Changes over the years?
 

Last fall I attended a presentation by a founder of Team #10. He said that he flew out to New Hampshire for the kickoff, found out the game and phoned that back to the team so they could start building. Didn't seem to be a KOP. No regional kickoffs. Also seemed to be fewer rules restricting materials.

Recently I learned that bumpers are a fairly new addition, last 3 or 4 years.

We just got the cRio this year. It was the OI before that. There must have been some kind of control system(s) before that.

Also learned that the earlier game play was rougher, fewer rules/penalties, robots could tip other robots as part of play, etc.

Besides the different game challenges, what other changes have people seen over the years? Have the changes generally been helpful or more restrictive?

- T

Re: Changes over the years?
 

FIRST has changed significantly since it first started. I'm sure that there are a number of people who could literally talk to you for days about what FIRST was like back in the day (Andy Baker and Andy "Original Yellow Human Player" Grady immediately come to mind).

But, to hit on your specific points:

There has always been a kit of parts. The contents have changed dramatically changed over the years, and beloved parts have come and gone such as a dot-matrix printer, the seat motor and the drill motors.

For the longest time, there were no regional kickoffs. It's rather difficult to have a regional kickoff when there are so few teams in the program.

As far as material usage, that has changed several times over the years. At some points, it was less restrictive, but there were a number of years where the only place you could buy parts for your robot was from MSC and thats it (not even Home Depot).

In 1998, the control system was made by Motorola. The name of the system escapes me right now though. Starting in 1999, FIRST used the IFI control system which lasted till 2008.

Play was much rougher than it is now for sure. Check out this video for an idea of what 1999 gameplay looked like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0CDop_IwW8 . 1997 was probably the epitome of rough play, when the current team 121 built a robot designed to gently tip over the opposing teams. This was a completely legal, and quite frankly smart strategy. Even as recently as 2004-5, gameplay was very rough (the way it should be IMHO).

Bumpers began in 2006 as an option for teams to use. Many teams decided to use bumpers to gain an extra 15 lbs., but many decided against them in order to have a smaller profile for extra maneuverability. 2008 was the first year bumpers were mandatory.

In recent years, it seems that the rules have become more and more restrictive. Before 2006, robots were allowed to expand to any size they wanted, anywhere on the field. Teams were never required to use bumpers, and could even have wedges on their robot (to limit the force a defender could put on you, and to help push people around). From my point of view, it seems that the rules are being written to force one or two very specific archetypes of robots into a game, but that's another discussion entirely.

Re: Changes over the years?
 

It's always pretty awesome (and bittersweet at the same time) to see a rule written one year because of a perfectly legal action your team did, albeit a little outside the box, the year before.

Francis touched on that discussion a bit with the tipping rule basically being written (presumably) because of 121 that year.

Re: Changes over the years?
 

Including the "no intentional detaching of parts from robots" rule, the "no metal on carpet rule", and quite possibly one or two others. (No wedges came after there was a year with a tie elimination match, when tipping caused two DQs, one per side. The same year, two of the world champions had sloping sides or deployable defensive wedges.)

Oh, yeah--there's a series of posts by Andy Grady, something about "FIRST History 101", that goes after a lot of the changes since the old days. Such as The Bracket of Doom! and the Legendary Poof Ball Journey, which has since been equaled by the Chase for Orbit Balls.

There is also the Technokats History Project.

Re: Changes over the years?
 

The most significant change in FRC (IMO) was the introduction of autonomous mode in 2003. A lot of folks are surprised to learn that prior to that the entire competition was human controlled (and in the case of the earliest games, it wasn't even wireless!).

Re: Changes over the years?
 

While this was significant, I believe that the auto-mode introduction pales in comparison to what happened in 1999.

FIRST turned a 1 vs 1 (or 1 vs 1 vs 1) robot competition into a 2 vs 2 competition when they introduced alliance play in 1999. This changed everything: how the match played, how marketing and scouting took place, how people acted in the pits... everything.

Andy B.

Re: Changes over the years?
 

Completely forgot about that! Definitely "the" biggest change that FRC has gone through (and IMO the best).

Re: Changes over the years?
 

It's interesting I was just pondering this at BattleCry over the weekend. I think that the switch from a 1 v 1 v 1 format to Alliances in the 1999 game cannot be understated.

The advent of Alliances really opened up FIRST and created the more community feel it has today. Pre-Alliances it was strongly discouraged to talk to other teams for fear that you might give away your competitive advantage or design. Things were MUCH more secretive in those days. No teaser videos, No white papers, etc. I was thinking as I got to see a lot of people I consider friends a BattleCry how many of those conversations, friendships, etc. would never have existed in the pre-Alliances days.

Food for thought,

Justin

Re: Changes over the years?
 

I think over the years, the parts rules have become significantly less restrictive, while the game rules have become significantly more restrictive.


Parts rules:

Most teams have more power in their drivetrains now then entire robots used to.

Prior to 1998, robots ran on two rechargeable drill batteries, and FIRST charged them for you. You swapped them after every match. 1998 introduced the SLA motorcycle batteries.

You used to be only allowed to use parts that were specifically allowed (for example, a single 4x8 sheet of plywood), or that could be purchased from Small Parts, with strict price limits (<$425 total). Since then, they've significantly increased the price limits and opened things up to any supplier. There also used to be a list of specifically excluded "exotic" materials.

Game Rules:

Intentional tipping and intentionally detaching mechanisms were made illegal after 1997.

Bumpers were allowed in 2000, the concept of standard bumpers were introduced in 2006, and were made mandatory in 2008.

Since 2006, there has been some limit on the size of the robot not only before the match, but during the match. Compare that to some of these robots: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/14988 and http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/13784

Wedges close to the ground have been illegal after 2005.

Re: Changes over the years?
 

the robots were also heavier...

2005(?) is the year they chaged it to 120?

Re: Changes over the years?
 

I personally liked the fact that there is bumpers and autonomous and more human interaction. As somebody said above, I was surprised that the bumper rules are relatively new and autonomous mode is only a bit older. I did know sizing used to be less strict as well, though i think that the size restriction made this years game more challenging in a good way, however keeping the box limit would not be for the best in my opinion. not for this thread though. No matter what, i've enjoyed FIRST these past two years.

Re: Changes over the years?
 

Lighter, you mean. You see, before 2004, the robots had to be 130 lb with the battery included. However, variances in the batteries could cause a robot to be 135.0 when weighed, and 135.9 when competing with a different battery. So, in 2005, the rules were changed: 120 lb sans battery. The batteries were about 12-13 lbs each, depending on a number of factors, like which battery did you have when you made the measurement. Net of +2-3, but as I figured at the time (we allowed 15 lb for the battery in 2003), we got 5 extra pounds.

At the same time, the size changed (30x36 to 28x38 base dimensions).

Now, the robots are even heavier, with an extra 15-lb allowance for bumpers. I doubt the weight will go up again...

Re: Changes over the years?
 

oh..
I dident realize the 130 included the battery;)

also 2005 was the first kitbot year correct?

Re: Changes over the years?
 

I'm pretty sure that OSHA rules state that two people can only carry 150 lbs max [75 per person] and that adding a 3rd person to carry the 'bot on the field is unlikely so I'm thinking it can't go up again.

Re: Changes over the years?
 

And incorrect. 2003 had a kit robot. It just took a lot of engineering to put together. The assembly video for the year had three "average joes" putting it together "during the kickoff". Note: said "average joes" also had Ph.Ds, IIRC.

In 2005, the kitbot was provided by IFI; the transmissions were an early version of the AM single-speed now known as the Toughbox. About that time, AM opened up its doors, and demand for their products started going through the roof within 2 years.

That's another game-changer, though they might not agree with me: AndyMark. Before they came along, there were very few COTS/shifting transmissions used, mainly DeWalts from the NBD drivetrain or custom team-built ones. Once they came in, any team who had the money could buy a 2-speed tranny (or a one-speed), or some other cool toys like omni wheels. They're now almost a one-stop shop for KOP items, as the IFI store was previously.

Re: Changes over the years?
 

