Chief Delphi

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   General Forum (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Anybody really dis-like the game? (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71132)

Akash Rastogi 06-01-2009 15:07

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by oddjob (Post 793722)
Ha ha, I forgot about that rule. It's really lame that teams can be penalized for doing their best.

Maybe next year they'll stop keeping score and everyone is a winner.

You my friend just struck a chord. ;)

If you'd like to present your case further, there's more threads about that rule. But yea, its one of the reasons I don't like the game so far either.

Remember teams... this is just day 3 so far.

Sean Raia 06-01-2009 16:31

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 
I dont think that veteran teams will be stooped down to rookie level again at all, actually i think the slippery conditions will just make rookies more confused.

Drwurm 06-01-2009 18:19

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by oddjob (Post 793621)
1. Dean likes to refer to ball bouncers as possessing no useful skills to tackle life.

I realize this is a bit off topic, but I found Dean's comment about that during kickoff rather elitist and divisive. Anybody else feel that way?

I doubt Dean Kamen would object to the "follow your dreams" mantra. When I was in 7th grade, I dreamed of building robots when I grew up. Who's to say that the 7th grader next door whose dream was to play basketball is any less valid?

Daniel_LaFleur 06-01-2009 18:47

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sxysweed (Post 793553)
It's different. Drivetrain from past years is out the window. We'll be drifting this year, and you have to take it into acount for scoring. I like it. We have to re-think it, but for a low budget team like the one I'm on, it seems easier/cheaper than last year.

Cheaper? possibly
Easier? I don't think so. And rookies will be even harder pressed.

The robot designs this year will have to be just as intricate and though through as previous years ... just in different ways ... and that that worked before, may not work now, and I like that :D

Adam Y. 06-01-2009 19:09

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Drwurm (Post 793991)
I doubt Dean Kamen would object to the "follow your dreams" mantra. When I was in 7th grade, I dreamed of building robots when I grew up. Who's to say that the 7th grader next door whose dream was to play basketball is any less valid?

There is a difference between following your dreams and deluding yourself so badly that you can achieve something. Most people delude themselves that the have the necessary talent to play a professional sport.
Quote:

Anybody else feel that way?
I don't know about you but there are a lot of sports figures who have the maturity of a two year old let alone no skills to change the world in any appreciable way. It actually makes me want to laugh and cry at the same time.

Drwurm 06-01-2009 19:14

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam Y. (Post 794047)
There is a difference between following your dreams and deluding yourself so badly that you can achieve something. Most people delude themselves that the have the necessary talent to play a professional sport.

True, but I believe Dean's comment was targeted at those who already are playing the professional sport. They overcame the odds and are now successful. I am not fond of blanket statements such as these. He implied that every "ball bouncer" has no life skills.

Adam Y. 06-01-2009 19:43

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Drwurm (Post 794055)
They overcame the odds and are now successful.

Ehhhh... I wouldn't disagree with him. The sports players that tend to make the news most often have the maturity level of a two year old.

Koko Ed 06-01-2009 20:19

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam Y. (Post 794087)
Ehhhh... I wouldn't disagree with him. The sports players that tend to make the news most often have the maturity level of a two year old.

Those are the ones the media chooses to focus on.
There are actual athletes who are good upstanding citizens. The media just tends to find them boring.

Adam Y. 06-01-2009 20:42

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Koko Ed (Post 794135)
Those are the ones the media chooses to focus on.
There are actual athletes who are good upstanding citizens. The media just tends to find them boring.

Most of the ones I'm talking about were in the news because they were really good at what they do and then they just so happen to self-destruct in some of the most horrific ways possible. And lets be real here. The news media spent just as much time covering a Rhodes Scholar than they did covering someone who broke the law.

A1-SteakSauce 06-01-2009 20:53

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam Y. (Post 794162)
Most of the ones I'm talking about were in the news because they were really good at what they do and then they just so happen to self-destruct in some of the most horrific ways possible.

Well then there are also plenty of great athletes that win at life. Like Tiger Woods! WOO

My original thought on this thread: Yes I actually do like this game, I think that it is VERY challenging with no real easy solution. No real easy solution means conflict, and through conflict we (usually) find truth. :D

I'd also very much like to see some of the ideas that other teams have come up with.

Nawaid Ladak 06-01-2009 21:22

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 
I think i've come to a final conclusion about this game

I don't like it

FIRST has taken the side of the offense one too many times, for those of you who were around in 2004 and before, that was when real defense was played... defense wasn't tipping a trackball off the overpass at the last second or goigng to sit in a corner protecting your own goal. It was about getting up on a bar with a rotater so that you could deny anyone else who wanted to get on for that fifty point bonus, it was about being king of that hill in 2003

this game seems way to finesse,

I know people are going to say, your going to see pinning and ramming, but at what cost, the hits might shift the direction of the robot, and the robot thats getting pinned has the traction advantage. not to mention the robot thats doing the pinning is also a easy target to score on for the other team

FIRST has truly eliminated the word DEFENSE from its dictionary, thanks to this game and measures to reduce that word in games past. and in all honesty, i really think five years down the road, we might be talking about a big kids version of FLL.

...but then again, we have yet to see what teams can come up with, and how the game is played at the scrimmages or at week one events. when someone comes up with a truly inspiring design that actually works, thats when FIRST's true colours shine.

