for mistakes (and robots getting disabled), the top alliance (seeding format pushes the best to the top) should win the majority of regionals and districts. Who wants to cheer for teams to make mistakes or breakdown? Defending against an opponent's strategy should be an important part of every FIRST competition. Though, I must say I enjoy watching gymnastics and golf, which don't have defense, but usually have very close matches. Perhaps I'll like this game on Einstein. ![]() |
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
Other people enjoy Chess, a quiet game where focus and strategy is important, and aside from the act of reaching over and taking a piece off the board that belongs to your opponent there isn't much in the way of rewarding the player for doing well. Recycle Rush would have been a great game to watch except unfortunately the kids who decided to play it are smart... You could equate this game to watching someone swing at a pinata with a blindfold. Except higher level teams have transparent blind folds so they can see what they are doing. The rewarding aspect of this game was when you created a 6 stack that feelings of accomplishment. The fun was supposed to come from the suspense and tension in creating stacks. The issue is that teams just did it too well. 148 has an amazing robot but seeing robin in action didn't exactly have me holding my breath. I honestly wouldn't say this game is bad, at all. I would just say it isn't the right kind of game considering the audience. Translating whats being said into shorter phrases. Jenga sucks to watch and play when you are playing with people who are perfect at it because the fun comes from the falling Jenga stacks Recycle rush sucks to watch and play when you are playing with higher level teams because the fun comes from falling tote stacks. |
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
|
Re: Week 1 Observations
That red card in Indy didn't exactly put the "grace" in gracious professionalism.
|
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
|
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
|
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
I personally don't really enjoy things going to plan as much as I enjoy being able to recover after a failure and perform well. Comebacks are fun to watch for me. |
Re: Week 1 Observations
Recommended name change: Schadenfreude Rush!
|
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
The FRC community is not used to seeing task-based games without active defense, or any other kind of incredibly significant defensive challenges against our alliances while accomplishing these tasks. (Noodles being thrown are not nearly as significant as, say, a team blocking your shots or pulling a goal away from you.) In the past we've had difficult game pieces, but had rules against de-scoring or had safety zones designed to assist offensive gameplay. The combination of repetitive tasks, without direct competition, match after match... you're only working to beat your best time. Yes, the tasks themselves are not easy. Yet each year we're given difficult tasks alongside the pressure of active defense, and with that precedent I believe this year many of us feel that something is lacking. In your example you list both chess and Jenga as examples, yet I feel a better example is the game Perfection. So for many in our community, racing against a clock is less thrilling than directly racing against, say, HOT Team 67. Why? Because one is absolutely terrifying to play against year after year and one is - well, a clock. "Skills challenge" games are not new to FIRST, although it's been about 14 years since it was last tried. 2001 featured a similar game style with a race against the clock. Reviews from participants will vary, with some considering it one of the very best games and some, among the worst. If you have not watched that game, check out this video for what is considered one of the most exciting matches that year. Maybe it gets your heart pounding - maybe it doesn't. So my TL;DR is: High achievement of teams on the field is not what makes it less "fun" to watch for many people, IMO - it is the lack of direct competition for this achievement (to which we've become accustomed in past FRC games). Additionally, as a spectator I did not enjoy the simultaneous field action. I found it difficult to watch both sides of the field and truly keep track of what was happening unless I was watching the zones closest to the landfill. This type of game may be exciting for FLL, but for me it doesn't seem to scale well for our larger robots. |
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
Anyway I did say that this game was good (in the sense of its level of design is very good its a smart game) it is just that it is the wrong audience. This kind of PvE game when you are racing the clock is best experienced when it is one person against a clock not 6 people against a clock. When you play perfection you are the one in the tense position, if you watch someone play perfection its less tense because you don't actually have to do anything. I phrased it poorly, high level teams don't make this boring. The difficulty of the game doesn't scale up to the level of high level teams and provide them with the challenge that excites the viewer or team. Also that is only one of the reasons why this isn't exactly the most spectator friendly game. Field clutter, estimates on live score, no real focus. Once again though there is still a lot from this game I would like to see the GDC keep in mind or re use for future games. Also let me make it extremely clear that I mean no disrespect to any high level team |
Re: Week 1 Observations
I would like to think that the seeding will be (more) accurate this year because of the "time trial" style of competition. That is a nice side effect.
