Technical/Maintenance Personal
 

I wish they would have additional two passes for technical and maintenance personnel onstage. These two individuals would not be in the coaches box but merely would remain on the sidelines. Our drivers, human player, and coach were not part of the pit crew and consequently made repairs and maintenance during the eliminations difficult. The rule became fairly a lax on the main stage, but up until then, getting our maintenance and technical people to the robot was very difficult.

Mr. Bill

Dear Santa,

I want:
more contact
more ways to score
hps on segways (hey why not)
3 vs 3 (or something to that effect)
a puppy
more qual matches
hula hoops as scoring pieces
more of that NYC carpet:D

-Evan

p.s. would it kill ya to give me a job w/ FIRST?

Bill, that is a great idea. Trying to point from far away and talk over all the noise to get a minor problem fixed is a real drag. If nothing else allow one student and one mentor or two students.
Al

Al,

Right on!

On the Newton field, I saw another team roll their robot over to the fence so two mentors could help with repairs. The officials were giving them a tough time. As soon as a match was over we would have our two drivers run out and give their badges to our student pit leader and a mentor to check out the Beast and try and get it ready for the next match. During qualifying, it isn't a problem because you alwas have time to return to the pit.

Mr. Bill

Send the copies of 3d studio max and organizational tools (Microsoft stuff, assuming they are giving it to us again) as soon as a team registers. This will allow more use of the software. For example, it is hard to bust out the copies of MS Project and just start using it right at kickoff. It is a tool for organization and if it is given to u earlier then we can get more organized ansd utilize all we are given. Also, we will be getting a new version of 3ds Max this year so giving it to us a month or 2 ahead of time would make the transition easier. This also makes it easier for the rookie teams or teams that have not previously done this part of the competition. Both of these wont affect the main competition but it would give us a better timescale for the Animation competition. Just a thought :)

I want a competition with something other than balls. I know they had rings one year.

Also I didn't think Zone Zeal was as exciting as the 2001 competition, whatever the name was.

I think 2002 was MUCH more exciting than 2001. It had more action, and the head-to-head aspect makes it much more suspenseful than the "everyone hold hands and be friends" mentality of 2001. Granted, I think Zone Zeal had a little too much contact, but I think it struck a better balance than Diabolic Dynamics (that was the name for 2001, wasn't it?).

What we really need, however is something like 2000. That game was awesome. From what little I saw of it, I loved it. A good game should have head-to-head action, multiple ways of scoring, and an offensive/defensive mix for strategy.

PS: Also, about the metal bars to stop impact tripping: that doesn't work. The breakers will still trip, even if they are held over by a bar. It just makes it a pain to reset.

I think parts of this year were exciting. I think the preliminary rounds were great but the finals sucked. Your stradegy changed. You weren't trying to get as many points as possible, just more than the other team. this just sucked. I remember one match with beady where they grabbed the goals and that was the end of the match. little movement, low scoring, just plain boring. I think that they should keep the objective the same as the rounds go on, not change them. I think this is where last years game shone. Each team of 4 tried to do as well as possible which made it exciting, and also almost maxed out the point system. This is why people go to these things, to see what we can do, not to see who can play a waiting game and see who can grab everything the quickest and kill the game. I also think the teathers kinda took away from the game. While some times these teathers made the difference in a close game which made it exciting, many times it was just an easy way to score 10 for each team, which just inflated the scores. I liked how last year there were obsticles to get where you needed to be (teater totter and bars). I hope next year they integrate the pros of both games to make an exciting and difficult game that will keep everyone envolved and interested.

just my $2.02 :), i haven't written something that long in a while

Again, like I said, we need something like 2000. Something with a major field piece that allows for some sort of extra scoring, be it a bar, ramp, stairs, pit, platform, or whatever. It adds an extra dynamic that makes strategy tougher, less predictable, and more exciting.

This year's finals compared to last years...
 

Personally, I thought that 2001's finals were rather bland, unless you had two equal alliances going up against each other. You usually could know who was going to win, and there was nothing the losers could do about it. If they had somewhat inferior robots, they were pretty much screwed because they couldn't affect the other person's score.

This year's finals, however, were different. It was frequently the case when the so-called underdogs came out on top (anyone remember VCU? #1 seed vs. #8 seed?), due to superior strategy rather than superior robot. I think that kind of balance is needed - there is a place for excellent robots, but if you don't have an excellent team balance (driver, secondary, coach) the robot won't get any points. Granted, in 2001 there was extreme influence on the team balance, but if your robot could only drive around you had no chance.

Anyway, those are my additional thoughts for right now.

Off to robot camp next week! Woo!

1. I wish that they would allow us to take our robot home after competition, as they did in 2001 (Coopertition FIRST) and then ship by the ship date (Tuesday after a competition) to the next venue.

Regardless, I wish they would announce whatever "repairs and new stuff" rule right from the beginning and stick to it.

2. I would like to have another coach/mentor position. In 2001 at Regionals, we used this position primarily to give another high school student the opportunity to get out on the playing field and get into the competition atmosphere before driving/playing in a subsequent match.

At Nationals, our second coach was the person who had all the scouting and partner capabilities info. We only had a couple of minutes to plan strategy. Two people (one to discuss, the other to filter the info) were invaluable.

3. They should continue to post the alliance pairings at the beginning of the competition. This adds another dimension to the game (discussing strategy with future partners). Those of us who weren't actively repairing damage had a ball working on strategy with other teams.

4. If Small parts is used again, ban the use of the "tools" section for use on the robot. Although it was very innovative, the use of file cards and tape measures seems to be at the edge of what is acceptable. What's next, using a butane torch or a melting pot?

5. Put an overall dollar limit on the robot. This would include everything purchased external to the kit. This would mean setting a standard price for raw materials (e.g. .25" aluminum).

6. Instead of unlimited gears, sprockets, bearings, allow the use of anything in the Stock Drive Products or Boston Gear catalogs. Put a dollar amount limit.

7. Zone Zeal reached (and maybe exceeded) the safe limit of "violence" that FIRST (with its message of gracious professionalism) can tolerate. If there is going to be more pushing, shoving, and grabbing than in the past, the referees -must- enforce the actual rules when a team goes over the top.

The actual rules of engagement must be more precise, as well. Although we, as competitors, can police ourselves, different interpretations of loosely worded rules lead to hard feelings.

That's all for now,
Andrew, Team 356

I actually felt that the amount of violence or contact was far less than anyone expected. I would really like to see a little bit more contact. I feel that this would promote the building or strong, durable robots that are not flimsy like many I saw in 2002.

Also, an elevated drivers' stand would be nice so you can see if your goal grabber is fully attatched or if you are about to run over an extender.

Now that is a good idea even a foot off the ground would be good. A kool thing also going with this train of thought is maybe have a few video screens in the hp station maybe one that is an overview of the feild or one of your robot.

Great idea
 

This is a great alternative to SPI. SDP does not have as much other things, but they have tons more power transmission components.

As for what was wrong with Zone Zeal...

Too many times games turned into shoving matches. This was interesting for the players, but not for spectators. Also, this tore up the carpet.

One main thing that was present in '99 and '00, but not in '02 was the fact that you had to be off of the ground at the end of the match to get extra points. Sure, FIRST tried to get us away from the goals by giving us points for getting to the end zone, but they did not expect so many extensions.

If FIRST would've given us 20 points for robots being completely off of the ground at the end of the match, that would've added another dimension.

Another thing about Zone Zeal that was different from years past was the fact that almost all of the required tasks were easy to do by a robot. Grab a ball and put it in the goal... fairly easy. Latch onto a goal and push it around... easy. Latch onto two goals and push them around... somewhat easy. Grab three goals... hard (the only hard thing). FIRST initially made the task of lifting a goal difficult (by only grabbing the pipe and flange), but then backtracked and let us lift the goals easily by the metal trim on the edge of the goal.

My wish for future years is to make more functions of the game that are difficult to perform, as they have with every other year before 2002.

Of course, there needs to be a combination of this sort of task challenge with a game that is easy to understand and watch by spectators... that's why we should play robo-basketball in 2003. :)

Andy B.

The top part of our robot was so strong that we put it on the bottom of the crate and it never got bent. I think everyone kindof prepared for heavy contact but then realized that it really wasn't necessary to win a match (for example, having the little robots or tape measures to score points instead of running back through people.) I think more contact was a good idea, with poor execution due to changing rules.