I have read about and heard about the significant changes that occurred with the introduction of alliance play with the 2 vs 2 competition. Your post piqued my curiosity, Andy, and I'd like to learn a little more about how people acted differently in the pits then, than they do now. That brings another thought - I imagine many of us take a lot of things for granted that the earlier people and teams couldn't or didn't even dream of. Would anyone care to share some examples in that area?

Re: Changes over the years?
 

1992 was tethered; I'm not sure about 1993. 1994 was wireless. I think the control system was from Motorola then, so I'd guess it was probably the same system from 1993 or 1994 until 1998. In 1994 you had only 6 control channels, each of which was Forward/Stop/Reverse -- no speed controllers, no sensors, no programming.

I'd certainly agree with that. The entire 1992 game manual was only 10 pages long!

Size and weight went up very quickly at the beginning, but have been more-or-less the same for quite a while

year / size / weight
1992 / 38cm x 50cm x 34cm / 11 kg
1994 / cylinder 38in high x 36 in diameter / 65 lbs
2000 / 30in x 36in x 60in / 130 lbs

I can't verify other years, but I think 1993 was somewhere between the 1992 and 1994 sizes, and I think the current size has been around since 1998 or 1999. (I'm approximating 30x36 and 28x38, and 130 w/ battery and 120 + battery as the same.)

Re: Changes over the years?
 

Also, "back in my day", there was no time between build and competition. The build season was the same 6 1/2 weeks that it is now, starting on the first Saturday in January, and going until ship day, on a Tuesday in February. That Wednesday, the teams flew out to Nashua NH, and the competition was Thursday, Friday & Saturday (in the high school gym, with the pits being in the cafeteria). As it is now, you might spend as much time between ship date and your competition as you spent between kickoff and ship date.


While it's interesting to see what all has changed, it's also quite interesting to see what all has stayed the same -- singing the National Anthem as part of opening ceremonies, teams shaking hands right before what could be the very last match, mascots & team cheers. I think someone who's only seen "modern" FIRST events who got transported back in time to see the early FIRST events would certainly recognize it as FIRST.

Re: Changes over the years?
 

Completely agree. In 2006 I mentored a rookie team who met out of a converted copy room on the second floor of their school. We had a portable bandsaw, drill press, and grinder that we bolted to a couple of tables. We had one CAD computer and only 1 student that new how to use the software.

That year, we had shift-on-the-fly transmissions and traction wheels, all thanks to AndyMark and IFI.

Re: Changes over the years?
 

I am surprised nobody mentioned the 4vs 0 year!!! that was 2001 For all you youngsters check that one out!

Re: Changes over the years?
 

[Citation Needed]

Joking aside, in as far as I can recall these are just guidelines and are not enforceable. If you can find the rule though by all means Ill eat my words.

Re: Changes over the years?
 

Joe Ross beat me to almost everything I was going to post. Almost everything...

Here are a few ways things changed:

-Prior to 2000, you took your robot home with you after each competition and kept it until Tuesday at 5 p.m. You were free to do whatever you wanted with your robot during this period.

-In 1997, the base size limit was 36 x 36. As you can imaging, that made it very difficult (if not impossible) to get the robot through a standard door, so FIRST changed the size limit to 30 x 36 starting with 1998.

-Robot height was limited to 48 inches in 1997, 1998, and 1999. The current 60 inch limit started in 2000.

-2001 had a HUGE change, and I'm not talking 4 vs. 0. I'm talking the beginning of divisions at the Championship Event. Prior to this, you had 200+ teams in one GIGANTIC competition and you somehow had to scout all of them so you knew who to pick. Back then there were 16 alliances in the eliminations at the Championship.

-2002 was the first year of the current single-coach system. Prior to 2002, there were two coaches per drive team.

-From 1999 through 2003, wins and losses were not counted in qualifying - it was all via qualifying points. The ranking points were as follows:
1999: winning alliance qualifying points is 3 times their own score in the match, losing alliance QP is their own score (no multiplier).
2000 and 2002: winning alliance QP = losing alliance score x 3. Losing alliance QP = losing alliance score.
2003: If my memory serves me right, Winning alliance QP = Winning alliance score + 2 x losing alliance score. Losing alliance QP = losing alliance score.

