Re: FIRST Wish List
 

This is true; however, I am willing to venture that a good portion of those problems with RTS as we know it are, in whole or in part, human-caused. (If you turned off the iPAQ this season, you know what I mean.)

In my experience of two seasons, the only time I've seen an automated field feature not function correctly was the 2004 Robot Rodeo--and at that point, the entire field was messed up. (Luckily, you could trigger the ball dumps manually--it just required a pipe and a bit of jumping. And we still had fun, so there you go.)

Re: FIRST Wish List
 

A round robin type I dont think will work. It would be cause for more qualifying matches, then more elimination rounds.

Re: FIRST Wish List
 

It would only cause for a little bit more QFs, the elims would be the same.

Re: FIRST Wish List
 

It doesn't matter if a call is "flat out wrong". The final decision is made by the head ref, and ONLY the head ref, whether the call be bad, or good.

Re: FIRST Wish List
 

I would like for FIRST to petition to have the 2nd level of the Georgia Dome opened up for team that want to stand and cheer so we can avoid incidents like this.

Re: FIRST Wish List
 

I totaly agree

Re: FIRST Wish List
 

I just wanted to say something about the real time scoring idea that was brought up.

My very first year of FIRST, 1995, Ramp and Roll had real time scoring.
There were 3 bots on the field and you had your choice of 2' or 3' ball to pass thru a set of uprights at the top of a ramp. The good teams snagged the ball quickly and planted themselves and just translated back and forth for 2 minutes racking up points.
The field was much smaller and there was only 1 goal. And only 3 robots. I couldn't even imagine trying to keep track of that for 6 robots. It would be too complicated and lead to too many possible disputes.

While I like the idea I think FIRST in general has grown too complicated to be able to implement such a scoring design.

Re: FIRST Wish List
 

like i have said before i just dont think with this alliance picking the way it is you get the best robots coming out of each divsion. so i would say why not try doing a "bring your own alliance" thing. we would play all the QF match and stuff but they would be used just for all the teams to look at the other teams. and any team could pick anybody they want. you could make your dream team alliance. there would be no #1 seed or you could still have it but it mean nothing. but the point being that if my team was seed 14, we would just walk over to another teams pit and ask them if they want to be on our alliance. doing it that way i think the best Alliances would be made and then the real best Robots come out of each divsion too.no more luck in it. no-one could say well QF we had bad luck so thats why we didnt get picked. the only thing is you have to have more time for finals thats all. and to me more time for and in the finals isnt a bad thing.everyteam could be in the finals as long as they make a alliance. that would make for the best divsion finals too. it would make teams talk to each more and really start to think how they could best win and playthe game.

Re: FIRST Wish List
 

I did some reading on that game over at FIRSTwiki, and I can see why a scaled-up version of that game would not work: humans score it.

But suppose you had some sort of sensor (the ball dump sensors seemed to work well last season) to count your scoring objects (balls, inflatable clowns, etc) as they passed through the goal? You simply designate a certain target (or targets) for each alliance, and write that any attempt to trick the system is a DQ. Would that solve the dilemma?

Re: FIRST Wish List
 

Uh, I can't think of any way to make the game more unfair than what you suggest.

Why even hold seeding matches? heck, let's just run practice matches, and then the finals on Friday morning.

It wouldn't make for the best finals, it would make for HORRIBLE finals. You'd have a couple uber good alliances that would blow everyone else out of the water, no questions asked.

Re: FIRST Wish List
 

I would have to agree with Cory. If there was no ogranization to it, like the alliance picking. In my opinion, I think there would be 1 or 2 totally dominant alliances. Friendship also becomes a major factor in the "bring your own alliance" idea. It would be harder for rookies to become teammates with more veteran teams, however, it would be pretty sweet to see an all rookie alliance take it one year.

Re: FIRST Wish List
 

The Game and seeding isnt fair from the start. so if you are thinking it was your wrong. so many good team this year from all the division for some reason were seeded in the 30's and lower. There was way to much luck in it all.if you did it the way i said then there wouldnt be any luck bc seeding wouldnt mean anything.and if there is something that is unfair its the way the seeding went and when you have all the good bots seed low , your good bots never come out of each divsion the way it shold be. and when i say pick any robot i mean only in your divsion. and that would make for the best divsion finals. i mean you would see some really good allliance and you would see so bad ones but best bots in your divsion would come out.thats the way the Championship should be the best bots.

Re: FIRST Wish List
 

the reason lots of good teams seeded so low was because there weren't enough qualification matchs to skim the teams off the top that seeded there by luck. If you have enough seeding matches for each team, it is highly improbable that weak robots will end up at the top. With only 7 matches, it's possible to see trends like you described, that even out with more matches.

For example, if I flip a coin 5 times, I can get heads all 5 times. If I flip it 50 times, the odds of getting heads are much closer to 50%, where they should be. The same is true of playing matches in FIRST.

At any rate, it seems to me you favor this method simply because your team happened to be "stuck" in the middle of your division, and not at the top, where everyone expected you to be. I'm not trying to attack you personally, but it seems many of the "alternatives" provided by people are made specifically to adress situations in which their teams got "screwed", so that the new process would benefit them, rather than what would be best for all the teams as a whole.

Also, could you even imagine how much chaos and backstabbing would occur? There would be a LOT of hurt feelings in this process, something FIRST tries to avoid as much as possible.

The alliance pairing method is fine. More seeding matches are what we need.

$0.02

Re: FIRST Wish List
 

Even with many of the best bots beeing seeded low, they were still picked high. I mean, just look at you. 233 was one of the best bots in Archimedes, thats why you were picked 5th. 71 was picked 3rd, and 173 was picked 4th(or maybe 6th, cant remember, but they declined). At championships there are enough bots that we would need more QF matches to truly get a good feel of alliance selection, but at regionals it works fine. In most situations (there are a few where it doesnt, like 67 getting last place) the best bots are seeded high up at regionals. Once again, look at your story in Colorado, you were the #1 seed and 118 was the #2. 233 and 118 where clearly the best bots there.
If you allowed alliances to be picked in the fashion you suggest, you would result with 2 or 3 dominant alliances, no point in even having the other 5. Do you really think it would be fair to have alliances like 233, 173, and 217? Maybe a combination of 179, 71, and 245 could beat that, but not many other Archimedes teams would even have a chance. It would be even more crippling at the regional level, where there typically arnt more than 4 or 5 REALLY good teams.
Plus think of the chaos it would cause. There would be no way that each team could agree on their dream alliance. Say team A wanted to be with B and C, but B wanted to be with D and E. Then C wanted to be with A and D, and not B. And then E wanted C and A. Team F wanted A and E. ect. ect. ect.
Nobody would be able to agree on anything, and it would be a long and tedious process.

Re: FIRST Wish List
 

At SoCal, 330 was seeded 14th or so. A good scouting team will be able to see the robots that are low seeded.

My change would be to make the Autodesk Inventor Award a regional award. After doing AIA for two years now, I have been able to pick out a championship winner. However, everything I'm doing is basically going unrecognized. A one person team cannot compete with a system like 103 has. However, I think it would generate more interest in using Inventor as well as make things more fair for "the rest of us." Yes, it would shorten the amount of time that can be used in making the award, but I'm willing to deal with that.