Re: FRC Blog - Something New - Team 'Standards'
 

Trial by robot combat to settle penalty disputes would be nice (especially if 254 can name Bite Force as our champion)

Re: FRC Blog - Something New - Team 'Standards'
 

Fair enough.

I don't see why we have to have sport themed games for it to be "cool". I brought some friends of mine to a competition this year who would be considered "jocks" or "cool kids" and they didn't care that it was recycling themed (which I would say is worse than medieval in terms of bringing people into FIRST). All they saw were the cool robots doing things and how much fun it was.

Not everyone likes sports, some people like other things such as fantasy. We've had plenty of opportunities to use sports themes to bring people in. And this Standard is just like recycling cans this year: symbolic of a theme that matters less than the robots itself.

I guess my main beef with your point is that you're making it seem like its an awful thing to be nerdy, when in reality there's nothing wrong with it. My friends found FIRST nerdy but still enjoyed seeing the robots and competitions and thought it was awesome.

Re: FRC Blog - Something New - Team 'Standards'
 

There we go! We finally got battlebots for a FIRST competition.

Re: FRC Blog - Something New - Team 'Standards'
 

I was thinking student w/ pike on the robot cart but that works.

Re: FRC Blog - Something New - Team 'Standards'
 

I don't think this debate is sports vs non-sports. What I believe Adam and some of the others are trying to say is that a good robot game is more important than a theme. Ultimate Ascent wasn't sports themed, it used a Frisbee as a game object but there wasn't much of anything of Ultimate Frisbee involved, it was just a good robot game. Theme or not the most important aspects of robot games should be put at the top of the priority list. In my opinion watchable and strategically interesting games are more important then fleeting interest by pedestrians walking by (most people stop and look for a little while anyway, it's already cool robots). Often the themes takes away from that because if even a single thing about the game or balance is changed to make the theme better now you have made the game a little worse.

I like to look at most of the VEX games as good examples of robot games. Very few of them are themed in anyway but they allow for season long strategy and robot iterations (in most years).

Re: FRC Blog - Something New - Team 'Standards'
 

I agree, it doesn't have to be sport themed for it to be cool. I don't think there should be a theme for our games, just give us a good competitive game with defense. As Jared said, the most important part is having a competitive game on the field that is fun to play and spectator friendly. Watching robots stack crates will look kinda interesting at best, but watching robots fighting for game pieces and executing strategies, with some good crowd excitement may actually get people not under the tent to look more into it.

I think had FIRST announced the theme as part of the game at kickoff, this announcement would've been received better. It just feels like HQ is trying too hard to make it a "thing". I've seen ads on sites I visit for Stronghold, and if the first impression of FRC someone gets is a cartoon trailer and a medieval theme, they'll think it's just some ren fair re-enactment using robots or something. We have nerds under the tent. What we want are more engineers to want to mentor, and more of the other crowds of kids.

As far as the standard is concerned, it'll be great to have another display of our brand, logo, and sponsors. I could care less about badges and streamers and that nonsense. Our standard will probably just be a professional display that reflects our team. It's a neat idea, and would've been even cooler if they just told us "you can have a team display above your driver station now, here are the specs:", instead of integrating it with the theme.

Re: FRC Blog - Something New - Team 'Standards'
 

That's my major logistical issue. Teams like to reuse things because we're not all made of money, and half of the money we're made of goes to registering for and attending the competitions. I see it as teams getting to mark off their "endzone" which sounds neat, but really broad and uneven rules and stretching to tie it into the theme is offputting and concerning. I'm not someone busting down doors screaming "THESE ARE THE END TIMES" but whatever.

Also, I don't remember there being a lot of groans over teams who won the 4 banner awards at an event being able to cut down the nets in 2012. Why? Great game with a neat theme that wasn't forced. We're projecting the 2015 experience onto the 2016 theme. It's not entirely unfair, but it's a conclusion drawn from incomplete facts.

Re: FRC Blog - Something New - Team 'Standards'
 

I can't quite put my finger on it...but there is something about your standard that I am REALLY liking.

Brando

Re: FRC Blog - Something New - Team 'Standards'
 

Sorry to burst your bubble... but FIRST is kind of nerdy. Competitive robotics is kind of nerdy. What's wrong with being nerdy? I'd argue that being nerdy is cooler than it used to be too and I'd like to think we're changing the connotation of that word.