-Prior to 2003, there used to be "qualifying robots" and "elimination robots" (no, each team did NOT build 2 robots - I mean this in a strategic sense). Because of the QP system based only on loser's score, teams would typically decide if they wanted a high scoring robot that could manipulate the loser's score (i.e. a "qualifying robot"), or a team that could just win matches and not worry about the score (an "elimination robot"). Just to be clear, there was no rule, it's just that team figured out that various robot designs were better suited for quals or elims, but not usually both.

-Due to the above "qualifying"/"elimination" robot scenario (it was often the case that the good qualifiers were ill suited for the win/loss/score-doesn't-matter eliminations) there was a lot of talk on these boards how we wanted the eliminations and qualifying to reflect the same strategy. In the biggest "what, that's not what you wanted?" move of the century, FIRST made the eliminations just like qualifying, by having you play two matches and whoever had the most QPs after the two matches advanced to the next round.

-Following the above elimination SNAFU everyone on these boards said, "wow! you really misunderstood what we wanted - we want quals to be like elims, not the other way around. What we meant is, make qualifications be wins and losses - just like the eliminations should be wins and losses." Thus, the current qualification ranking system was born in 2004.

-Of course, 2002 was the last year at Disney World's EPCOT. 2003 was in Houston for a single year and 2004 was the first year in Atlanta.

Wow, that was a lot longer than I thought. If I can think of anything else, I'll post it.

Re: Changes over the years?
 

I remembered a few more interesting changes through the years:

-In 1997 it was legal to intentionally detach parts of the robot during the match. Many teams took advantage of this, including the National Champion Team Hammond - the Beatty Beast. They placed a bunch of inner tubes (the scoring object in the 1997 game) on a device and they would then lock that device on the top of the "tree", thereby locking those tubes in place ensuring that they would score.

-Prior to 2004, BASIC was the language used to program the robots. It was very limited and made you have to think up creative ways to do some simple math.

- Remember the 7.2V backup battery on the IFI control system? That was a result of the ultra-rugged 2002 game. Many teams experienced electrical current transients so large that the main batter voltage would drop below the stay-alive voltage of the microcontroller causing a control system "brown out", temporarily disabling the robot. IFI implemented the backup battery the following year to prevent this issue.

Wow, it's really fun remembering all of this stuff. I never get tired of thinking of games gone by.

Re: Changes over the years?
 

Chris, I distinctly remember no backup battery in 2003. Those came on board in 2004, when C did.

Oh, yeah, and with those rankings, how was 2001 scored?

And, I seem to remember hearing about the early years of the alliances, when the eliminations were picked differently.

Oh, and who can forget the backup robot rules from the turn of the millenia to 2004, when you picked 3, and 2 played at a time. Those were the days... Then in 2005, it became Thou shalt play the three robots you have at once. If thou needest a spare, you get the highest rank left, and only one of them. Your broken robot shall not play again this event.

Re: Changes over the years?
 

Dang, I could have sworn it was 2003 with the backup battery. The given reason behind the backup was the controller brown-outs - I'm pretty sure of that, but I thought they happened in 2002, not 2003. Oh well.

In 2001, all of the teams got their alliance's score for the match with one exception: the big multiplier balls. Every team was assigned a color prior to the match. If your team's large multiplier ball (the large balls were colored to correspond to the 4 robot colors) was on top of a goal, your team got a bonus for that match. I want to say it was an additional 10%, but since my team didn't handle the big balls that year the bonus wasn't that important to me (at least that's how I'm explaining my poor memory).

Re: Changes over the years?
 

The Motorlola rNet radio modems were used prior to the IFI system, along with a custom made programmable control system that also allowed for PBASIC programming, similar to the initial generation of the IFI system. You also had to return the control system to FIRST after each competition year, so it could be reused the next year (there was a provision to keep the system after championship if you wanted to use it for offseason, but it had to be back in time to be checked out before the next season). FIRST folklore says that the system was hand built by FIRST engineering staff, and they would spend time after each championship checking over each system, resoldering components as needed...

Re: Changes over the years?
 

You're right about the reason and the timing of the controller brownouts, but I think it took a year or so to work into the system, plus they did a "major" overhaul at the same time to switch to C.

