Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

Realtime scoring can only be so accurate. There's exactly two people doing it, and this year they had to keep up with all 9 goals at once. If your coach can't do it himself I fail to see how you can expect someone else to do it and enter it onto a pocket pc as well.

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

Strangely enough I feel that a negative of 2005 was there wasn't enough Sir Charles at nationals :-) I really enjoy him and as it was my first year as a spectator and not on the field I really found him getting me pumped for every match and not just my matches.

I'm not going to beat a dead horse here but the penalties were crazy and I feel the the stray from defensive aspects of first was a huge mistake. Even tho as an omni bot my team greatly benefited from these rules.

My main gripe however is FIRST MUST STICK TO THE SAME RULES, I wish there is something that we could do to keep the rules the same. Maybe a petition or a mass number of emails voicing the same complaint. I believe that at this time with FIRST growing in size, expanding world wide into the middle east and Europe that these updates are unacceptable and honestly a bit unprofessional. Clarifications may and should be made, but changes are unnecessary and must be avoided. That is my main qualm with this season, I hope next year this issue will be addressed.

Overall tho I enjoyed the season :-) It was a good and exciting game.

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

I'm not a big fan of Sir Charles, I find him pretty repetitive, but I think the fact that he has zero affiliation with FIRST (I think. Someone correct me if I'm wrong) and he comes out and is so enthusiastic is awesome. He gets into it, and that's cool. It would be nice if he didn't use the same phrases over and over, but I think his enthusiasm really helps.

He didn't have much to work with on Curie anyways. I could have gotten my grandmother to make more noise :rolleyes:

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

My main complaint at championships was the lack of enforcement of penalties. In one match, I watched the red HP zone (from the front row) and counted five infractions with a human player not being in the zone, but not one was called. There were some rather obvious contacts in that zone, but the refs would just laugh and not call it.

There was also lack of GP at the Thursday driver's meeting, especially when people had a little bit of trouble formulating their thoughts. The people sitting behind me were constantly heckling the people at the mike. Eventually we moved because it was bothersome to us, but imagine how bad it was to the person talking. Whoever did this (I didn't catch/look for a team number) owes all of the speakers an apology.

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

I will attest to the madness of RTS this year. I did it for Curie, and it really should have been a three-person job (one per row of goals). Instead, one did the red home row, the center row nearest the audience, and the center goal, while another did the other four goals. When they scored, you had to hit a small button, and then change the ownership at the bottom if it changed. Usually it worked--but oh, how I hated it if the blue alliance scored tetras on the far (near to the audience) center goal. (Half the time tapping that one button to score the tetra resulted in bringing up the PDA's clock.)

I once again have to give props to the guys from 312 who came out of functionally nowhere to help out on Curie with RTS. I definitely wouldn't have been able to do all myself!

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

You are not trying, my friend. With some PVC cement and minor modifications, here's a few things that come to mind.

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

As an inspector, I can attest to the fact that there were many confusing rules and demi-rules concerning pneumatics. In fact, with 639 at the GTR, I came very close to making the same call as the Championship inspector, right before a match--I went so far as to notify the referee on the field that I was going to cite you for it. I didn't do it, though, because I could only firmly remember the requirement that the off-board compressor (if any) be the kit unit. <QA1672>, which spells all of it out more clearly, was a little shaky in my mind, because I couldn't see the justification for disallowing an off-board reservoir (assuming the two Clippards were on-board, and no dubiously legal arrangements such as pistons or tubing as a reservoir existed). In other words, you were lucky that I wasn't absolutely sure of what to do about a system without a compressor, and similarly fortunate that I didn't want to burden you with something about which I wasn't quite sure. Furthermore, I suspect that the notion that you weren't doing any harm, nor gaining an unfair advantage might have crept in there.

Now as for some of the other pneumatics rules, of which I was sure, I didn't like some of the rulings I had to make (pressure switches, coiled hoses and pistons come to mind). The pneumatics rules need fixing; maybe later I'll have a more comprehensive list.