EDIT: please don'g get me started on G14... honestly, it could cost a alliance a game when they really can't afford to lose it

bduddy 06-01-2009 21:24

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by 1t5h1e1o (Post 791647)
My views towards Lunacy have changed vastly.

While watching the animation and for the rest of Saturday I flat-out hated it. I hated the simplicity and the design restrictions. The only thing that seemed cool was the drifting and no ramming/pinning penalties.

One day later while designing the robot and after sleeping on it I am really looking forward to it. I think that it will still be a good game to watch/play and that there will still be plenty of great/cool robot designs out there despite the limitations.

My reaction was quite opposite. When I first saw the game in the Kickoff video, I loved it. I thought it would be a great challenge, be very fun to watch, and create interesting solutions. Over the last three days, I have come to really dislike it, though. <G14> was (in my opinion) not only thought through even less then <G22> from last year, the assumptions it is based upon are completely wrong. And make no mistake: this is a rule that will come into play constantly during every regional. I don't like the first update, which "elaborates upon" in a patronizing tone rules which were never there until now. The restrictions are overbearing, especially after the aforementioned update. The game places too much emphasis on the human player-don't get me wrong, a human player is a great idea, but this is too much.

And finally, in my opinion, the obvious effort to even the playing field in this game is, while well-intentioned, going to have the opposite effect. It is strikingly similar to what has happened in Formula 1, which used to be practically open in terms of car and engine design. However, lately there have been increasing efforts at regulation and standardization-some of them have been for safety and some to cut costs, but many have had as a stated goal the improvement of competition. However, they have had the opposite effect. In the past, teams could come up with really innovative ideas to provide an advantage, and many did; famous examples of which include the Tyrell P34 and theBrabham BT46B "fan car", which ironically enough is apparently banned in this competition just as it was in real life. These days, however, in order to eak out any improvement, teams must do hours upon hours of expensive wind tunnel work, use gigantic simulators to test any part thoroughly before even considering trying it, and basically spending millions upon millions of dollars for improvements of tenths of seconds.

Lunacy will be similar-IMO, the most important factors in this game will be the human player, the drivetrain, programming, and the driver. The first factor is essentially a wash, despite some concerns over "basketball players" or the like. But the rest will not be. Sure, many teams will have to rethink their drivetrain and we will thankfully see the disappearance of the "trick" wheels, but the veteran teams will still have an advantage. We all know that. Programming will be even worse-I'm sure you have all seen the talk about here about traction control, anti-lock braking, and all the other three-letter abbreviations standard on new cars of the day. How do expect any programmer new to FRC to handle any of that? And given the new surface and quickly disappearing game pieces, the only drivers that will have much practice will be the ones on teams that can afford the game field, and in these economic times, there are not many of those.

EStokely 06-01-2009 23:27

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Drwurm (Post 793991)
I realize this is a bit off topic, but I found Dean's comment about that during kickoff rather elitist and divisive. Anybody else feel that way?

I doubt Dean Kamen would object to the "follow your dreams" mantra. When I was in 7th grade, I dreamed of building robots when I grew up. Who's to say that the 7th grader next door whose dream was to play basketball is any less valid?


OK I'll bite and say I am willing to say it isn't a valid dream to be an NBA player in 7th grade.

Here is a simple way I can back that up.

If you are a Really good BB player (or football or baseball if you prefer) I mean really good. You can wait tables because only the GREAT players will be able to make any money doing it.

If you are a good singer/actor, ditto, only the GREAT ones seems to be able to make a living at it and even then...

But show me an average engineer, heck even one who only got B's and C's.
They can get a job as an engineer, what they trained for.

Now that I have said that I want to revisit my first comment. I think a 7th grader should be encouraged to play basketball if they enjoy it, and if they are really good at it, maybe some after school teams to play on. But not at the expense of their education or being deluded that they can do it for a living. They might be able, but statistically they won't be able to.

My 2 cents

SWIM 07-01-2009 00:18

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 
I think the game is a good concept, but they could have thought it through much better. The whole thing seems half-baked. The orbit ball supply problems, the fact that you can't tell the orbit balls apart, the misleading traction figures in the rules, the impossible to assemble trailers, G14...

One thing that bugs me is how the different parts of the gameplay don't synergize well. The low friction floor means the robots have to drift around the field, and that could have been really cool to watch, except for the fact that the trailer messes up the handling and makes eloquent maneuvers next to impossible. If the 'bots didn't need to be trying to tow trailers, watching them negotiate the regolith would be really interesting. Instead, we're going to be stuck watching robots struggle to stay in control while trying to make turns without jack knifing the trailer.

Also, the low friction floor means that high speed collisions are inevetiable, which is likely the reason for the updated bumper rule (outlaws overhangs over the bumper perimiter). Without being able to overhang the bumpers, it becomes nearly impossible for rookie teams that don't have the resources to engineer and build an aim-able shooter to score. It seems like there's going to be a lot of boxes on wheels this year.

tar.ancalime 07-01-2009 03:11

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 
The thing that initially bothered me like heck about Lunacy was the thought that teams up North/teams with lots of money are going to have a crazy advantage in terms of practice. Obviously a driver with enough practice is a critical element to the performance of your team, and a poorer team in a warm area 1. can't afford the floor and 2. lives where temperatures never get cold enough for us to make a playing field of ice! But I've heard that a waxed linoleum floor has about the same friction, so now I can pause to really appreciate the default-wheels rule. I feel like it levels the playing field considerably, and will force better designs instead of simply better materials/resources.

