Re: Are The Penalties Too High?
 

No. They are not. The reason the penalties are so high is b/c you know F.I.R.S.T. is all about safety which is very very good. The reson is b/c what if a robot is in a human loading zone and a robot hits it. Its going to move. Well they don't wanna take the chance of it hitting the human player and geting him/her hurt. Or for another example something that happened to me. I was pulling out of the human loading zone and a robot slames me in the side and knocks the tetra off almost swinging it into a judge. So I think the penalties are very fare because we don't won't people hurt especially the judges.

Re: Are The Penalties Too High?
 

[quote=TierraDelDiablo]The rankings in the end don't truly reflect how a team is really doing just because of penalties. A very good team might be hit with constant penalties from alliance partners. In the end with alliance pairings, some potentially very good teams would be forgotten. Too many games were decided by penalties, and if it happens in elimination, it just makes the losing team feel even worse knowing that they could have won.[quote]

That's what happened to my team. I'm not saying our robot was incredible and penalties completely destroyed our chances, but our robot was undefeated for the first three matches of our regional and throughout the entire regional we did not get a single penalty called on our robot. Our partners however did get penalties called on them and that seriously affected our ranking when we lost the last 6 matches. I do think the penalties are necessary, but I don't think they should be that high.

Re: Are The Penalties Too High?
 

Dave even said at tonight meeting that the penalties are there so the game is played a certain way (End of what Dave said). 10 and 30pts is also a number that they had to come up with before the matches so if they thought the scores would be higher then the penalties had less of an effect. Also they scores overall are going to get higher and penalties are not going to go down with time. This is where knowing the rules and updates are going to be essential. I know that they are going to change on few things its just a matter of time. Learn from the mistakes people in week one made.

Re: Are The Penalties Too High?
 

I believe that the penalties are too high also...however FIRST must take a stand and show their seriousness when it comes to the safety of the the people near the field...aka human players and volunteers. So...I am kind of pulled in both directions on this topic. I want to ensure the safety of the people around the field and by having a high penalty may be the only way to ensure this. However I do not want these high penalties deciding the outcome of the game on a more than common basis. The penalties need to be there, maybe a little less sever due to the scores of the matches so far, but maybe not given out unless an intentional break of a rule is evident. Someone brushing up against someone in the loading zone while moving past them does not constitute a penalty in my mind, but intentional pushing and slamming needs one. In any case, its all up to the referees and what they see to be appropriate in their own minds, and thats something you cant change.

Re: Are The Penalties Too High?
 

The penalties are part of the game.

In qualifying rounds, our alliances steered clear of the far side of the field except to try and score a tetra on their home zone and we received no penalties.

In semi-final 1, match one we did not steer clear and 217 and 340 (same team) got tangled up near the opponents blue human loading zone. 340 was running blocker and we were trying to cap the far goal. In our collision we (either 340 or 217, too close to tell) touched 1507 while they were in the human loading zone. We received the 30 pointer and got the loss.

Was I upset? Yes. Was it our own fault? Yes. Do I blame the rules? Nope.

My advice for teams who have not played yet: stay clear from your opponents loading zones. If you must race to their side of the field to score or defend, pay very close attention to the loading zones. If you go to the other side of the field and touch someone in the loading zone don't complain about the penalties being too high. Work within the scoring and rules given.

At FLR, the most common penalty was human player related. The human player foot foul was called the most. We never received a penalty for not being in the auto load zone while receiving a tetra and very few teams did on competition day. What I did notice were teams trying the auto loader on practice day and noticing that they had a hard time getting in the zone. On Friday, those teams were loading from the human loading station.

This game is designed to be offensive, thus the 30 pointer for messing with teams loading. Safety is also a consideration, but not the only one.

Re: Are The Penalties Too High?
 

Absolutely.

The penalties are too great in magnitude for scores that are to low. They are too easy to incur.

I disagreed with Andy Baker and Dave Lavery because this has gone beyond the "just avoid the penalties". I maintain that it is nearily impossible to not risk penalties and still have a competitive robot or strategy.

--Petey

Re: Are The Penalties Too High?
 

Sorry Petey, but you are just plain wrong on this point. I offer a specific point of empirical evidence: at the VCU regionals this past weekend, there were only four penalties assessed during the entire set of elimination rounds on Saturday afternoon (including the one DQ for agressive play). Teams learned what the penalties were and how to avoid them. In the total of 20 matches, teams were able to play the game very effectively, execute great strategies, and have very competitive interactions. And they were able to do it nearly "penalty-free" (as the announced kept repeating over and over and over and over and over...).

-dave

Re: Are The Penalties Too High?
 

The serious penalties are their to keep the human player safe. The human player is solely concentrated on not causing penalties by their actions. They do not have time to watch for incoming robots like other field personnel do. Therefore, the penalties are warranted.

The less serious penalties associated with the auto loader is for the safety of the attendant. They too are solely concentrated on placing the tetra correctly, they shouldn't have to worry about your robot ramming them.

To have a competitive robot you must effectively play the game. This game was clearly designed to be offensive, to see which alliance can get to their loading zone and cap the most times. It is no accident that if you are playing a more defensive strategy that your robot could have a greater chance of getting penalties.

So many robots...
 

I must admit that I am surprised at the number of people who believe that the penalties are too high. There is one thing, that I don't think has yet been mentioned, that could shed some light on why this issue has been somewhat divisive.

After reading over the responses, it seems to me that most of the comments from the "penalties are too high" crowd are all going in a similar direction with regards to why they believe the penalties are too high:

In past years (except in 2001), you had ONE alliance partner. Your team was essentially 50% responsible for not earning penalties. This year, you have TWO alliance partners, and your team is, correspondingly, 33.3% responsible for not receiving a penalty. This, I imagine, is the hang-up.

The scores in the regional competitions thus far have proven the 30-point penalty to be a so-called "kiss of death." Discontent over the strict penalties has arisen because your team (who worked so hard to build a robot that could score tetras) can only be accountable for itself, leaving 66.6% of the responsibility for avoiding penalties to your alliance partners. This might even be acceptable, if you could instruct your alliance partners to avoid penalties and be completely certain that they would do so. However, this certainly is not the case. No one wants to have a victory thrown away because one of their two alliance partners didn't follow the rules.

Had the penalties in previous years been as high as they are this year, relative to the overall scores, I think that most people wouldn't consider the penalties to be too high.
-When a team is 50% accountable (as in past years) for the penalties incurred upon that alliance, the team feels as if they are in control. Penalties can and will be avoided.
-When a team is only 33.3% accountable, however, it seems like they are just in a crapshoot as to whether or not their alliance ends up with a killer penalty. I really hope neither of my alliance partners does anything dumb.

That said, I still think the penalties are appropriate because everyone knows how important it is that they be avoided. Even if you feel that your team is in a crapshoot, the odds are stacked in your favor because both of your alliance partners know how important it is to avoid penalties.

-Andrew

Re: Are The Penalties Too High?
 

At Sacramento, there was one particularly agressive robot. (Not us.) We were up against them twice. They lost both times. The first time, they would have won- if they hadn't hit us in the loading zone and thrown us off. The refs initially ignored it, but when our coach complained, they corrected the score. The second time out, the same team fractured some acrylic paneling on our robot. To do that, they had to hit us hard- or fast- enough to climb our defensive wedge on that side and still hit hard. Another robot had a front wedge and was DQ'd for tipping.

My point is, that teams who disobey the rules need a penalty. If FIRST lowers the penalties now, then the first week teams will complain that they had it rough. I say that we just accept the penalties the way they are and try to avoid drawing them.

Re: Are The Penalties Too High?
 

At the risk of posting a "me too" post, I think the penalties, while steep, encourage alliances to play smart and focus on being productive. They add an element of risk to playing aggressively in the opponent's zone, but should not affect an alliance which concentrates on scoring points rather than preventing the opposing alliance from making them.

From what we've seen on our practice field and what I saw on the webcasts, it appears that there are lanes through to the opposing end goals which a robot can use without risking 30 pt penalties. In the experience of teams which competed last week, is this correct?

Re: Are The Penalties Too High?
 

I have to disagree. Defensive play can be used just as well with the penalities in place as it could be without penalties at all. In the 2nd round of the championship match at FLR, our opponents only scored 4 points the entire match. This wasn't because of penalties (there werent any), but because of the excellent defense our alliance partner (team 494) played. They single-handedly defended the opposing alliance limiting them to 4 points and without getting a single penalty. Just stay away from the opposite team's loading zones and it shouldn't be a problem.

All you need is a driver who knows the rules to avoid penalities. Be agressive, play defense, but know the rules and dont break them.

Re: Are The Penalties Too High?
 

from what i have seen, most teams only score about 20-59 points a game, and when a penalty is called, about 30 points is usually deducted.

Totally my opinion, but i think there are to many rules this year, there are penalties left and right

Re: Are The Penalties Too High?
 

I have no problem with the size of the penalties. The really high ones are there just to keep the humans safe. That being said, I feel like FIRST should follow some of its own advice and follow the spirit of the rule. I've heard stories of robots that were obviously not playing defense or trying to cause any trouble to a robot in a loading station and were still given the 30 pt penalty. Something which very often turns the game around. Now, I dont' think the penalty should just disapear though if you accidentaly hit a robot in a loading zone. As has been said above you should steer clear. I feel like a 10 pt penalty in situations where robots were obviously not trying to interfere with the other robot is a good idea. Some sort of intermediary gap between "oops, i lightly touched you by accident, now i'm going to lose the game" and "I'm trying stop you from getting a tetra, lets go for one last second ram before they get into the loading zone. "

Also while I know penalities are part of the game, I feel like a major part of good game design is creating a game where the players are encouraged to test the boundaries of what is possible. This especially goes for FIRST competitions. Lasts year game penalities were almost never given, because teams never had a reason to break them. This year there are reasons to break them, even if you're not supposed to. Its almost like a war of psychology between game designers and the players.

Of course, besides the whole penalty issue, I think this years game has been shapping up to be a lot of fun. :)

Re: Are The Penalties Too High?
 

I definetly agree that there are too many rules. My perception is that there are two ways to look at FIRST. One way is to look at it as a simulation of being an engineer. The other is to look at it as an exploration of technology. The fact is that the more acurate way to look at it is as a simulation of being an engineer. FIRST doesnt deal with cutting edge technology, so much as it gives students an opportunity to learn how to apply readily available older technology in an environment that is designed to simulate that in which an engineer would work. This is the reason there are so many penalties.