4 vrs. 0 or 2 vrs. 2:Some Thoughts
 

Posted by Ben Mitchell at 05/25/2001 11:00 PM EST


Student on team #303, Vulgens Heroes, from Bridgewater-Raritan HS and Bihler.




Judging from what I've seen of the earlier FIRST competition, I am beginning to like 4 versus 0 more and more. At the start of the season, I found 4 versus 0 to be boring, uncompetitive. In the end, I though it was very exciting, adding a whole new dimension of strategy to the game. From what I've seen from the 2 on 2 rounds, it looks like robots crashing into each other, not a contest of skill and mind! From what I’ve heard this year, smashing one's robot into your opponent is NOT what Dean Kamen envisioned as the future of FIRST. I've seen a lot of talk about bringing back two versus two, but I find that less exciting then 4 robots working towards a common goal. Sure, there were times when I wanted, with all my heart and soul, to pick up my team’s joystick and drive the ‘bot like a Humvee in Desert Storm into whoever was blocking the bridge. But I learned that two on two is just that, over and over again! Correct me if I’m wrong, but two on two is just a robotics smash-a-thon with a little strategy involved. 4 versus 0, although not as fiercely competitive, is a little more challenging than a robotics football game. Instead of putting on armor and plating, robots can devote more energy to innovative design to create, build, a balanced bridge with goals and ball atop it, instead of bringing down the hopes and dreams of others. I’m interested in other teams reasons for wanting this sort of game rekindled for the 2002 competition. I’d like to hear some.

Winning teams make poor losers, and I thought all teams were winners in FIRST? I saw a particularly excellent team, with a phenomenal pilot and team, get shot to flames is some old footage that deserves to be buried in a steel coffin in the North Sea. It broke my heart, and made me a little curious as to the motivation of folks to bring it back. I guess those who did well last year want it back, because they have no one to fight this year, save physics, data, and communications between themselves and other teams. I firmly believe the playing field shouldn’t be a war zone. If you want that, you’ve got the wrong organization.

Bringing everybody up as one, not pulling others down to raise yourself, is, or should, be how the game is played.

I am not correct, Dean?


This is my personal opinion, not that of my team
My words are no one’s but my own, and I accept
full responsibility for them

--BEN MITCHELL
TEAM 303

Re: 4 vrs. 0 or 2 vrs. 2:Some Thoughts
 

Posted by Tom S. at 05/25/2001 11:25 PM EST


Student on team #177, The Bobcats, from South Windsor High School and International Fuel Cells.


In Reply to: 4 vrs. 0 or 2 vrs. 2:Some Thoughts
Posted by Ben Mitchell on 05/25/2001 11:00 PM EST:



Ben,

Part of me agrees with you, but the other part still wants to push and hit and battle. Thinking back on the good old days of the 99 competition, i can remember one distinctive play, we were going to get on the puck, fully loaded with floppies, but there was already 3 bots on teh puck. both of the poles were out of reach, so we used our hooks on the end of our arm to pull another bot off the puck, knocking it over in the process. Just that image of the robot tumbling over and us getting on teh puck will probably be forever engraved in my mind. i definitely liked the idea of robots going head to head and having the best built machine come out on top...

The other side of me likes the new 4 on 0 competition. I don't think our robot was touched by a single other robot in all of the competitions we went to. Strategy also played a much larger role in this years game. Having a plan for all four robots is not an easy job, as i saw on stage since i was a driver. But i have to hand it to the coaches... i don't know how it happened, but in every match we were in, every robot had a set plan on what they were going to do.

Well, i don't know how it should be next year, FIRST always seems to amaze us with new ideas that work flawlessly, and i don't expect to see anything less than that next year.

Tom Schindler
Team 177 - Bobcat Robotics

Re: 4 vrs. 0 or 2 vrs. 2:Some Thoughts
 

Posted by Anthony S. at 05/28/2001 7:50 PM EST


Student on team #442, Knight Riders, from Lee High School and NASA/BOEING/MEVATEC.


In Reply to: Re: 4 vrs. 0 or 2 vrs. 2:Some Thoughts
Posted by Tom S. on 05/25/2001 11:25 PM EST:



I've only been involved with FIRST for one year and I hadn't seen many tapes of last years game. But just from my experience this year, I loved this years game. I really enjoyed 4vs.0. I also don't like robot violence. We didn't see much of that this year but I have a feeling if we go back to 2vs.2 we may see a little more. Imagine your robot getting rammed by another robot. You'd be very upset if your robot was damaged and unable to compete. Thats why we shouldn't have much robot violence. My team can't really talk because we rammed a robot that had fallen over in front of the bridge during the elimination rounds at Lone Star. Sometimes you have to do what you have to do, but ramming robots for fun is not "Graciously Professional." I hope FIRST continues the 4vs.0 and I also hope we use things like the stretcher a little more. Have a nice summer and see everyone next year.

Re: 4 vrs. 0 or 2 vrs. 2:Some Thoughts
 

Posted by Tom S. at 05/28/2001 9:29 PM EST


Student on team #177, The Bobcats, from South Windsor High School and International Fuel Cells.


In Reply to: Re: 4 vrs. 0 or 2 vrs. 2:Some Thoughts
Posted by Anthony S. on 05/28/2001 7:50 PM EST:



Sorry if i made it seem like the robot 'battling' was the entire reason i wanted the 2x2. To me, it was part of the engineering and learning process to make a machine that could withstand any hits you may take. Obviously we don't want robots out here with circular saws or other things like that, but head to head competition was a thing that many people liked.

I don't think it is unreasonable to design a machine that can take a few hits here and there. As long as people stay graciously professional, and not viciously attack other robots, we should not have a problem.

Whether they bring back the 2x2 or keep the 4x0, it doesn't really matter to me... i loved both ways of competing, just for teh spectators, it is probably a little bit more exciting to watch the 2x2.

Tom Schindler
Team 177

Re: 4 vrs. 0 or 2 vrs. 2:Some Thoughts
 

Posted by Ameya Agaskar at 05/26/2001 10:05 AM EST


Student on team #293, Bullbots, from Hopewell Valley Central High School and Janssen/Morehouse Engineering/Lucent/Worldwater.


In Reply to: 4 vrs. 0 or 2 vrs. 2:Some Thoughts
Posted by Ben Mitchell on 05/25/2001 11:00 PM EST:



: Correct me if I’m wrong, but two on two is just a robotics smash-a-thon with a little strategy involved.

You are wrong. Last year's game was NOT "a smash-a-thon with little strategy involved". It involved much strategy, and crashing into and damaging your opponent's robot was NOT in your best interest. This was especially true because in the qualifying rounds, your team received three times the losing team's score (in our first qual match at Rutgers last year, our opponent didn't realize this. Our team's robot wasn't working yet, and our score for that match was 0. Our opponents score: 0.) You had to make sure you beat the other team, but you also had to make sure that your opponent had a high score. Plus, you didn't want to damage your opponent, because there was a good chance that they would be your partner in another match.
Also, if Spike 3 (which had little in the way of armor) could survive falling out the back of a pick-up truck traveling at 60 m.p.h., it could survive a little shove on the field.

Re: 4 vrs. 0 or 2 vrs. 2:Some Thoughts
 

Posted by Chris Hibner at 05/29/2001 9:53 AM EST


Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.


In Reply to: 4 vrs. 0 or 2 vrs. 2:Some Thoughts
Posted by Ben Mitchell on 05/25/2001 11:00 PM EST:



I am a big supporter of going back to 2v2 since I like having head to head competition much better than racing against a clock. However, with that said, I would be willing to accept racing against the clock if it were 2v0 instead of 4v0.

My biggest objection to this year's game is that each team has only 25% control over it's destiny. I thought we had a great robot this year and we were constantly not where we wanted to be because all year we had bad luck befall our partner teams.

I love competition (even this year's style is okay), but I want to have a little more control over what happens. So, if FIRST wants to continue with no head-to-head, then at least scale it back to 2 team alliances so we get a little more control.

My thoughts (oh no, he'll be talking all night)
 

Posted by Scott England at 05/29/2001 6:55 PM EST


College Student on team #401, The Hokie G.U.A.R.D, from Virginia Tech/MCPS and Virginia Tech/VBEP.