I did find myself not as engaged. |
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
|
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
|
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
|
Re: Week 1 Observations
I have to admit that, at first, I was not thrilled with the game, but I gave it a chance....
* I still think that it is weak as a spectators' game. I've watched enough video of various regional and district events that I can honestly say it's kind of dull to watch. Now, having spent the last couple of months dealing with the challenges of my team's robot, I have to say I had an appreciation for some of the strongest robots around the nation and a lot of sympathy for teams that are still working to overcome the challenges we've been working through. I did find myself enjoying watching the matches - but only because I had been involved in the process. Had I come in knowing nothing, I would not have stuck around long. This is different from the direct competition "sports" we've had for several years. * I think FIRST nailed this competition in terms of an engineering challenge. The level of thinking, problem-solving and work that we have had to put forth to meet the strategic demands of the game. This task, overall, has been **hard.** My team has been challenged and engaged the entire season and is excited to compete in week 2... |
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
|
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
|
Re: Week 1 Observations
There are very few things for the 3rd alliance member to do in playoffs. I suggest all teams trying to make playoffs in the 2nd round add noodle and RC plowing devices. Moving the noodles away from the scoring/landfill zones and moving the RCs back towards the drivers' station will be very beneficial.
|
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
|
Re: Week 1 Observations
As someone who hasn't yet physically been to a competition yet, take what I say with a grain of salt:
"Cons" - I think this year's game is not as fun, simply because it's very repetitive. Nearly all the teams do the same thing in every match because they've determined the optimal strategy for their robot, so they stick to it. There's no real individuality between matches it seems besides how many pool noodles the human player is able to score. - Because of the fact that teams are doing the same thing each time, pre-match strategy will become a bit less important than previous years. You only need to discuss what each person will do and where they will do it. You don't have the opportunity to discuss how to counter the opposing team's likely strategies. - This feels to me like a game that was decided in the first weeks of the build season. There isn't a large opportunity for good strategy to overcome superior robot construction, just because this year is more of an engineering challenge than anything else. Elimination matches will be decided more by the physical limitations of each robot than the skill of their drivers in each particular match. - Nearly contradictory to that last point, drivers practice will be vital this year more than most. This year's game has a high "skill floor", so to speak, in that you need to be able to efficiently complete all the actions your robot was designed to do without tipping over stacks or the robot along the way. Precise, smooth motions will be key. However the "skill ceiling" this year is relatively close to the floor compared to previous years. Once a drive team can efficiently create stacks and place them without tipping them over or experiencing unneeded delays, there's not a lot they can do to set them apart. This is a near-opposite of how it was last year, where nearly any robot could at least possess a ball for assists but the driver skill really set the great inbounding robots apart from the so-so or poor ones. - If I didn't believe that the GDC already has next year's game prepared and in testing (and subsequently had this game in testing before the competitions last year), I would think that this game was a knee-jerk reaction to last year's complaints. Last year's game appears to have been one of the most violent in FRC history, being dubbed "Aerial Assault" by some, with no safezones and up to two robots free at any time (only one gamepiece) to play defense. This year even the act of knocking a gamepiece into the opposing alliance's side of the field is a foul, and direct interaction is limited to the scuffles that will likely occur at higher levels over the recycling cans on the step. "Pros" - One thing this game did very well was it encouraged strategic design choices. Teams had to consider multiple strategies for the collection and stacking of both totes and containers. Some teams created individual solution for each operation (including mine), while others integrated them into one system. Totes can come from the step, the landfill, and the chute door (yes, chute door). Containers come primarily from the step, and this is where I love seeing the diversity of designs. 3310 advertises their can grabber as taking 2 in the first quarter second of autonomous and other teams are grabbing all four bins simultaneously from the step. - Teams are encouraged to play more efficiently and think about what their actions will do to the field. Robots that collect totes from the landfill need to be careful not to block their view of it with their own stacks, or otherwise install a vision solution. Robots that collect from the chute door need to make sure that they can ensure the totes land in the same orientation every time, as well as carefully train human players to avoid the numerous penalties that can be committed rather easily. The biggest part of all of this is litter and coopertition. By throwing pool noodles early you guarantee you will have time to throw them all without rushing, but you also start to make it more difficult for other teams to reach the step and place their yellow totes for the important coopertition points. - As boring as the game may seem to some, it is one that is more applicable in industry (especially now) than any other. With the booming success of Amazon, eBay, and other online retailers the need for labor in the shipping industry is growing. Many companies use similar totes to pack their products before shipping, and this is a first step towards students entering the industry and designing robots that can autonomously stack and transport these totes through warehouses. Designs that work for the totes, especially of the forklift variety, could also be easily modified to carry pallets that are commonly used in the shipping industries if the need for automation becomes greater. "Verdict" This game is just different from the rest that we have seen recently. It's been likened to FLL with it's "message" about recycling, and it's a game that could be played completely autonomously if a team's programmers were ambitious enough. I don't think it's really fair to compare this game to Aerial Assist, Ultimate Ascent, or the like because it's not really even the same type of game. I look forward to competing as always, but this year appeared to be much more focused on the design component than the competition element. |
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
|
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
I think the easiest thing for third robots to do is get the RCs noodled. I personally think 3rd robots built for litter plowing are going to get more in the way than anything else. |
Re: Week 1 Observations
I will echo what has been said previously, boring to watch (Friends watching the video feed told me that watching paint dry or grass grow is much more exciting!) - challenging to build and play. We thought we had nailed this - great analysis of the game, how to play, things we needed to do ... build an absolutely beautiful robot ... that doesn't work at all. Week 1 showed that we completely missed the mark in how to build for this year's game. We are fortunate that we have a shot at redemption - 4 weeks until the Chesapeake Regional, and then 2 more weeks until Championships. So 30 pounds of changes between now and Chesapeake, and 30 more for Champs. We have just entered our second build season! In this regard, I'm glad we did a Week 1 event, so we could see what we need to do for subsequent events.
I remember the days of being "One and done" and it would have been heart-breaking to think we ended the season on the disaster that was our Week 1 outing at Palmetto. This is much, much tougher to play than I thought. Congratulations to the amazing teams we saw that nailed it and could perform at a high level this weekend! A couple of side notes: * Tossing Litter -- if you haven't started to have your human player practice, start immediately. It is a huge impact on the game. * The field Geometry -- the space is much smaller that you think it is - Human Player Stations are practically on top of the Totes and RCs. Landfill is hard to drive around. * Coop points are a must -- Just do that consistently, you'll score high * Human Player -- Totes don't fall like you think they will. We built the practice field version, and the actual field one works completely different. Spend the time on the field during the practice matches dropping them out the chute door (yes, chute door). Steve |
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
|
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
I don't doubt there will be awesome 2nd round picks that fall through for whatever reason. At the average event, the average alliance will probably have a 3rd robot which is less than capable of building 4 stacks. Also, as the higher powered teams get better, your opponents will also get better which means the percent contribution of the third partner becomes smaller. At some point, an uncapped stack of 3/4 has a higher opportunity cost (less landfill totes/more entropy on field) than scored value. |
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
The only difference I see between this seeding system and previous ones is the variance relative to robot ability. This system is so much better at sorting robots, because one tipped over stack will only drop your team a few ranking spots at most, whereas in previous years, a similar event either would either have kept you in the same spot in the sort, or dropped you down ten, which just means more variance overall. Additionally, teams could legitimately blame the scheduler in previous years for their poor seed, but this year, most teams who do that are just looking for a scapegoat to take the blame for their own poor performance. |
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
|
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
We were 30th after our 1st 3 matches and by the end of the day, ranked 3rd. We held onto the #1 spot and lost it in the final match by 6 total points. |
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
|
Re: Week 1 Observations
I disagree with the "Robots control their own fate" thing. This year, more than ever, you're vulnerable to bad matchmaking.
This time, you're running the risk of being shafted by the opposing alliance not doing coop. Coop points are half of the baseline 80 points that's going to be expected of every single team every qualification match in coming weeks, and you 100% cannot do the entire coop stack yourself. If you get matched against potatoes, your ranking is going to drop, and drop precipitously. Our team dropped from top 4 to what eventually became 9th because the opposing alliance never put a 4th tote on the coop stack in one match, which was brutal on our average. |
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
You team "shafted itself" by not being prepared for unsuccessful co-op pts. Teams that scored higher may have had the same issues yet scored higher...why? You create your own points based on how well your alliance performs as a unit. Take IE Regional (Listed by QA in Quals): Now strictly Cooperation 80 <---------------#1 1572 Hammer Heads (2 matches with co-op) 120 200 80 <--------------- #4 973 Greybots (2 matches with co-op) 160 200 .... 240 <-------------------------#13 Golden Gears (6 matches with co-op....Best Co-Op% and 17th pick in draft) So Co-op #'s are not indicative of Finals placement. Hammer Heads NEVER did one single co-op attempt nor did Grey Bots and both were in Playoffs and NOW Hammer Heads in World Championships as non co-op bot. |
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
2) While this is a true thing that does suck, 148, 3824, and other high ranking teams ranked high with <50% co-op stack conversion rate. I know our rank dropped precipitously because by the time we fixed our robot we hit a stretch of matches without co-op capability on the opposite side of the step. It's an issue we're looking to solve in two ways for our next event. |
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
|
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
|
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
Code Orange is 3476. |
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
|
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
|
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
|
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
|
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
2. Part of why I expect matchmaking to matter a lot more is because of 1. With coop becoming a thing everyone knows to do, or at least attempt, there's more pressure on everyone else to be able to do it as well. If everybody does coop, it doesn't matter. If nobody does coop, it doesn't matter. If everybody except a few teams do coop, it's brutal on the few teams because they can't and it impacts teams that get matched against them because then they get dragged down by a significant margin, unless in the time it takes your team to grab the yellows and dump them in the middle is equal to the time it takes you to get 40 points from stacks. |
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
Previously you could get paired with 2 good robots and end up against an alliance of 3 great robots. That's a loss usually. This year if the opponent is great it doesn't matter, you can still put up the points and the fact that they did more doesn't effect you. |
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
For Tom B.: I think Glenn missed an opportunity to plug their third partner, who kept very busy running smaller stacks into position. VERY busy. One medium-tall stacker (359, #2 seed and #1 pick), one RC specialist that could handle short tote stacks (1572, #1 AC), and one short-stacker (Livewire--forget their number), one set of dominating matches. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Re: Week 1 Observations
I think we discovered from finals at places like Dallas and Inland Empire that this game can actually be quite exciting when played well in a competitive setting (that catch of the falling stack by Code Orange in the last match though...). So my question is, why remove that competition from all but two or three matches a competition? Is the goal to encourage gracious professionalism, because the competitive element encourages taking of sides? Because if so, then it fails: I found myself on more than one occasion actually rooting for both alliances to play badly, so we could have a chance to move on. It's a shame that FIRST feels that this is the best way to handle nearly all the matches at a competition.
|
Re: Week 1 Observations
One rule change in the Team Update today....
http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprogr...ated-documents 3.2.2 Pre-MATCH and Post-MATCH G14 ROBOTS will not be re-enabled after the conclusion of the MATCH, nor will Teams be permitted to tether to the ROBOT except in exceptional circumstances (e.g. during TIMEOUTS, after Opening Ceremonies, etc.) and with express permiession from the FTA or a Referee. |
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
It was awkward to wait 20 minutes to see if we really lost, all the while watching great alliances and thinking, "Well... it'd be a real bummer for them if they lost, but at least we'd get to move on... but that'd be a real bummer for them" |
Re: Week 1 Observations
Quote:
Oh boy! -Mike |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 17:16. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi