![]() |
FIRST Wish List
Looking at Koko Ed's Lessons learned 2005: The negative, with over 138 replies there must be some changes that we would like to see in FIRST.
I'll start with the way that the eliminations rounds are done at nationals. I think that for the money that teams spend to go there not always getting their moneys worth. I think it would be a great idea to get more teams involved in the elimination rounds. This is how (Copyright Rees 2006) Have each division have its own "sweet sixteen". Sixteen alliances out of 85 teams. You have more teams getting picked. playing at least 2 more matches and your only adding 1 round of play. Then have the division champs go at it on Einstein. Also not a bad idea to start rotating through all fields again. Feel free to comment on other peoples posts as long as you add your own wish as well. |
Re: FIRST Wish List
If they keep three team alliances, then I'd like to see them do away with allowing a seeded team select another. The reason is, with the luck of the draw, some rather weak robots get paired all through the quals with a very good pair and end up much higher than they would have with two team alliances. So, when #1 picks #2, #3 picks #4, etc., they end up in the top eight. The result, as I've seen at four reigionals, was that more than a couple of alliances had little or no chance. It's hard to compete without a strong captain. Having the top eight seeds as captains would make for a much less predictable outcome.
|
Re: FIRST Wish List
I personally like the way battlecry seeds are set up. There are 14 alliances and the number 1 and 2 alliances get to sit out for the first round.
I think the number one alliance should be able to pick the number 2 player. FIRST and life are not always fair. Number one should be able to pick who they want and most likely who they want did very well. |
Re: FIRST Wish List
I really like the idea of a sweet sixteen, but I really disagree with the idea that top 8 teams cant pick among themselves. Just for example: at the Midwest regional last year, we were the 8th seed, knocked off the #1 seed and got runner up: at VCU this year we were 8th seed, got runner up: and in Galileo this year at nationals, we were the 8th seed beat the #1 seed and got runner up. What makes FIRST so great is that it is like a real sport, were you can have those "Cinderella stories" of the unexpected 8th seed fighting its way to the top.
An innovative strategy based off of good scouting beats a #1 alliance any day :D More to the point of the tread, I would like to see the camera brought back with auto mode point scoring that forces you to utilize this technology. Hopefully we can get a little more user friendly camera though :p 447 |
Re: FIRST Wish List
I think the eliminations system is probably as good as it can get. If you double the number of alliances it will do several things.
A)the alliance selection will take longer B)it will delude the quality of each alliance and therefore the quality of the matches C)it will make the elimination rounds take longer, therefore less qualifying rounds D)It'll make the higher seeded alliances even more dominant, as they are the only ones with a real hope of getting two top notch teams (even if they cant pick out of the top 8 or 16) And we need to keep the ability for a top 8 seed to pick other top 8 seeds. Otherwise your gonna see teams start to "throw matches" to get out of the top 8 so they can be picked by the #1 or #2 teams. And even if you keep the picking amognst the top 8, at championships its not that big of a deal. In Archimedes only 1 team of the top 8 was selected by a higher seed (#8 217 was picked by 245). #9 173 was also picked, but they declined and became the #8 alliance captain. What I would change is to make the use of the camera during auto even more important. This year it was a great way to score, but it was so difficult not many teams attempted it, and even fewer succeeded. If they had made it worth even MORE points (such as permantly owning the goal it was capped on, or being able to add a free tetra anywhere you wanted at the end of the match) more teams would have attempted it, and more teams would have put more effort into it. |
Re: FIRST Wish List
Quote:
At any rate, I'd rather see more seeding matches than more teams in the finals. Then the teams that should be in the top 8 will seed there, not the ones that get there by luck. This would be impossible to implement at regionals, and therefore should not occur at nationals. You can't have major game changes between the two. |
Re: FIRST Wish List
I would like to see auto mode go longer then 15 seconds and a game with more ways to score, it gives teams the chance to make different types of bots instead of just capers or box bots.
|
Re: FIRST Wish List
I've said it before, I'll say it again: a game scored in real-time, as opposed to once the field comes to rest. The technology is out there, and it means you'll have N robots out there looking to deliver their payloads fast and often, putting an emphasis on reliability.