As for 639's weigh in at GTR, it's possible that they were handled by one of the less-experienced inspectors; we had three experienced inspectors full-time, and several more first-time inspectors also working full-time.

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

The game manual clearly states <R86> that you may choose to NOT put the compressor on the robot and instead pre-charge the tanks before going onto the playing field.

We had difficulty in passing inspection at the Nationals because we did not have the pressure switch on the robot (even though we didn't have a compressor). The inspector agreed that the switch had no function without the compressor, but, if we used any pneumatics, it was required in the rules. Not putting the switch on the robot meant we could gain a weight advantage. So, even though we were almost two pounds underweight, we put the pressure switch on the robot. It was not connected to pnuematic tubing or electrically, just held onto the frame with a zip-tie! :ahh: Inspection: Passed!

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

There were a lot of great things, as always, about this year's events. Since this thread is about the not-so-great...Most of my thoughts have been covered elsewhere, but I thought it might be helpful if I gave some depth on my big four.

The rules need to be made static before the first regional unless there is a significant risk to safety that must be addressed.
The volume and degree of changes to the rules this year was maddening. We spend a lot of time working on how we will play the game and coach our students very well to understand the game in-depth and how to play it to maximize the chances of winning while playing a clean, sportsmanlike game. There is a fair amount of analysis and coaching involved, as any rule prohibiting certain behaviors must be translated into positive, allowable behaviors before they can be coached effectively. For instance, something as simple as changing the definition we were given for loading zone infractions at the regionals: "the load is considered complete when the tetra is in possession of a robot" to "the load is not considered complete until the robot has exited to loading zone" is a pretty big shift of thinking when you are trying to transfer the change of that definition into a sportsmanlike on-the-field behavior, especially when you are working with alliance partners who may have a different interpretation of what they heard. However minor the rule change, each team has put thousands of hours into designing a robot to play the game as originally specified. This includes a lot of discussion about trade-offs at the margin. Even a small change in the rules can throw out 100s of hours of investment and since our mentor's time is our most valuable resource, every hour is precious. I think we need to cycle back to the "intent-based rules" approach that we cycle back to each time the rules get out of hand.

Penalties are not the answer.
While I agree that we don't want the game to be battle bots, fair and sportsmanlike defense needs to be part of the game, especially in a game that clearly favors teams with means. When I talked to referees, they were managing 1-1/2 pages of penalties. It is no wonder there was such a big problem with consistency, the refs were not process-capable of managing a list that long during a 2-minute match. Penalties that are so large that they will change the outcome of 90% of the games are not good for the sport or the spectators. Here is a case in point: We played 229 on Saturday morning. They have a great robot and a solid alliance. They clearly dominated the game, but because one of their horizontal rods brushed our partner in the loading zone, they lost the match. Now, given that we hadn't beaten 229 all season, I'll take the win :) , but I would much rather have earned it. I am glad that they called the penalty as written (for the sake of consistency), but 229's brushing our partner had no other impact on the game and was clearly incidental. I have a saying on our team: "solve design flaws with better design, not better software." I think this same logic can be applied to the game: "solve design flaws with better design, not penalties (and rules changes)". If the goal is to protect the human players, let's make it clearly difficult for robots to engage each other when the human player is near the field. If the goal is to promote offense and get rid of the battle-bot approach, I have some other thoughts that I will put on Dave Lavery's game design thread.

Queuing times need to be significantly reduced
24 minutes of lead time x 7 matches = 168 minutes in queue, even if we are running on time. My understanding is that while in queue, the teams must stay with their robots. 3 hours in queue without moving is a lot to ask of a team, and with match turnaround in the 6-minute range, is clearly excessive. I think some application of queuing theory could significantly reduce the time in queue and make everyone happier.