As for the multipliers, I think you're about right, but it was 10 points, IIRC. (My old team--before I was old enough-- could handle 2, and place both on goals while balancing the bridge, just before killing the power.) It was enough to set you apart; not enough to do much.

Re: Changes over the years?
 

I've noticed that many of the robots from yesteryear appear to have a much more "home-grown" feel to them; by that I mean they don't look nearly as professional as some today look. Even some teams that are legends looked kind of poor and student built in the earlier days of FIRST. Even my team, which is not noted for having many (if any) machining capabilities, has nicer looking robots nowadays then in previous years.

Re: Changes over the years?
 

No need for eating of the words, it is just a guideline from what I've read--mostly assumptions and interpretations, due to the fact i couldn't find any actual osha regulation that says anything about it-- but still odds are it won't go up any time soon even with the 2009-on controls being heavier than previous years.
</sidebar>
I'm not surprised to learn how much FIRST has adapted and changed. FIRST is its own fertilizer and is definitely growing.

Re: Changes over the years?
 

From Wikipedia (which, as any former or current college student knows is ALWAYS accurate):

"A team multiplies its score by 1.1 if its large ball is on top of a goal. Scores are rounded up to the nearest whole point after applying all multipliers."

Also, I believe that year there were only 4 alliances that made eliminations. And wasn't the first "pick" automatic with 1 getting 5, 2-6, 3-7, and 4-8?

Also, that year didn't you only get your alliance half an hour before the match, or something like that?

Re: Changes over the years?
 

Yes, for the elimination rounds, #1 seed was automatically paired with #5, 2-6, 3-7, 4-8. We (45) were #1 in Epcot for our division, and were auto-paired with another team who was good at doing the exact same thing we were good at. This was not good for that year, as each of the 4 robots on the field needed to be good at different things.

As for the alliance pairings, it was a mess. We got a sheet that showed 8 teams who were in match 1 or 2, and the next 8 who were in matches 3 or 4, and so on. Your alliance would go out to the field, and the que-ers would herd you into a corral (all 8 teams), and then tell you which 4 were on the same alliance. THEN, you had all of 5 minutes to strategize for the match. This was also the last year FIRST allowed 2 coaches on the field. This 5 minute debate was difficult, to say the least, especially since teams had to choose (and give in) which tasks to perform. Many arguments happened during this 5 minute debate.

FIRST, in 2002, decided that these arguments were the cause of too many adult coaches, so they reduced the number to 1 coach per alliance. Oh... and they also let us see the alliance match schedule in the morning on Friday, so there were no surprises. That year, there were less debates, and FIRST attributed it to the loss of one of the coaches. Many people say hogwash to that, and know that it is because we no longer had to do the last minute debate that was required in 2001.

Andy B.

Re: Changes over the years?
 

YESSSSS!!!!! I got the bonus 10% thing right!!! Woo-hooo!

I can't believe I forgot about the surprise pairings. That was terrible. This was also the case in 2000. In the 2000 game, you knew the 4 teams involved in a match, but you had no idea who was your partner and who was your opponent until the match immediately prior to your match started, then the queuer told you what the pairings were. Then you frantically had to settle on a strategy.

I'm sure everyone is aware that every year the IRI experiments with some rule changes. Well, announcing the pairings as the schedule is published is one of the many rules that were tried at the IRI that have since been incorporated by FIRST.

Here's another thing I forgot: PENALTIES. Penalties were added in 2004, if I'm not mistaken. Prior to this it was either DQ or no foul. There was a lot of chatter on these boards suggesting that there needed to be more levels of fouls rather than just a DQ. Therefore, penalties that resulted in point subtractions were introduced.

***** 2001 story*****************************************

One last thing (boy, I can really talk non-stop about FIRST): Andy is correct about 2001 being brutal in strategy discussions. I felt BAD about that year. I'll never forget what happened at the Championship. We (308 for me back then) had a GREAT robot that year - one of the best.

We were near the top of the qualifying standings in our division but our previous two matches were ruined by bad luck involving partner teams (toppling goals, knocking the bridge off the pivot, etc.). The #1 ranked team at the time (33 - the Killer Bees) was averaging about 350 QPs per match, and we knew we could score a minimum of 420 a match if we can just get our partners to get out of our way and do nothing but cross the field and sit in the endzone.

After the two unfortunate matches, Kevin (our other coach at the time, since we could have two) and I thought it out and decided that is was time to be brutally honest in an effort to make sure we seeded as high as we could. Our next match involved 494 (the Martians - future World Champions), which had a good robot themselves. I remember the 5 minute strategy session, which went like this:

Me: You guys can go under the bar, right?

494 mentor (I think it was Pat Major): That's right.

Me: Good. We want you to go straight under the bar and sit in the endzone.

494 Mentor: But we can...

Me: I want you to go under the bar, and sit in the enzone. Just keep out of our way.

494 (puzzled and hurt look): You want what? But...

Me: (I carry on with the other teams).

God, I felt bad. But Andy can attest to that being the case very often that year. We had a very large discussion about that at the IRI that year. Oh boy.

Re: Changes over the years?
 

I love this thread.
Thinking back to when we started in '00 to now, and reading all of these posts bring back a lot of good memories.
Some years were a little better than others, but overall, every year its always fun and the changes were always positive.

The recent alliance pairings change from 1-8 then 8-1 was a GREAT change!
It makes even a #1 seed do some good scouting, especially for smaller regionals.

In my opinion, it doesnt really affect things at championship as much as it does for regionals. 2007 comes to mind where an 8th seed could be as great as a 1, including the fact that an 8th seed won.

Re: Changes over the years?
 

Chris & Andy, you're bringing back all sorts of memories with your posts, especially the stories about 2001.

The disaster that was the 2001 elimination auto-pairing rules that were described previously led to problems, as Andy mentioned, and 'ethical' questions, as we encountered. Before our last match at Championship, one of the last of Saturday morning, we were outside of the top 8 by a considerable margin, but not so far out, so a good round would put us around 7 or 8. We knew that we wanted to be paired with 33, the top seed, and we had a feeling they wanted to pick us, but that couldn't happen if we were in the top 8. Our team was faced with the question: score the most points possible and risk being auto-paired with someone other than 33 or throw the match? We knew that the only fair option for our partners' sake was to try our best and rankings be damned. We went out and had a good match, scored a bunch of points, and came within a small ball or two of becoming the 8th seed. We were 9th, which allowed 33 and 254 to pick us.

I remember a similar discussion with you at IRI. Beatty was #1 seed and picked 33, you were #2 seed and picked us. I was assuming that you wanted us to use our ramps because there were plenty of other robots capable of dragging goals that you could have picked. When we started talking strategy for the elimination rounds, I brought that up.

Me: what's the plan, you're going to push the goals up our ramps?

You / Kevin: no, you're dragging the goal over the bridge, you're not using your ramp

Me: but ...

You / Kevin: (moving on ...)


That story reminds me of another rule change, but I can't remember the year it was made. In 2001, and possibly later, you could build different appendages for your robot and use them interchangeably as long as no single configuration was over weight. Assuming the weight limit was 130 lbs, this means that you could build an 80 lb robot base and attach a 50 lb arm to it. In the next match you could remove the arm and add a completely different 50 lb appendage. One restriction is that all the robot pieces together were limited by the KOP motor rules, which means you couldn't use 2 FP motors on your arm and use 2 FP motors on another appendage, since you were using 4 FP motors when only 2 were allowed.

Our 2001 robot took full advantage of this rule, which is what allowed us to have a ramp, a goal grabber, and our "Beatty arms," which were an extremely poor substitute for their namesake.

Re: Changes over the years?
 

I wish they would bring back "true" modularity rules. I think those are VERY cool, and believe bringing them back would open up an entirely new and fun design challenge for teams. :)

Then again... since 2004 the games have all been "one task wonders" so the options for modularity are less exciting. :rolleyes:

Re: Changes over the years?
 

1 task plus bonus. Typically the bonus or end game has been reasonably unique or at least opposing towards the easiest scoring design.

At least we didn't have to tow trailers up an "Ice" or "moon" ramp this year....

Re: Changes over the years?
 

The best story is one told by Brian Beatty (field coach for 71 and probably the field coach who has won more matches than any other in FRC history).

This happened at the 2nd regional team 71 attended that year, and we all (well, most of us) knew that Team Hammond was THE team to beat in 2001.