My new soapboax is, of course, G14. :rolleyes:

Daniel_LaFleur 07-01-2009 10:52

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SWIM (Post 794446)
I think the game is a good concept, but they could have thought it through much better. The whole thing seems half-baked. The orbit ball supply problems, the fact that you can't tell the orbit balls apart, the misleading traction figures in the rules, the impossible to assemble trailers, G14...

FIRST has little control over suppliers, although they most likely already have a good supply of orbitballs.

Orbit balls only come in 3 colors. I'm not colorblind but I also had a difficult time telling the balls apart. I consider it part of the challenge (Maybe use the camera to detect emptycells)???

Misleading traction figures??? I don't think thats the case. The traction figures are dependent on many factors such as cleanlyness of the wheels / surface , the particular run of wheel / surface, etc.

Lets see you come up with a game that many smart people are going to try and find advantages in ... see how you fair. I know I'd be a difficult thing to do, you might want to cut them some slack.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SWIM (Post 794446)
One thing that bugs me is how the different parts of the gameplay don't synergize well. The low friction floor means the robots have to drift around the field, and that could have been really cool to watch, except for the fact that the trailer messes up the handling and makes eloquent maneuvers next to impossible. If the 'bots didn't need to be trying to tow trailers, watching them negotiate the regolith would be really interesting. Instead, we're going to be stuck watching robots struggle to stay in control while trying to make turns without jack knifing the trailer.

Are you so sure that the trailer messes things up? Have you tested this? or is this all just supposition. After looking at the design of the trailer, I believe it'll be far different then most people are assuming.

And whats the problem with jack knifeing the trailer? seems to me it might just be a good defense ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by SWIM (Post 794446)
Also, the low friction floor means that high speed collisions are inevetiable, which is likely the reason for the updated bumper rule (outlaws overhangs over the bumper perimiter). Without being able to overhang the bumpers, it becomes nearly impossible for rookie teams that don't have the resources to engineer and build an aim-able shooter to score. It seems like there's going to be a lot of boxes on wheels this year.

Who ever said you need a shooter to score? Hurding and collecting will be not only feasible but possible preferable.

I'd take a look at my own biases if I were you, and be prepared to be amazed at what these teams come up with.

I know I'll be amazed.

Wayne C. 07-01-2009 13:48

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 
If FIRST looks to have teams think out of the box why must our robots' dimensions be confined within one?

Respect diversity-

Andrew Schreiber 07-01-2009 20:24

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 
I would like to bring up a concern that came to mind last night at dinner, I understand why the GDC wants us to compete on a low friction. I have a small concern with the fact that all the teams have to buy a specific product from a single company. Im not worried about supply, I am worried that companies could lobby for the GDC to design a game using one of their products. Do I think AndyMark would do that? I would hope not. I just wanted to raise the concern.

bduddy 07-01-2009 21:49

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber (Post 795238)
I would like to bring up a concern that came to mind last night at dinner, I understand why the GDC wants us to compete on a low friction. I have a small concern with the fact that all the teams have to buy a specific product from a single company. Im not worried about supply, I am worried that companies could lobby for the GDC to design a game using one of their products. Do I think AndyMark would do that? I would hope not. I just wanted to raise the concern.

Are you talking about the floor? I wouldn't be so worried about that-yes, I am concerned that low-budget teams may be lacking in drive practice, but it does provide a legitimate challenge and surely everyone can find access to some sort of low-friction surface. I am more concerned about the balls-that is a very unique product offered by a single company (and only to the US!) and if the worst-case scenario happens, which it has, many teams will end up not being able to touch one. I'm wondering why they didn't just go with a more standard type of ball. Between these two issues and the trailer, I'm very worried that low-budget teams will be seriously lacking in practice.

Andrew Schreiber 07-01-2009 21:54

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bduddy (Post 795344)
Are you talking about the floor? I wouldn't be so worried about that-yes, I am concerned that low-budget teams may be lacking in drive practice, but it does provide a legitimate challenge and surely everyone can find access to some sort of low-friction surface. I am more concerned about the balls-that is a very unique product offered by a single company (and only to the US!) and if the worst-case scenario happens, which it has, many teams will end up not being able to touch one. I'm wondering why they didn't just go with a more standard type of ball. Between these two issues and the trailer, I'm very worried that low-budget teams will be seriously lacking in practice.

I was also concerned about wheels. The flooring material can be simulated using tile floor, the balls are also a concern however. Perhaps one of our teams outside the US could post how expensive/delayed AndyMark parts are.

vespa2t 08-01-2009 13:57

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nawaid Ladak (Post 794196)
I think i've come to a final conclusion about this game

I don't like it

No offense to anyone who feels this way, but this project/game is exactly what is in store for those of you who will be going into engineering / science. I have worked on many projects since school where the rules and constraints just seem 'dumb' and vague, but they are an obstacle that has to be challenged. This particular game has thrown many out of thier knowlege base comfort zone, which is human nature to not be comfortable with. Many things like this come down to the fact that whether we like the game or not is irrelevent, we still have to get to cranking on a solution.

Go engineering!

Daniel_LaFleur 08-01-2009 14:07

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wayne C. (Post 794895)
If FIRST looks to have teams think out of the box why must our robots' dimensions be confined within one?

Respect diversity-

In engineering, this would be called a design requirement. Many times, in the real world, you get design requirements (from your customer) that make designing more difficult. This is where real engineering comes in.

Designing within a specific size requirement is pretty typical in the real world. Fixtures cannot take up all of your bench space, a customer wants to put your device inside his without changing his envelope, etc,etc,etc.

This "box" is just another challange.

GaryVoshol 08-01-2009 14:14

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber (Post 795238)
I have a small concern with the fact that all the teams have to buy a specific product from a single company. Im not worried about supply, I am worried that companies could lobby for the GDC to design a game using one of their products. Do I think AndyMark would do that? I would hope not. I just wanted to raise the concern.

You mean like FLL and FTC?

Knowing Andy and Mark, I would presume that AndyMark made very little, if anything, from the KoP stuff. They may have even donated some of it.

Andrew Schreiber 08-01-2009 20:21

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol (Post 795916)
You mean like FLL and FTC?

Knowing Andy and Mark, I would presume that AndyMark made very little, if anything, from the KoP stuff. They may have even donated some of it.

Yes, same issue with FLL and FTC, I'm not too involved in those events so I don't tend to think of it.

I agree, Andy and Mark probably wouldn't take advantage of the situation but other companies might.

pfreivald 08-01-2009 23:47

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 
The more I think about this game, the more I appreciate it for its complexity. The low-gravity simulation 'ice', the trailer you can't control, the strict size limit...

FIRST has, for what I believe is the first time, actually limited the ability of teams to engineer around a problem, and is forcing them to live with known problems to greater or lesser degrees. That makes it really rather more like a real engineering challenge than any previous game, IMO.

Put on your rose-colored glasses and look at this game for what it is: a brilliant engineering challenge.

Patrick

16MentalTempest 08-01-2009 23:49

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 
I think the game is going to be really fun, and I'm interested. However, I do not like the increased human interaction. Human players could potentially score more points than the robots. If your robot dies, the shooters can still score! Last year if your robot died, tough luck! Just about every team I talked to at Kickoff said 'Grab a basketball player and you're good.'

I doubt it'll be that easy, but I would prefer the competition to be more centered on the robots than the people.

I see the low-traction environment as a challenge, not something to get mad about like some folks. The restrictions on design, however frustrating, are part of the challenge.

'The songs you grow to like never stick at first'
-Fall Out Boy, Dead on Arrival

Moreau 09-01-2009 03:38

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 
I appreciate the view that some take of the low friction floor being a good design challenge (although I believe it's just a limitation, and in any real low-gravity rover would just keep speed down), the problem with thinking of it as any other engineering challenge is that its a fabricated rule. I may not be able to change the surface of the moon through complaining, but I can complain that someone making rules to simulate the surface of the moon is not creating a fun game in addition to a legitimate challenge. Although the likelihood of the latter complaint changing anything is probably smaller than the first's...

It's sort of like NASA telling its contractors that the conditions of the moon and that they want a rover for it, but since they don't want any unfair advantages the contractors must not design their robots to use anything to overcome the limitations of a slippery surface. No paddle/fins on the wheels, no treads. In fact, they tell the designers that since they found these cool wheels in the warehouse, they must use the super slick wheels. I completely understand the intent of the challenge, but since the challenge charades as a simulation of reality it feels ever more artificial and grating. Abstract games, such as tossing enormous balls around, don't have this problem because they don't take themselves more seriously than as games.

Oh dear... I suppose it's time to move away from the psychology of it all...


...

No, wait! I've got one more!

Like others have said, the 2008 game was great for observers since the game pieces were very large, and it was very clear when points were scored (on the other hand, penalties could be very finicky and difficult for the audience to see), so the audience really had something to watch. FRC is foremost a robotics competition, so the design challenge of the game should come first, but the quality of the game as a game is also important. If Dean's goal is to increase public interest in FRC, his objective should not have been to make the game more esoteric and less interesting. There aren't going to be any surprises (unless someone can actually spot that supercell going into a trailer, and I guarantee that one hail-mary throw will decide 70% of matches if it gets in), and the winners will be determined after a game through bean counting. Robots will lurch across the field slowly, turn slowly, jackknife slightly more quickly, impact each other, fail to score on each other, and slowly escape back to the carpet to run around collecting balls quickly.

In the same way that a chess game would be utterly boring and perplexing to anyone without knowledge of the rules, this game is only going to be interesting to those who appreciate the design limitations and obstacles of the game overall. And unless everyone in the audience has read the entire manual to know that the theoretical maximum acceleration of any robot on the field is X.X ft/s due to the coefficient of friction, and that the robots cannot extend past the bumpers, they are all going to wonder why everyone decided to make such crappy robots that can barely move and score.

It's not like this is going to be a terrible game. It will be fun for participants. I just think the GDC could have given us something more fun and interesting. They put so many limitations on everything this time around that there are going to be very, very few variations. Even in 2008, where I thought there would only be 2 types of robots at first (lifters and runners), since designs weren't limited except by starting configuration we got lifters, runners, shooters, hybrid lifter/shooters, and all the variations that come with the different drive trains (tank, car, swerve and all the derivatives). This year it's (although I may be wrong, I honestly don't know what else will work) dumpers with either tank or car steering. Shooters are going to be attempted, but will probably be impractical for most teams. Sure, the mechanisms might be different, but the effect is the same.