The score and outcome of the game need to be observable on the field at the end of the match
There was a point at our first regional that I stopped counting tetras, as the outcome of so few matches actually matched what was on the field at the end of the match. Between the penalties and the rules that gave a team a goal when the other team knocked the tetras off of it, people in the stands couldn't tell you the score or the outcome of the game until it was put up on the board. It makes the game very tough to coach and very hard to explain to spectators, not to mention frustrating for the teams.

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

now that autodesk is an official sponsor, maybe we will see an improvement in the coming years. let's hope so.

this was my first year doign animation, and i have to say i was very surprised at the disorganized nature of the judging. the manual tells you to ask the pit admin for the location, but they don't know.

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

I totally disagree, the sun last year was horrible for photos, your eyes, and everything. It made the compeition look bland and washed out, not this year. Plus, remember, we had vision cameras that needed specific calibration for light conditions, with the sun roof that would change by the minute, if not second.

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

I would like to make a suggestion to each person who is trying to be constructive in improving how FIRST does things in the future. Make a clear, concise, written & pictorial proposal to FIRST. Include your issue, your solution, and your analysis. Be sure to add pictures, graphs, and drawings if needed. It would be best to limit your proposal to 3-4 pages.

For instance, the one big problem I had this year with the robot rules was that FIRST mandated all teams to have the SLU-70 connector lug. While this connector was fine for teams who did not have a better way to crimp large wires, it is NOT GOOD for teams who have a better system.

As an inspector at the Boilermaker Regional, I had the honor of making the 4-time world Champion, team 71, change their battery and large wire lugs from their tried-and-true crimps to these inferior SLU-70 lugs. They knew that they had a better way to do it, as did I.

However, I can't just complain about it to FIRST. I need to present the issue, make tests, show analysis, and present a better solution. We will be working on this analysis and solution during this "off-season".

Some of these complaints are just silly. "Make the walk between the pits and the field shorter". OK... how is that fixed? Do we put the pits on the next to the nacho stands in the dome concession walkway and then have the drive team carry the machine down the steps to the floor? Do we smash the Convention center into the side of the Dome to save us a couple hundred steps? Please... give us a better solution.

So... go ahead and make your complaints. However, you better back your complaints up with some constructive solutions that work.

Andy B.

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

Penalties i think was very high this year compared to other years in the past.

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

As lead queuer on Newton I have no idea what you are talking about (24 minutes x 7 matches = 168 minutes). A few teams on Newton with less than an hour between matches chose to stay in the dome but you are talking about almost 3 hours. At that you would be queued for your second match before you played in your first.

If you look at this another way, matches run every 6 minutes so in 168 minutes you will have 28 matches. With 6 teams in each match that is 168 teams in queue. That would be more teams in queue than there are competing in the division. Not to mention that there was barely enough space behind fields to queue 5 matches (30 teams).

If FIRST stays with the same pit/dome arrangement as this year I would recommend teams leave their pits 6 matches (36 minutes) before their match time. If it takes 12 minutes to get to the field you will be there 3 to 4 matches (18-24 minutes) early, depending on if you leave at the beginning or end of the 6th match before yours. This gives you a bit of time to strategize with your alliance before you are loading onto the field or a few minutes to leave the pits late or have a longer time from pit to field.

I know of nothing that says you must stay with your robot while in queue, I want you nearby but don't have a problem if you choose to watch a couple matches from the ends of your division field (behind the drivers station) with your robot behind the field.

I will be queueing next year as well so let me know of any constructive thoughts you may have regarding the queueing.

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

I thought that the solution they used of replacing descored tetras on the goals after the match to indicate ownership took care of this problem pretty well. I know on Friday afternoon and Saturday they were doing this. I found that it was not difficult to figure out the score (except for penalties) once they adopted this methodology.

As for a coach figuring it out, it will be difficult. The coach has to not only see the field as is but also pay attention when a tetra is descored and ownership of a goal passes to one alliance or the other. I don't think it is possible for a 100% or even 95% accurate system. Even with RTS the scorers don't know what judgements the refs will make and can't always see the goals. Even if you had one scorer/goal there would be discrepancies.