I know some students on our team will be pumped to spend a few hours on this. I don't see anything wrong with it, it's really no different than a game-themed team flag that gets posted before a match. Plus you get 2 months to spend an hour or two making it. Not that big of a deal.

Re: FRC Blog - Something New - Team 'Standards'
 

FRC, to me, is the flagship program for competitive robotics/STEM education. The sport should lead people to get involved with all CR/STEM Ed programs; especially who would not be involved in or have any knowledge of this realm or its affects on their lives. I would imagine and hope FIRST thinks this as well.

However, there are many schools of thought on how to operate FRC to achieve this. FIRST thinks shotgunning rookie grants, diluting championships, and layering on frills is the answer. Some people think embracing nerdiness is the answer. I think those people live in a bubble. :/

Re: FRC Blog - Something New - Team 'Standards'
 

#feelthepayne

Re: FRC Blog - Something New - Team 'Standards'
 

And some day that bubble is going to get popped, which is gonna be...interesting...

Re: FRC Blog - Something New - Team 'Standards'
 

If we're spinning empty rhetoric, what evidence is there that "bubble" doesn't exist around those who feel that FRC isn't "cool" enough?

"Geeky" and "nerdy" are trendier than ever. Video games have become a part of mainstream culture. The upcoming Star Wars film directed by JJ Abrams is likely going to be the biggest blockbuster in movie history. Comic Con is now a huge mainstream event, and comic book movies top the box office charts. Star Trek and the X Files are returning to TV. Mediocre reviewed Hobbit films grossed over $3B worldwide. You see members of the audience at NFL games in what can only be described as cosplay. Neil deGrasse Tyson is a internet demigod. "I F***ing Love Science" is a massive social media presence. It's time to capture the zeitgeist of pop culture geekiness and convert it into honest-to-goodness appreciation for STEM. There are still plenty of "geeks" and "nerds" who appreciate the pop culture and video games, but don't know what goes into them. It's time to take the fans of science fiction and fantasy and make them fans of science. "Normal people" are far more open to the nerdy aspects of culture than you expect.

Do I love "theme games?" No. I don't. But the ridiculous vitriol expressed towards every decision FIRST has without any consideration of the possibility is tiring. There's no reason to think that a theme game will be any worse than a "non-themed" game. We've done sports games and "non-themed" games for decades, I'm open to the possibility of trying something else. I'm open to the possibility that maybe Disney and FIRST HQ might know something about game design and public appeal that I don't. I'm fine that my personal vision of FIRST is not 100% congruent with FIRST HQ's. That doesn't mean I'm "in a bubble."

Cut out the ridiculous vitriol. It's tiresome. Be productive.

Re: FRC Blog - Something New - Team 'Standards'
 

Heresy! Burrrn him!

Re: FRC Blog - Something New - Team 'Standards'
 

I guess I fail to see how an optional flag is going to change the overall view of FIRST or turn people off to competitive robotics. I don't think this 'optional frill' is on the same level as your other two examples.

Everyone overreacts to this because they don't have a robot to build. If it were January there'd be a handful of posts on this thread. Build season can't come soon enough.

Re: FRC Blog - Something New - Team 'Standards'
 

I think it's a decent idea. I don't think the standards have some huge negative or positive effect on the competition other than aesthetically matching the "theme" witch is good.

The theme itself doesn't strike me as invasive really. It's more like adding a paint job to a car than changing out engine components. To me it really doesn't feel much different than just naming a game. Like how Aerial Assist has "aerial" referencing launching balls and "assist" referencing the assist/passing system.

2015: "recycle" = cans/litter
2013: "assent" = climbing pyramid
2012: "rebound" = basket ball hoops/ball
2011: "logo" = FIRST logo parts
2016: "stronghold" = something about game play just as it usually has

Thus I don't see how naming something and having a new cosmetic option for teams would detract from the game design. I'll bet any game could be framed to fit many different names and "themes" but ultimately the flow of the match, the difficulty level, and the spectators understanding are what will make it fun to watch or play. These things can be good or bad regardless of theme or name.

And to the cynics saying FIRST might compromise the game for the theme, what if they made a good game and found a theme to fit it instead of the other way around?

Re: FRC Blog - Something New - Team 'Standards'
 

I would like to see teams using retroreflective tape on the standards. This could theoretically enable teams to find known landmarks on the field for better autonomous.

Actually, it doesn't even need to be retroreflective really, just a color and shape you can identify at a distance. I'm seriously going to ask one of our students for a unique Zebracorn logo for this purpose.

EDIT: As pointed out below, the retroreflective tape idea is a no-go.

Re: FRC Blog - Something New - Team 'Standards'
 

Considering that Disney comes in second to Comcast for the biggest media conglomerate, I'd have to lean on the idea that Disney knows what they are doing in terms of marketing and publicity. To be honest, when it comes to marketing and public appeal, how do you go wrong with Disney as a partner? Relative to FIRST, they're bigger and have been around longer and have a demographic that spans all ages, races, and financial and educational backgrounds.

Maybe Disney Imagineering is EXACTLY what we need to increase appeal.

Re: FRC Blog - Something New - Team 'Standards'
 

From the spec sheet: "They may not include retroreflective tape..."

Re: FRC Blog - Something New - Team 'Standards'
 

Well there goes that idea...

Re: FRC Blog - Something New - Team 'Standards'
 

+1

Re: FRC Blog - Something New - Team 'Standards'
 

Couldn't you put the retroflective tape on the back (field facing side) of your driver station? I don't recall any size or height restrictions on the drive station.

Re: FRC Blog - Something New - Team 'Standards'
 

Personally, I have no issue with giving teams the option of making a Standard.
It will work well with this year's theme, but we may not see it in future games. It just doesn't make sense to mount Standards above the DS if that area of the field will be used for scoring.

We will make use of this opportunity to have a few students (read that "just 2 or 3") use this as an engineering exercise. We were give limitations, and goal objectives. So, we will use them to design our Standard.

Besides, has anyone given any thought to the possibility that this opportunity to build a Standard this year was the entire reason to have the "Teaser video" in the first place? I wouldn't put it past the GDC to head fake us like that.

Re: FRC Blog - Something New - Team 'Standards'
 

Not sure if this has been brung up or not, but I found these two sentences from the blog post interesting. Emphasis mine:

Now, that first part is interesting. If there's nothing up there (scoring wise) already, how can there be an "empty spot" -- wouldn't the entire area be one large empty spot in that case? I see "empty" to mean that there is other stuff up there, and the standard fills a "gap" or sorts. Or does it?

Second paragraph, seems to indicate that the standard could interfere with gameplay if not the right size -- does this again point to scoring elements above the DS? Or Do they mean that if one is too tall, it could fall and hurt someone, etc.?

Just two sentences I had noticed that seemed unusual...

Re: FRC Blog - Something New - Team 'Standards'
 

I was thinking the same thing just before I read your post. There will be less than 4' of horizontal space consumed by standards, that leaves about 23' for other stuff.

Re: FRC Blog - Something New - Team 'Standards'
 

Parapets, towers, battlements --> features of a stronghold.

Re: FRC Blog - Something New - Team 'Standards'
 

I interpreted that to mean that it "improperly constructed" could interfere with the match if it falls on the field or has some material that proves distracting for robots/drive teams (i.e. strobing lights). A standard that is "oversized" could interfere with people trying to view the matches.

I doubt there will be any goals near these standards as it would take away from the cool aesthetic of seeing banners above driver's stations. We're probably looking at a ground level, non-shooting game for 2016.

Something known is its good to get kids hooked in robotics young so if a fun theme on top of a complex game is the way to do it I'm all for it.

Re: FRC Blog - Something New - Team 'Standards'
 

All I could think of is the retro-reflective frisbee that got taped to my shirt for the match with 20 and 900 in quals in 2014.

If any team was going to use the banners like that, it was going to be the Zebracorns.

Re: FRC Blog - Something New - Team 'Standards'
 

That was great! Except when you were standing next to me at Champs, where I was refereeing your division, and I kept thinking they were going to miss you and take me out instead...

Re: FRC Blog - Something New - Team 'Standards'
 

We've got other tricks now. :) We're using RitR this weekend as an excuse to test some new stuff.

Re: FRC Blog - Something New - Team 'Standards'
 

Well now that you've said that I'm going to need to see it...

Re: FRC Blog - Something New - Team 'Standards'
 

However there are some teams, like mine that logo is owned by a company that is not willing to release it to us. In essence, it may work for most teams, but not all.

Re: FRC Blog - Something New - Team 'Standards'
 

Yeah, design standards can be strict sometimes...

Re: FRC Blog - Something New - Team 'Standards'
 

So standards design standards are not standardized?

Re: FRC Blog - Something New - Team 'Standards'
 

While looking over the design requirements for the standards this year, a student raised a good question. The requirements specify that the horizontal supports must have a diameter no larger than 1/2 inch. They specify diameter and to me that means that it has to be round, but they also say that the designs will not be inspected. To the student this means he can do whatever he wants as long as the vertical support is 1/2 inch OD. He has a clever design, but will it cause a problem to not use two round horizontal supports? Thoughts?

I would bring up the spec sheet, but with the new website changing the way all the old links work, I have to dig some more to find exact language and I never thought I would need to print it as it was available online.

Re: FRC Blog - Something New - Team 'Standards'
 

Re: FRC Blog - Something New - Team 'Standards'
 

I guess the issue comes down to the fact that the language says what I said before. It specifies diameter so I read that as required to be round. But what harm would be caused by a square horizontal support?

Re: FRC Blog - Something New - Team 'Standards'
 

While diameter is most frequently associated with circles, it is not exclusive to circles.

Re: FRC Blog - Something New - Team 'Standards'
 

Never heard any application other than circle, this is straight out of my Drafting text:

A straight line going through the center of a circle connecting two points on the circumference.

What other applications have you used?

Re: FRC Blog - Something New - Team 'Standards'
 

Diameter can be applied to shapes that are not round.

Here is an interesting read on the subject.

Diameter, more generally, is the shortest distance between two parallel lines that touch the figure being measured. For figures that are not round, diameter can vary with orientation; major diameter and minor diameter correspond the orientations that give the maximum and minimum measurements, respectively.

Re: FRC Blog - Something New - Team 'Standards'
 

I've always taught major and minor diameter in reference to ellipses, but the diameter part comes from the construction method of the ellipse, not the end shape. I haven't heard the parallel lines definition before. I might need to read that book to learn some new tricks.

Re: FRC Blog - Something New - Team 'Standards'
 

The UK 50p coin is a famous example of a constant diameter figure that is obviously not round. It fills the space between two parallel lines 27.3 mm apart regardless of orientation.

Re: FRC Blog - Something New - Team 'Standards'
 

The links are gone on the FIRST site, or at least I cannot find them. Does anyon have the original document?

Thanks

Re: FRC Blog - Something New - Team 'Standards'
 

Here is the blog post on the archive site.

Re: FRC Blog - Something New - Team 'Standards'
 

The old links work if you change www to archive

Blog Post:
http://archive.usfirst.org/roboticsp...team-standards

Standard Document
http://archive.usfirst.org/sites/def...s%20public.pdf

Re: FRC Blog - Something New - Team 'Standards'
 

Medieval theme=capture the flag+battle bots?????

Re: FRC Blog - Something New - Team 'Standards'
 

The main problem with a square is that i believe that the component that you use to attach the flag rod to the top of the drivers' station is actually a round hole. Making a square might cause the rod not to fit :/

You could however find some way to narrow it down so it could fit the hole, but even then theres a chance it won't fit too well.

Re: FRC Blog - Something New - Team 'Standards'
 

Our team has already started on our standard. Really excited about it because we are Dragons!! I say that it's a great opportunity to have fun while also being creative and professional. If you're having trouble with it, look up medieval standards and just incorporate your team into a simple design. :)

Re: FRC Blog - Something New - Team 'Standards'
 

lol

Re: FRC Blog - Something New - Team 'Standards'
 

i love how you changed the snakes to dragons, that just made my day

Re: FRC Blog - Something New - Team 'Standards'
 

If anyone is wanting to get a head-start or a template for their team standard, Robopromo is offering Team Standard Kits and Custom Cut Decals as a service this year. I'll put the link below:

http://www.robopromo.com/category_s/1831.htm

Re: FRC Blog - Something New - Team 'Standards'
 

What's the deal? Dragons are just snakes with legs and wings.;)