Creating challenging field elements is more interesting than forcing the robot to contribute to the challenge. Make the field have random height variations every few feet, so that robots with a suspension system would have an advantage over robots without, but robots without any suspension would still be able to drive decently and accomplish other goals independent of driving. Trying to level the playing field among elite and fresh teams is pointless and even counterproductive; I've always viewed the desire to limit "elite" teams a policy of envy (some limitations, however, are good to keep it all fair), especially since I look to their designs to see the limit of what is possible with the game. Sure, I might be envious that my team doesn't have the machining capacity to produce a 7 pound frame that can hold elephants while incorporating a suspension system and the ultimate manipulator of utter win, but the fact that some team did have the ability to do that and pulled it off is still impressive to me, and I enjoy seeing the most sophisticated design solutions to a problem. Besides, if some team does score the next amazing design partnership with Toyota or something, that means it's their turn to "abuse" the brainpower and construction capability that it entails.

Oh, and just to be more negative, the names are silly. Not that it is bad, but if you want FRC to be taken seriously, don't call everything by silly names such as payload specialist and moon rocks. It just screams "nerds playing space commander" to the average person. If you disagree, substitute football positions with the new FRC monikers. The quarterbacks are payload specialists? The coach is the mission commander? The field is the moonscape? NASA gets away with it because they are nerds in space, so they get to pull it off and everyone keeps a straight face. Oh, and perhaps because they popularized the terminology to begin with.

Bleh... once again, I make a post too long to be bothered with. But at least it's out there now...

Doug Adams 09-01-2009 04:17

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Moreau (Post 796540)
It's sort of like NASA telling its contractors that the conditions of the moon and that they want a rover for it, but since they don't want any unfair advantages the contractors must not design their robots to use anything to overcome the limitations of a slippery surface. No paddle/fins on the wheels, no treads. In fact, they tell the designers that since they found these cool wheels in the warehouse, they must use the super slick wheels. I completely understand the intent of the challenge, but since the challenge charades as a simulation of reality it feels ever more artificial and grating. Abstract games, such as tossing enormous balls around, don't have this problem because they don't take themselves more seriously than as games.

The purpose of such a directive wouldn't be because of an unfair advantage. It's a fallback position. Of course you design your rover with appendages. But what if you get to the moon and your paddles/fins are damaged and don't work? Instead of declaring "mission over", you come up with solutions to work around or through such possibilities ahead of time. These backup scenarios would receive test time in the simulators just as the primary mission would.

Hanna2325 09-01-2009 07:36

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 
I did at first...a lot, mostly because all the unreasonable restrictions. But, now as were getting down to work, I think its going to be really interesting. The one thing I still don't like is how much humans are involved. But, the rest i think is a good challenge:yikes:

nHouse 09-01-2009 07:56

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 
As with what Hanna said, I do not like how impactual human players might end up being in this years game but that i guess wont be seen until competition. Other then that I think the game is pretty good...

JaneYoung 09-01-2009 10:00

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 
I did a quick search for Human-Robot Interaction. Several links were made available, including one that I read regarding NASA and future work on the moon.

If you look at the entire game, what kind of game is it? Is it just a game of competition where teams win or lose, or does it provide more opportunities to explore areas like HRI?

We are often limited by our thinking and our own perceptions of what we think we see. Sometimes we do that without delving into the opportunities and information provided, to see how we can expand our thinking, perceptions, awareness, knowledge.

.02

pfreivald 09-01-2009 10:02

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hanna2325 (Post 796565)
I did at first...a lot, mostly because all the unreasonable restrictions. But, now as were getting down to work, I think its going to be really interesting. The one thing I still don't like is how much humans are involved. But, the rest i think is a good challenge:yikes:

LOL. I've founded two FIRST teams, and every time students ask me about a rule I say "to make it hard!"

All of the restrictions fall into one of three categories:
1. Safety (protruding edges, proper shielding, etc.)
2. Fairness ($$ limit, powering, usage of parts, etc.)
3. Challenge (size, weight, wheels, etc.)

I'm surprised to see so many FIRSTers complaining about the challenge aspect of it.

I think one *could* make a legitimate complaint about the human player aspect, but honestly, I think a well-automated turret will be a better scorer than the humans. You're looking at a 10" thick erratically-moving donut into which you're throwing 9" balls -- doable, but it's going to be harder than people give it credit for.

Patrick

catsylve 09-01-2009 10:06

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 
As with any other game, I would expect that the impact of the human players will vary at the different levels of play. In the finals and at the championship in Atlanta, I would expect that the matches will be more exciting, with teams that have really thought through the problems and come up with some creative solutions. That will make the game interesting enough when everyone gets out there on the field and really puts the game to the test.

On another note, I would really like to give my seal of approval to the game. As a teacher, I will be using the things we do, including video footage of robots sliding, calculations of friction and driving techniques with my students when appropriate. To be able to relate the things that happen in the game to a general physics classroom is always very valuable to me.

ezpkns 09-01-2009 11:50

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 
I like the general idea but still am sort of frustrated with the low traction floors

Andrew Schreiber 09-01-2009 12:25

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Moreau (Post 796540)
Like others have said, the 2008 game was great for observers since the game pieces were very large, and it was very clear when points were scored (on the other hand, penalties could be very finicky and difficult for the audience to see), so the audience really had something to watch. FRC is foremost a robotics competition, so the design challenge of the game should come first, but the quality of the game as a game is also important. If Dean's goal is to increase public interest in FRC, his objective should not have been to make the game more esoteric and less interesting. There aren't going to be any surprises (unless someone can actually spot that supercell going into a trailer, and I guarantee that one hail-mary throw will decide 70% of matches if it gets in), and the winners will be determined after a game through bean counting. Robots will lurch across the field slowly, turn slowly, jackknife slightly more quickly, impact each other, fail to score on each other, and slowly escape back to the carpet to run around collecting balls quickly.

I would not claim that robots will lurch slowly across the field, from what I have seen a good driver can move on this stuff without any fancy programming or drive trains. It is not easy, and they will be whipping around a lot, but it is doable. And I have said it time and time again, a good robot can be dominated by a mediocre robot w/ a great driver. Look at 1114, technically their robot was not as complex or fancy as some robots, I would put it as a good robot (no offense meant of course) but I would say that their drivers are the best in the business. THAT is why they won. Drivers will determine if robot's are good, not the machines themselves.

Hail Mary throws are generally just that, high risk, high reward attempts. A team who does a Hail Mary pass in the last play of the Super Bowl because they are down by 5 points does it because they know they will lose. I think a piece like that keeps things exciting. Look back to 2004, hanging and the 2x balls were able to swing whole matches in the last second. I recall RUSH losing two events because our partner's hanging mechanism failed in the last 5 seconds of our matches. It made us constantly have to be on our feet instead of being able to get so far ahead that we could just stop caring.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pfreivald (Post 796623)
LOL. I've founded two FIRST teams, and every time students ask me about a rule I say "to make it hard!"

All of the restrictions fall into one of three categories:
1. Safety (protruding edges, proper shielding, etc.)
2. Fairness ($$ limit, powering, usage of parts, etc.)
3. Challenge (size, weight, wheels, etc.)

I'm surprised to see so many FIRSTers complaining about the challenge aspect of it.

I think one *could* make a legitimate complaint about the human player aspect, but honestly, I think a well-automated turret will be a better scorer than the humans. You're looking at a 10" thick erratically-moving donut into which you're throwing 9" balls -- doable, but it's going to be harder than people give it credit for.

Patrick

I personally enjoy making it so there is a human aspect to scoring. Look back to the last game where human players had a reasonable chance of scoring, 2006. Did they detract from the robots? Not at all, but they did make it more interesting.

Also, on your list, where does <G14> come in? That is the ONLY issue I still have with the game. Other than that I think it will be a lot of fun to watch and to play.

Adam Y. 09-01-2009 12:30

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 
Quote:

It's sort of like NASA telling its contractors that the conditions of the moon and that they want a rover for it, but since they don't want any unfair advantages the contractors must not design their robots to use anything to overcome the limitations of a slippery surface. No paddle/fins on the wheels, no treads. In fact, they tell the designers that since they found these cool wheels in the warehouse, they must use the super slick wheels. I completely understand the intent of the challenge, but since the challenge charades as a simulation of reality it feels ever more artificial and grating. Abstract games, such as tossing enormous balls around, don't have this problem because they don't take themselves more seriously than as games.
That is a bit of odd logic from what I understand how the game actually operates. The wheels are a design requirment because the combination of the wheels and the flooring is what creates the feeling of being on the moon. Using different wheels would defeat the purpose of having a game where you are driving a robot that feels like it is on the moon. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Quote:

In the same way that a chess game would be utterly boring and perplexing to anyone without knowledge of the rules, this game is only going to be interesting to those who appreciate the design limitations and obstacles of the game overall. And unless everyone in the audience has read the entire manual to know that the theoretical maximum acceleration of any robot on the field is X.X ft/s due to the coefficient of friction, and that the robots cannot extend past the bumpers, they are all going to wonder why everyone decided to make such crappy robots that can barely move and score.
Welcome to 99.999999% of all real life engineering endaveours. I never appreciated some of the aspects of the world I lived in until I decided to become an engineer. Your average person is not going to sit there and be amazed at the electronics inside of a computer because of the lack of background in how a computer is designed and built. I had no clue that the van de graf generator was originally used as a particle acellerator until recently.
Quote:

Trying to level the playing field among elite and fresh teams is pointless and even counterproductive; I've always viewed the desire to limit "elite" teams a policy of envy (some limitations, however, are good to keep it all fair), especially since I look to their designs to see the limit of what is possible with the game. Sure, I might be envious that my team doesn't have the machining capacity to produce a 7 pound frame that can hold elephants while incorporating a suspension system and the ultimate manipulator of utter win, but the fact that some team did have the ability to do that and pulled it off is still impressive to me, and I enjoy seeing the most sophisticated design solutions to a problem. Besides, if some team does score the next amazing design partnership with Toyota or something, that means it's their turn to "abuse" the brainpower and construction capability that it entails.
This goes back to the above comment above chess. FIRST has managed to limit all the teams in a way that they are on equal footing technology wise. The problem that everyone seems to be having is that the field is utterly boring to the average lay person. Control engineering is as close as you can get to a purely mathematical application of engineering and with the new control system you have a really nice opportunity to work in that area.
Quote:

Oh, and just to be more negative, the names are silly. Not that it is bad, but if you want FRC to be taken seriously, don't call everything by silly names such as payload specialist and moon rocks. It just screams "nerds playing space commander" to the average person. If you disagree, substitute football positions with the new FRC monikers. The quarterbacks are payload specialists? The coach is the mission commander? The field is the moonscape? NASA gets away with it because they are nerds in space, so they get to pull it off and everyone keeps a straight face. Oh, and perhaps because they popularized the terminology to begin with.
Ooo come on. Even the silly names are an accurate representation of some engineering fields. With names like Very High Speed Intergrated Circuit Hardware Description Language I really can not complain. And yes that is an actual term more commonly known as VHDL which is a nested acronymn.
Quote:

(although I believe it's just a limitation, and in any real low-gravity rover would just keep speed down)
Actually, most rovers keep their speed down because of the mechanical limitations. The rocker bogie (The wheel configuration seen on most robots) by its very nature can not go very fast.
Quote:

Originally Posted by A1-SteakSauce (Post 794172)
Well then there are also plenty of great athletes that win at life. Like Tiger Woods! WOO

I know. I think I was really agrivated when I wrote that post. Especially seeing people like Stephen Marbury receive some credit for creating a cheap clothing line and then act like a creep. I guess I was annoyed at the negative aspect of it when in reality there are people like that in all fields. Lord knows seeing the neurosurgeon football player was certainly inspring.

Alan Anderson 09-01-2009 12:47

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nawaid Ladak (Post 794196)
I think i've come to a final conclusion about this game

After less than a week? With no competition matches having been played? With no teams even driving their finished robots on a competition field? With some teams yet to receive everything in the Kit of Parts?

I am laughing at your final conclusion. Not because of what it is, but because you labeled it a "final conclusion".

pfreivald 09-01-2009 14:40

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 
[quote=Andrew Schreiber;796727Also, on your list, where does <G14> come in? That is the ONLY issue I still have with the game.[/QUOTE]

I see it the way I see just about everything else with these games... It's just one more parameter to take into consideration when playing.

Patrick

Moreau 09-01-2009 15:25

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 
Wow, my last post was rather scatterbrained and probably only contained complete statements in my imagination... I think it's all in there, just not well organized at all...

Lunacy is an effort to do four things at the same time.
G1. One, it is a design challenge for FRC teams.
G2. Two, it is a game with clear objectives and rules (and ideally should be fun/interesting).
G3. Three, it is an attempt to simulate a real-world application of robots.
G4. Four, it should encourage interest in technology and attract future participants.

I believe that is the order in which the objectives should be in priority. The fourth item is more of a FIRST goal rather than a game design goal, but it should be kept in mind while designing the game overall. All of the items are interrelated, but G3 is especially emphasized this year.

I just think there are problems in that item G3 overtly influenced G1 and is conflicting with items G2 and G4. The game isn't going to be as interesting as purely a game (yes, it is interesting to us as work through the design challenge), and the simulation aspect is detrimental to generating more interest in FIRST because the game itself isn't as interesting and everything about it is somewhat sillier (although the earlier esoteric titles weren't that much better, they did seem more serious). -Sidenote: I'm a chemical & biomolecular engineering major; I know esoteric naming schemes! =D

In designing the engineering challenge, three things are considered:

D1. The design of the field (including goals)
D2. The design of the game piece
D3. The design of the robot

With another consideration about how the robot interacts with other robots, and all of this being kept within the realm of safety.

Ideally, D1 and D2 should provide the majority of the challenge with minimal restrictions placed on D3 (the robot). A well designed game will allow for finite general types of robot designs simply through field design and game piece design without explicitly limiting robot design to such types. Although only a few general types of robot are feasible, many variations can be had on those generalities because of open design allowance, so it is highly unlikely to have large numbers of extremely similar robots. Also, a relatively open design is a favorite of most designers, even if the field elements or game pieces severely limit design possibilities anyways. I, at least, would prefer a field in one game to have a divider in the middle with a 40" tall slot in it rather than a forced 40" height limit on the robots. Sure, to move around the field the robot would need to be less than 40", but I like the fact that the design of the robot is influence by an objective (crossing the field) rather than a rule forced on robot design (you must keep under 40").

Anyways, G3 once again rears its ugly head and has influenced D1, D2, and D3. Normally, this wouldn't be a bad thing, but in order to make G3 work, G1 is changed to be closer to simulation. In order to do that, D1 and D3 must be altered greatly, which creates the challenge of G1, which fits in the scheme of G3. But I argue that G1 makes a relatively poor game (G2), which is bad for G4 (encouraging participation), and frustrates designers for being limiting on the robot.

A teflon coated floor covered in lube would have relatively similar effects as this regolith and wheel combination, but without the need for wheel limitations. It's an impractical game, but it might be preferred by some for having less robot design limitations (even though the effect is the same).

Sorry for all of the numbers and crap, I just felt that it would be quicker than writing a thesis paper on the subject and assaulting you with another wall of text. Not that this is short anyway...

I don't hate this game. I like the idea of making the robots goalpieces and such, I just think the overall game idea was influenced by the goal of making it a simulation of driving on the moon to the point of being detrimental to other aspects of the game. I just think the GDC could have done better.

For example, deployment size limitations. Obviously, the GDC wants to prevent decapping/blocking and also wants to keep everything safe for collisions by forcing robots not to have stuff sticking out. I would argue that although they probably already reasoned that an arm manipulator is a bad design choice for this game (I agree), they don't need that rule to achieve their objectives. Just make blocking/decapping a penalty if done intentionally, and give penalties for dangerous manipulator positions during collisions (as if smashing your arm against another robot's frame was something that you wanted to do anyways). Presto, same effect achieved, very few people will actually build far out of the protection area of the bumpers, and no one will complain about deployment restrictions. Some might complain about the possibilities of new penalties, but I think it would be worth it just for the freedom, even if few will take serious advantage of it.

Hope that was a little clearer...

XaulZan11 09-01-2009 15:44

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Moreau (Post 796830)

Lunacy is an effort to do four things at the same time.
G1. One, it is a design challenge for FRC teams.
G2. Two, it is a game with clear objectives and rules (and ideally should be fun/interesting).
G3. Three, it is an attempt to simulate a real-world application of robots.
G4. Four, it should encourage interest in technology and attract future participants.

How do you know what Lunacy's objective are? Unless you are part of the GDC and went through the process of designing the game, I don't think you can accurately know the objectives. Honestly, I skimmed through the rest of your post because you were comming from an unsupported premise.

I have read too many people say things like "Lunacy is suppose to do this, but doesn't so its a bad game". A good example of this the percieved attempt to level the playing field. I don't remember in the rule book that the game is suppose to level the playing field. I think the criticism of the game that it doesn't level the playing field are really irrelevent. Did Aim High or any other favorite games actively level the playing field? Probably not too much, so why does Lunancy need to in order to be a good/successful game?

Moreau 09-01-2009 16:18

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 
No one knows what the GDC's actual goals are except themselves, of course. I am putting words in their mouths, but I believe it is a reasonable design criteria. We do know what FIRST's goals are:
Quote:

Our mission is to inspire young people to be science and technology leaders, by engaging them in exciting mentor-based programs that build science, engineering and technology skills, that inspire innovation, and that foster well-rounded life capabilities including self-confidence, communication, and leadership.
I believe that it is rather logical to assume that any robotics competition game design can be said to be engineering challenge, since any application of a robot requires at least some minimum level of design and construction.

It IS a game with a clear set of rules, restrictions, and objectives, as described in the competition manual under section 7, The Game. In my mind, it should ideally be an interesting and fun game. The same is implied by the introduction to the competition manual under section 0.1:

Quote:

The FIRST Robotics Competition (FRC) is an exciting program that assimilates teams, sponsors, colleges, and technical professionals with high school students to develop their solution to a prescribed engineering challenge in a competitive game environment. The competitions, also known as co-opetitions, combine the practical application of science and technology with the fun, intense energy, and excitement of a championship-sporting event. The program results in lifechanging, career molding experiences for its participants and is a lot of fun.
However, it indeed does not state that one of the game design goals is making a fun game.

It is a simulation in at least some aspects with a moon theme. The game is called Lunacy. The most abundant game objects are moon rocks. The field is called the crater. The surface is called regolith. The coefficient of friction creates a similar effect to driving on the moon (I cannot cite this specifically, but I believe either Kamen or Flowers said this in the kickoff). It is not specifically stated that this is a lunar simulation, but there are so many intentional similarities that I am comfortable in saying that it is. But this is also an assumption key to my argument above. It is possible to argue that it isn't, but in my post above I assume that this is true.

It is most likely designed to encourage interest in technology and attract future participants. This is found in the fundamental missions statement on the FIRST website (previously quoted in this post). However, the game design itself may not be the way in which they hope to spread interest in technology. I think that is an unreasonable assumption (the competitions are the main thing that FIRST does), but it could be said that FIRST encourages interest through teams, and relies on teams to recruit more people. But the teams are formed because of the competition, and it would certainly be in the best interest of FIRST to design competitions that fostered greater interest in technology and engineering (again, as stated above). I grant that it may not be a significant design criteria for the GDC, but if their mission statement is to be believed, it should be at least present in game design decisions.

I agree that I did not support those four points initially, and thank you for the encouragement to further flesh out my position. However, I'm perilously close to writing a miniature thesis paper now with how long this is getting. It's not going to change anything, I'm just trying to get in the heads of the GDC and figure out what they were thinking and why.

JaneYoung 09-01-2009 16:24

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Moreau (Post 796858)
I'm just trying to get in the heads of the GDC and figure out what they were thinking and why.

Oh dear. I hope you put some type of block in yours, they can drive you nuts in no time flat.

Not that I would know anything about that.

Koko Ed 09-01-2009 16:50

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber (Post 796727)



I personally enjoy making it so there is a human aspect to scoring. Look back to the last game where human players had a reasonable chance of scoring, 2006. Did they detract from the robots? Not at all, but they did make it more interesting.

The greatest individual match I saw was the finals match of the 2004 VCU regional . 977 was perched up their from the beginning of the match and 616 was pushing them all around but couldn't move them enough to get tot he bar. At the end of the match 33 came came up onto the platform and went at 616 to keep them from getting on just when it looked like they were about to make it. Time ran out so they counted tha amount of balls scored. 33/977 had 8 balls for 40 points. 616/165 had 7 for 35. 33/977/388 won the regional.

JKWarrior 10-01-2009 14:24

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 
it seems like an interesting game. low traction could make the game intense, or a pain in th rear

Trav-O 10-01-2009 14:31

Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
 
There's going to be a lot of bots sliding everywhere so remember to wear your safety glasses


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:57.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi