![]() |
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
Quote:
Go engineering! |
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
Quote:
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. |
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
Quote:
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. |
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
Quote:
I agree, Andy and Mark probably wouldn't take advantage of the situation but other companies might. |
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 |
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 |
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... |
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
Quote:
|
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:
|
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...
|
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 |
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
Quote:
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 |
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. |
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
I like the general idea but still am sort of frustrated with the low traction floors
|
Re: Anybody really dis-like the game?
Quote:
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:
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. |
| 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