In Reply to: 4 vrs. 0 or 2 vrs. 2:Some Thoughts
Posted by Ben Mitchell on 05/25/2001 11:00 PM EST:



my everyone seems to be really passionate about ALL 4v0 or 2v2, just to point out something, FIRST has gone from
every bot for himself to
alliances 2v2
to 4v0
I'm not so sure I would expect a return 2v2, FIRST has continously surprised us with new and at times shocking developments, I don't think FIRST has found its ideal competition set up yet so I see no reason to start recycling old ideas. I'm not necessarily saying that FIRST should keep 4vs0, though personally, I felt that this year's competition resulted in the best robots being near the top(the truly elite seemed to rise above the quality of their teammates and put up a high score anytime the bridge remained unblocked) As always, luck plays into things, but so long as a robot could make a good showing, it had a good chance of getting picked. In the mean time, I could make my case for why this year's competition was the best ever, but I won't get started, my point was why go back when we can go foreward. no where does it say FIRST is limited to all versus all, 2v2, or 4v0 (and someone mentioned the idea of 2v0, but I'd just like to mention that I'd expect more and more robots to be competing at once, just as a simple facts of numbers, say there are twice as many teams at nationals next year, they would either need twice as many fields to ensure they all get a reasonable number of rounds, or more simply, they could just make a game that has 8 robots playing either together, or like an idea someone mentioned, that I liked and have mentioned a few more times, how about 4v4, like football, offense vs defense, 4 robots do something to a playing field, and drive into a parking spot, hit their buzzers or run out of time, once all four switches are depressed or say a 90 second clock runs out, the other team has power, and some amount of time to undo some points (lets say 30 seconds to keep a 2 minute round) Then a quick field reset and the teams repeat it with roles reversed, less time spent getting robots to the field and with big introductions, 8 teams go in about 75 % (given that is just a guess)of the time it took 8 teams to go in past years. I'm hardly saying this is the best idea, just an example of how we could have more robots competing at once, and in more direct competition than 4v0. Moral of this story is lets not all get so defensive of either 4v0 or else 2v2, FIRST will continue to surprise us and do whatever is in FIRST's best interest. Ok, I've been typing way too long, I hope I managed to form a few coherent sentences in this massive message,
~Scott

Re: One more good reason for 4x0
 

Posted by Anthony S. at 05/29/2001 8:09 PM EST


Student on team #442, Knight Riders, from Lee High School and NASA/BOEING/MEVATEC.


In Reply to: My thoughts (oh no, he'll be talking all night)
Posted by Scott England on 05/29/2001 6:55 PM EST:



One more good reason why I like 4x0 is scouting. Yes, I'm sure you can scout with 2x2 but it is more exciting scouting a lot of teams. My team mates and I had a lot of fun going to the pits and interveiwing people asking about thier robot and watching them compete to see how good they were. It is a good way to meet new people and a good way to get more people on the team involved. If it weren't for scouting this past year, people on my team would be bored to death and sleep in the stands(even though the happened anyway). People on my team also took scouting time to search for BOYS!!(female team members). So I think 4x0 has its advantages like scouting and 2x2 also has its advanteges. We'll just leave it up to FIRST.

Anthony Steele II
Team 442

Good idea!
 

Posted by Carolyn Duncan at 05/30/2001 7:00 PM EST


Student on team #495, The Pack, from Jamestown High School and VBEP/Raytheon/Saic.


In Reply to: My thoughts (oh no, he'll be talking all night)
Posted by Scott England on 05/29/2001 6:55 PM EST:



That truely was a long, but meaningful, post and I agree with ya Scott. I like the 4v4 idea. Sounds more diobolical than this year. FIRST will decide and wee'll all wait and be happy with whatever comes up because we'll be eager to get back into the tense building we complain about once it's over.
C-ya,
Carolyn

One other reason I don't like direct head to head
 

Posted by Scott England at 05/30/2001 11:28 PM EST


College Student on team #401, The Hokie G.U.A.R.D, from Virginia Tech/MCPS and Virginia Tech/VBEP.


In Reply to: Good idea!
Posted by Carolyn Duncan on 05/30/2001 7:00 PM EST:



Thanks Carolyn, and good observation about how we'll complain about things anyway : )
one other thing I wanted to point out against direct robot to robot competition, with robots slamming into other robots, mechanisms break, and no one has a good time when that happens, Also, with what, 60 % growth, there are huge numbers of rookie teams each year, and rookies are notorious for fragile mechanisms (I confess to excessive use of zip ties and epoxy for everything from motor mounts to holding pins in place) With regionals like VCU, where half the teams attending were rookies, robots slamming into robots would result in piles of parts, and a huge number of innactive robots, which is hardly how you inspire highschoolers, I'm not saying all rookie teams have fragile robots, but untill we all get a little experience (and in some cases even after we have some) things can be overlooked and subjecting robots to the jarring of robot going against robot will break even some well built pieces. Ok, I'm done preaching for the moment. Just some more thoughts of mine.
~Scott