Brian and his drive team show up late to an alliance meeting in 2001. One mentor on another team says "to keep things fair, we are drawing straws regarding who will tell the others what do do on this alliance". Anyone in their right mind would simply listen to Brian and do what he would want to do... but this other mentor wanted 1 person on each alliance to draw a straw to determine who was in charge of the match. The person with the short straw was going to be that person. Brian listened to this explanation, shrugged, and followed the plan.

So... each team drew a straw. The "Straw guy", Brian, and one coach on each of the two other teams all drew one straw. The person who drew the shortest straw was a student coach on one of the other two teams. The "straw guy" points to the person, and says "OK, you are in charge... what do we do?".

The student coach points to Brian and says "Listen to him."


Andy B.

Re: Changes over the years?
 

Anyone feel like the GDC is being...don't know how else to put it...."easier" on teams with these games compared to multitasking games from previous years?

I actually really like games like 99 and 00. 99 I just watched some vids and 00 I was there.

Re: Changes over the years?
 

I feel that the game designs have progressed and matured, not become easier. I feel that a major turning point was in 2006 with the idea of a game design that allowed for "n00bs" and vets to participate in the same game on a thematically similar scale. This happened a little in 2003 with da bins and again in 2005 with the tetras (but not really as the game was mostly played on top as tic-tac-toe).

The games seems to be the same for all with just a slightly higher difficulty for veterain teams. Not bad, just different.

My memories....

-2003's total points based elim structure, won us our only two regional trophies. None since, though that partains to other things too that we won't get into here...

-Life with PBASIC

-Rules preventing interactions with the field itself (see 2003 pic of T3)

And many more that I've forgotten about...

Re: Changes over the years?
 

Well, not every team has the ability to make a super amazing robot that can do everything in the game; that's why there are alliances. Personally, I like the fact that there isn't a huge learning curve for those teams who are poor or recently registered; it keeps things fairer, making the competitions more fun to all teams.

Re: Changes over the years?
 

I think it has indeed gotten easier to create a robot to meet the game challenge, but yet, there are so many teams that dont. Yes, I am contradicting myself.

In 2007, I thought creating a basic lift arm that could put LIGHTweight ringers on the rack would be a simple robot to build or just a ramp bot. Yet there were so many teams at various regionals that could only play "defense."
The same could be said for 2008 and 2009 where teams could not do the main offensive task.
The games prior, in the earlier years had much harder tasks or multi-tasks to do, yet so much more teams could do them. Why?

I think teams that have started in the earlier years have done so for a reason. Because they had the resources and partnerships, when FIRST was looking for more teams, they were the ones that volunteered to participate in their respective states, area or region.

A good example is in Hawaii. 359 and 368 started because when the Poofs brought their robot to Hawaii, the DOE was looking for schools interested in participating. So what did they do? They looked for teams that were already participating in the Electric Vehicle program and other hands-on programs, and in the end, found two of the top teams in EV, Waialua and McKinley HS. It was natural for us to meet the challenge of building robots, because we were already building human-driven electric cars.

As more teams are being recruited now within our own respective areas, it gets harder and harder, and more mentorship is needed to help them be successful (speaking generally). I think this is a safe, consevative assumption to make.

In summary, I think the game needs to continue being one tasked or simplified to some degree with respect to design, in order to allow more teams to be competitive in this alliance based competition.

My .02.

Re: Changes over the years?
 

I think,

Although Im sure this has been said before....
We(First community) need to focus more on creating sustainable teams instead of just "new teams"

Although, this year I saw lots of Rookie teams and 2nd year teams with great robots(the opposite from what I saw last year)

Re: Changes over the years?
 

Yes, that is why there are alliances. Back when there were multitasking games, your alliance could be so diverse like in 2001 or even as recent as 2007. A learning curve is only introduced to new teams...which I honestly don't think should be our priority. Veteran teams who are sustained need to learn to grow and develop by now. If they don't then I'd hate to say it but they just need to step up. (This isn't meant to look down on so called "poor" teams, any team that can afford 6K is not "poor") Feel free to PM me if you feel the need to refute this as it is a tangent from the original topic.