Additionally, I'd like to see FIRST matches upped to three minutes next season. It'll decrease matches, yes, but not as much as one might think (as you've got fewer inter-match periods for field reset, introductions, load-in/out, etc.) And after this season's mad hustle (and anyone who was on a drive team knows what I'm talking about), I think it'll do a world of good. |
Re: FIRST Wish List
Quote:
In a sense, last year's game was better. You could focus on the bar in the center, the 2x ball or the human player. Why did FIRST decide to change that this year? I think that alliances should stay the way they are. 8 teams is a pretty good number, especially for the championship event. It's incredibly hard to stay on schedule with any more than that. And picking within the top 8 is good, sometimes. I have been to off-seasons that let you and off-seasons that don't. Usually you get the "super" alliances (like 56, 103, and 25 at PARC yesterday), and then the 8th seed is the "leftovers." But at nationals, that doesn't really happen. There are usually at LEAST 24 competitive teams to pick from. So it works out. Either way, it makes for great stories when the 8th seed can beat the #1 seed (like 447 did to us in Galileo this year). |
Re: FIRST Wish List
Quote:
|
Re: FIRST Wish List
Quote:
however i believe that the amount that can be accomplished in autonoumous should be somewhat limited in order to avoid being to unfair to new teams |
Re: FIRST Wish List
All this talk about changing the elimination rounds, auto/driver times are great ideas.
But lets address one or two of the basics. Consistency: As we all experienced this season, each event was run differently from each other. Each Head Ref, or Lead Robot Inspector had their own ideas how rules the should be interpreted, or they added their own when they felt that FIRST missed something. I know that FIRST has numerous ways of communicating with all the Officials, but as we see this does not always work. I also know that these people are volunteers working a very difficult job,(Having been a Head Ref/Lead Inspector.) and are only trying to do their best. Still something needs to be done to make sure each event is the same, with no surprises when we reach the championships. Scoring System: If you kept up with CD this comp season you know or heard about all the scoring system issues. Each year FIRST seams to reinvent the wheel. The Hatch system while not perfect, seamed to work better each week. Lets keep the Hatch system, let them make it even better. Lets not have what happen this year, next year. How can FIRST help to make sure these things do not happen again next year. Maybe they need to have a team of officials that travel to each event. They would only need 5 or 6 teams. The team would be made up of a Head Ref, Lead Inspector, Field Supervisor, and a Score keeper. ( I believe that part of the problems with scoring was a new score keeper each week trying to learn a system that was not perfect.)At least there will be only 5 or 6 different ways, not 30. The other thing that would help, would be to have the Game Design Committee not make changes at any event. I saw twice this year where students went to a member of the GDC, complained, and the GDC member had the Head Ref change their call. I also witnessed a time when one was asked about seeding and gave an answer that was completely wrong, and effected the outcome of the event. It would help (My opinion.) that no changes be made after Week 1 events, unless safety related. Sometimes there are a lot of bad feelings generated by these decisions. This is my $.02. At no time was it my intention to insult anyone, or to make anyone feel offended! |
Re: FIRST Wish List
The head refs are generally repeats. Benge Ambrogi(sp?) was the head ref at BAE and at the Championship Event and probably other places as well (he's done it previous years as well).
|
Re: FIRST Wish List
Ok in reading the posts about the elim rounds I have came up with an idea that I want people to comment on.
At nationals the four divisions; Archimedes, Newton, Galileo, and Curie; are broken up into eight divisions. And in each of those divisions, every team in it, plays with and against every team in that division. So lets say 65, 217, 71, 233, 67, 111, 469, 330, 254, 229, 64, and 66 are all in one division on the Archimedes field, (hey a kid can dream can't he) then they all play with and against each other: 65, 66, 67 against 217, 71, 111 is one match and 233, 330, 469 against 254, 64, 229. Then the next two matches would be 65, 217, 71 against 469, 229, 66 and 111, 330, 64 against 67, 233, 254 and so on. And then after they all played with and against each other the top seed would pick two other teams to be in the alliance. Then the elims would be the number one seeds and their alliances of each division, they would all play each other for the Arch, Newton, Galileo, or Curie division, depending on which division they are in. Then the winners of the four big divisions would play on Einstein field just like regular. Those are my thoughts, please comment. |
Re: FIRST Wish List
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:31. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi