Re: Team update 16
 

See, that's where FIRST believes their random alliance generator is infalliable, allowing such a one sided match never to happen. Ideally, with the alliance generator in place, blow outs should be rare or never happen. Of course, we all know the truth of that matter.

Re: Team update 16
 

Danny,
Thank you for including us in your dream team even if it is mythical as Rich has pointed out.
Rich, if it ever happens, you are going to have to bring popcorn for everyone and a really big couch.
Travis, I agree that there are other methods to employ which inspire. I however, like the ability to add score to an otherwise upset match. I feel bad for teams that go out and try very hard in a one sided match. I see no honor in winning 234 to zero and no benefit to the opposing team. I firmly believe everyone should have a fun weekend and should not leave with everyone in the country (including the sponsors) knowing they had a (or more than one) zero score match. Just my opinion.

Re: Team update 16
 

TheFro approves of this update.

It may not be perfect, but it sure is a hell of a lot better than what we had to work with before. Also, we competed in week 1, and the seeding system wasn't very nice to us either, but that's in the past now. We just have to keep moving forward to bigger and better things.

Thanks GDC, at least we know that you're out there somewhere... Listening.

Re: Team update 16
 

While I see the possibility of what you say I do not think it will happen much or if at all. In all the years we have had a team in this competition I never seen our team go into a much 'knowing they will lose or thinking they do not have a chance. So much can happen in a match I truely believe every team goes into a match will their alliance thinking they could win. Sure there are matches where we know the odds are not in our favor but everyone has seen upset matches numerous times. I can think of many times where we beat alliances that clearly out ranked the alliance we were on. Those are the matches you want to see at the end of the day because those are the oppurtunities to leap frog past other teams.

Along with this I am sure everyone that has been in a regional can point to a match that they were sure they would win prior to the match and then ended up losing.

I am not actually criticizing your comments and I understand the logic behind them. But, all of the teams are filled with overachievers I dont think the 'lose big' mind set will be there now that there is a 5 point incentive to win. A team that is low in the ranking will need those 5 points also.

Re: Team update 16
 

They may listen but I'm also sure they evaluate and review. The 1st week competitions offered the opportunity for the game to be played out. We've spent several days picking things apart, evaluating, looking at the results. I wouldn't be surprised if the GDC doesn't do that as well.

Jane

Re: Team update 16
 

Better late than never.

As a team that competed during week 1, the penalties were making the game way less fun than it should have been. This update should take care of all of that and hopefully we'll start to see a lot more ball passing and ball controlling strategies taking place.

Re: Team update 16
 

Really?

We came back from a 5-1 deficit to win 7-6 (on a single penalty on our opponents --- BAE Qual53). This comeback scored seeding more points for us than would be possible had we assisited our opponents.

Giving up is just plain foolish, and teaching to do so is worse regardless of the scoring system.

Re: Team update 16
 

I was surprised at the <G46> penalties, not because the penalties were called, but because teams did not design their bot to prevent it. How hard is it to design a bot that doesn't allow a 3" penetration? Did teams not do testing prior to ship? The rule existed from the beginning. I hate to put blame on teams, but that was an easy thing to fix.

Before I get flamed, I am not talking about getting forced over a ball on a hump, or something un-avoidable. But if the ball can get under your bot just driving around, you need to make a change. You should have tested for this possibility. The rules were clear.

Re: Team update 16
 

Given that there have been around 8 billion posts highlighting just how much the coopertition model differs from the traditional rah rah win good lose bad sports model, there is a good chance that your definition of "giving up" does not apply to the FIRST model.

I wonder what percentage of similar deficits across all of Week 1 matches resulted in comeback wins....

You do raise a good point that penalties play a factor - although now with U16, perhaps not so much - in determining winner/loser. They are definitely another thing which would tend to increase the deficit threshold at which a team might choose to "go for the loss". But due to the rules, that threshold is still there, as teams will still consider the strategy.

Teams were presented with this conflict between winning outright and maximizing seeding scores - both supposedly *good* things to pursue - when it was built into certain game situations via the rules. Originally, the rules heavily disfavored winning outright in some circumstances. The GDC has done a good job of addressing some of the most notable situations and restoring balance with Update 16, but they have NOT tipped the scales entirely toward winning outright as the preferred outcome under ALL situations. Some still remain viable. If FIRST persists in keeping such choices in place, that's their decision (and not necessarily a bad one), but if they do, I cannot fault any team for pursuing either option if they feel they are doing what's BEST for them.

Re: Team update 16
 

Yet another improvement could be to assign penalties to an alliance to determine the winner, yet assign penalties to the specific violating team for determining all "penalized score" attributes of the seeding/coopertition scores.

This small tweak would further set apart those teams who've field-tested their bots and those who are playing catch up at the event. It also alleviates the stress to most teams from the syndrome that's often seen in qualifications where a single alliance member independently decides on its own to do some off the wall action that causes multiple penalties or a yellow card.

Re: Team update 16
 

Martin - No doubt about it, the rules were clear as day.

I think what teams failed to expect was just how easy it is to get a ball under your frame. There are a lot of things usually going on to factor in - other robots, the field elements, the driver station lack-of-view. I can easily see how a team could not even see a ball that it ran over depending upon where they're at on the field.

Balls near the bumps were often an issue as teams would come over them and land on top of a ball. The inclines near the goals were bad spots too; as teams tried pushing balls in they would often drive over them.

The rules were clear, but I'm glad that they've changed them a bit. It should make for higher scores and an all around better competition with a reduced focus on avoiding penalties and an increased focus on scoring points.

Re: Team update 16
 

It could be argued that for most robots, driving over the ball was not really an incursion violation anyway. If you think of the bottom of the robot in the same terms as the top of the robot, the ball could pass under the bottom without actually penetrating the frame volume by 3", just as it can roll across the top without doing so. The rule is not that the ball cannot come into a verticle projection of the frame perimeter, it is that it cannot incure a concave area of the robot by more than 3". This update is certainly welcome to clarify the intent of the rule. We may have had many penalties called in week 1 that should not have been.

Re: Team update 16
 

I'll second that - I just wish we even had the option of skipping a week 1 regional.

wouldn't it be nice if they mixed things up from year to year - or just move Portland to week 2 or 3. :)

Re: Team update 16
 

I think designing a robot to go over the bumps and one that will not allow balls to roll under it is very challenging. I am sure there are effective designs but just having a round object with a surface that grips makes it hard to stop. If the center of the ball can get under a robot then it is very easy to drive over that ball and trap it under neath. You cannot have a solid 'skirt' the rides low to the ground because it effects your ability to go over the bumps.

I am sure that teams have effectively designed there robot to avoid this (I hope we did!!) but I think it is more of a challenge then we thought it would be.

Re: Team update 16
 

bah... now i cant have fun with my strategy team :P

great update, only wish was that it should have been pre-week 1 as others said.

im looking forward to going ot nyc and seeing how this affects rankings now.

gluck out there.

Re: Team update 16
 

Really? Teams that designed to be able to drive over the bumps never thought that they might also drive over a ball? Really? I thought most teams would have considered that early on during the design process. We sure did. That was one of the factors that steered us away from going over the bumps from the beginning. That and the higher likelihood of getting flipped over. We DESIGNED to minimize the likelihood of penalties from the beginning rather than leaving it as an after thought for the drivers to deal with on the field. We basically equated going over the bumps to a high likelihood of getting penalties and/or flipped over. We are only going through the tunnels instead for those reasons.

Now don’t get me wrong, I am ecstatic with the new changes in Update 16. I think it will elevate the game play for all. I am especially happy to see the new rule that you don’t get any seeding points until you field a robot that has passed inspection. Being one of the inspectors in Bayou having to watch 2920 not pass inspection but be ranked in the top 8 all day Friday and Saturday was painful to watch. This is the first time that I can ever remember that FIRST has, as of Update 16, not just let you put your human player out there and you still get the points.

Re: Team update 16
 

As long as you are inspected, you can still do this :rolleyes:

Re: Team update 16
 

Even with an army of brainstorming sessions, going over a bump onto a ball resulting in a penalty never even crossed our minds. We're not geniuses, but we do consider ourselves to be "smart". It's simply impossible to play out every possible scenario beforehand, thus designing to be adaptable was higher on our priority list than designing to be perfect. I'm sure there were many other teams in the same boat. Even so, we only ever got one 3" incursion penalty and it was because we went head-to-head with another robot and they pushed their possessed ball under our robot.

Re: Team update 16
 

i totally agree it gives me our team scouting lead and strategist a chance to actually talk strategy and actually an incentive to win a match thank you so much gdc no more 6v0

Re: Team update 16
 

Agreed. Along with posessing a ball well enough to drive that ball up the ramp into the goal I would see as the major design challanges of this year's game, even above that of hanging, once a cost analysis is undertaken. Balls are everywhere in this game, especially in places you don't expect (or can't see due to field objects) and its really easy for an opposing robot to shove it underneath your frame.

Re: Team update 16
 

Obviously teams need to prevent the ball from going under completely, and that is still a penalty.

The situation that U16 addresses regarding <G46> is a 'transient'-type ball incursion. This happened many times and was the cause of most of the <G46> penalties last week (that I saw).

For example, when a robot drives up to a ball and a traction wheel grabs it and they 'ride up' on it for a a second and then immediately back down and off the ball. Or a roller bar grabs a ball and starts to suck the ball under but they back off immediately.

Re: Team update 16
 

I think Team Update 16 was a result of the Referees doing an excellent job at week 1 regionals. They called the penalties by the book at least 95%+ of the time and because of that the GDC was able to make appropriate rule changes.

Also of note, I hope Bill's Blog updates to give us more insight to the changes.

Good job GDC, I support these changes, despite being unfair to week 1 regionals (hindsight is always 20/20), I think this will improve the spirit of the game a great deal.

Re: Team update 16
 

Interesting that you got a penalty for that. Our assesment of the rules would indicate that there should have not been a penalty under <G13>:

<G13> Causing PENALTIES – The actions of an ALLIANCE shall not cause an opposing ALLIANCE to violate a rule and thus incur PENALTIES. Any rule violations committed by the affected ALLIANCE shall be excused, and no PENALTIES will be assigned.

Did you protest the call?

Re: Team update 16
 

Chuck,
Don't forget this...
<R19> ROBOTS must be designed so that in normal operation BALLS cannot extend more than 3 inches inside
a) the FRAME PERIMETER below the level of the BUMPER ZONE (see Figure 8-5),
b) a MECHANISM or feature designed or used to deflect BALLS in a controlled manner that is above the level of the BUMPER ZONE.

R19 remains unchanged and may have played into the decision.

Re: Team update 16
 

No, it was deemed insignificant at the time considering it was Saturday and it was only our 2nd penalty total (the first being incidental contact with a flipped robot within the grace period).

Re: Team update 16
 

So they are still using the coopertition ranking system to award points, but the winner gets 5 extra points? Correct me if I am wrong.

Re: Team update 16
 

The bottom of the robot is not the same as the top, in terms of <R19>.
Below the bumper zone, that is actually the rule. <R19> spells this all out.

Re: Team update 16
 

Absolutely, which begs the question is this an inspection issue or a referee issue? As an inspector we required the robots to have some reasonable protection on the top and sides such that the balls couldn’t enter the robot more than 3”. We required several teams to add some sort of netting, Lexan, or other cover on their tops and/or bars or something on the lower parts of the sides so that the balls didn’t have a reasonable chance of entering the robot by more than 3”. We assumed this to be the intent of <R19>. However, we didn’t require all the bots to be solid on the bottom as this would inhibit going over the bumps in most cases. If you incurred a penalty by riding up on the ball and trapping it under/inside your robot the inspectors considered that to be a field issue for the refs to deal with. I guess I am wondering what "normal operation" means? <R19> would seem to be an inspection issue as it is a robot rule not a game rule. If you designed your robot to go over the bump then is that not "normal operation"? If in "normal operation" a ball can go under and end up trapped inside your robot is this something the inspectors should fail or is this something to be left to the refs to penalize on the field?

Re: Team update 16
 

I stand corrected.

Re: Team update 16
 

As I said in my post, I was not talking about going over a bump onto the ball. Most of the penalties I saw at Peachtree were caused by robots in the open field trying to push a single ball all by themselves, and driving over that ball. This could be tested with a $10.00 soccer ball in 5 minutes of testing prior to ship. I know we did a lot of such testing to insure that it couldn't happen to us.

Re: Team update 16
 

Changing the rules in the middle of the season = Fundamental FAIL.

Re: Team update 16
 

It is the beginning of the season, not the middle. NOT changing the rules after flaws are uncovered would have been a fundamental fail.

Re: Team update 16
 

The beginning of the season was more than 6 weeks ago.

Re: Team update 16
 

When were they to know some of the rules were not the best? Before the regionals started? They had to observe it before they could change it. Although, I do agree the seeding point system was not the best to begin with, it just took some examples (and complaining) before the GDC realized they had to do something to make it better. Unfortunately for week 1 teams, they were the guinea pigs. It's better they change them now than never. I give props to the GDC for fixing the rules.

Re: Team update 16
 

Sounds better if you call them beta testers.

Re: Team update 16
 

It's just a general issue FIRST has tried to deal with for a few years; they almost have to turn regionals week one into a test drive.

Why not just set the regionals a week later and allow the FiM guys to run a district or two to test out the field system, points settings, and the rules? At least beta test on something that covers less money and less teams.

Re: Team update 16
 

Is it really that big a deal?

1551 has been going to week 1 regionals since it's inception -- and has never attended two regionals -- and we've never found that there's some big problem with the first week...

Could they have anticipated the seeding issues? Sure.
Could they have anticipated the reffing issues? Sure.

Were either of these things a surprise to anyone playing? Not if they read the rules and assumed they would be followed to a 'T'***...

...and that means that at the very least, week 1 teams were playing a fair game.

**...even though this may be a bad assumption. Two years ago, our robot Shiela was designed around the fact that contact outside the bumper zone would be penalized. It pretty much never was, and our super-compact trackball grabber went basically unnoticed -- as did the elegant design that only extended 3" outside the frame, and then only while gathering a trackball from the floor. And there were plenty of games that we would have won had cotbz penalties been called...

But that's ok. Once we knew how it would be played, a fair game is a fair game, and fun (and learnin') was had by all.

Re: Team update 16
 

Now there is something I am going to suggest to my team...."testing before ship (bag)"....on second thought, maybe I'll just ref! ::ouch::

Re: Team update 16
 

I'm glad that we could be part of the beta test for the game. Let the real week one begin!

Re: Team update 16
 

Do you have a suggestion on how FIRST could do things better? Or do you just like to whine and complain?

Re: Team update 16
 

At least the GDC changed the rules in what is widely regarded as a positive way after Week 1. I am happy and truly stunned (unprecedented) that they improved the seeding system to save the rest of the year. It could be worse they could change the rules in a negative way after Week 1. That is what happened in 2003 with the now infamous Tape Measure Rule. I was at that Week 1 VCU Regional. I was not happy that we had to scrap our tape measure early in the design process when it was deemed illegal by an update, only to compete against teams (who didn't read the updates) with (suddenly legal) tape measures.

Update 16 is a good update after Week 1, so it is the Anti-Tape Measure Rule.

Week 1 is always a guinea pig for something (FMS, Real Time Scoring, rule loopholes). However, you cant let these issues ruin the event for you. If things like that really bother you, maybe you should consider attending a later regional. My teams try to avoid Week 1 Regionals for multiple reasons. I realise other teams have little choice when thier home regional or the only regional for a few hundred miles is on Week 1.

Actually, half of the FLR regionals (06-08) have occured on Week 2. It really matters which week in January is Kickoff (and what day of the week is January 1st). I can't wait for FLR to be on Week 2 again.

Re: Team update 16
 

They could improve by not changing the rules after 'coopertition' has actually begun.

I guess I wasn't clear before.

Some other ideas:

Call the week 1 regionals 'beta' so people know that that's what they're buying into and don't make them 'count.'

Discount teams a N>1 regional if they are doing an N=1.

Run a test regional early with 'real scoring' to find bugs. Some areas have enough density of teams for this to be reasonable.

Have FIRST build some robots and play with them with 'real scoring' in the 9-months that they have to design the game.

Live with the rules they came up with even if they suck.

Re: Team update 16
 

Yup, let's make everyone suffer just so you can feel better about your regional selection choice.

Do we really need to take such drastic measures when the Week 1 bugs are usually relatively minor?

Re: Team update 16
 

This one I like, and has been suggested by others. Let some of the well attended-well run pre-ships be run with the full official field and full official scoring. They already do this with one event, but it may be wise to do it with multiple events.

They already do this. The problem is that, as brilliant as the GDC members are, they just can't match the manpower of every FIRST team combined. We will inevitably find things that they do not.

So instead of fixing something that they felt was broken, they should just allow the other 4 weeks of regionals to play with the same broken rules? They should allow the seeding system to degenerate into cesspool of prearranged 6v0 matches? I hardly see how that would have been of benefit to anyone.

Re: Team update 16
 

Galileo 2009 Qualification Match 42? (it's close enough, 45, 67, 111)

the poster has one simple point. One set of teams play by a set of rules while everyone else plays by different rules. I would have loved to see teh GDC change this for Championships (and) MSC.

but what FIRST CAN do is possibly ship out he fields so that they may be used for scrimmage events. probably in the general area of where the Week 1 regionals would be held. and have the events run similar to one day regionals (each team gets a minimum 3-4 qm's, 4 alliances etc.). and collect feedback from the various events so that if need be, new rules can be implemented before the regional season starts. That way everyone plays by the same set of rules when points really count.

Re: Team update 16
 

If this were done, I'd like to see it done with mentor designed and driven kit robots or something other than robots and drivers that are going to compete. An extra free regional would give the attending teams a huge advantage in testing their design and training their drivers.

Re: Team update 16
 

Time to let this one cool for a bit. There has been enough "Good for the GDC" and FIRST sucks posts. Let's put this thread on hold till Friday morning and then I will open for discussion again.

Re: Team update 16
 

The thread is now open. Please be civil with the posts.

Re: Team update 16
 

Teams should have considered it early on, but for some it was an afterthought. It'd be great if every team had time to test things, but some are lucky if it's driving by the time it goes into the crate. Being a week 1 event, it wasn't surprising to see so many ball incursion penalties.

We were using Lexan plates near our wheels with surgical tubing tied across to keep the balls out, but this still allowed balls to come in from the side on occasion when we translated sideways. We remedied this by taking a long thin strip of Lexan and creating a parabola-shape on the bottom of our frame.

Even some of the most well-designed robots in San Diego would get a ball up under them every now and then, which would decide the match. I'm in favor of the change and can't wait to see some of the new high scores this week.

Re: Team update 16
 

I stand corrected!

Either way, I'm fine with a Week 1 Regional. There are always bugs/kinks to work out, but there always are with our robots, too!

Re: Team update 16
 

Something to note - from what I'm seeing so far - the 5pt bonus for winning is not being displayed in the final score.

It is only showing up in the seeding score on the rankings.

I would have that that FIRST would wanted the winning bonus publicized out in the arena.

Re: Team update 16
 

The winning bonus is only part of the seeding score, so at most I would think the announcers would explain it (like Paul did at FLR), but it wouldnt be part of the final scores or real time scores... just like the seeding points were never displayed even when the "losing team" got more than the "winning team"... The ranking system has always been "behind the curtain" at the regionals.

Re: Team update 16
 

FIRST should apologize to week one participants

Re: Team update 16
 

I disagree. To be blunt and slightly cynical, what good would an apology do? It's in the past, so there's nothing it would truly accomplish. Everyone knows that Week 1 events have issues. It's expected. Granted, no one expected such a massive one, least of all the GDC. However, they did happen, and the GDC did their best to remedy the situation. That's the best we can ask for.

Hakuna Matata

Re: Team update 16
 

Thanks for getting the song stuck in my head. The rest of work should be a bit more interesting. :]

Re: Team update 16
 

Just because "Everyone knows that Week 1 events have issues" doesn't make it right to those teams that can only go to a week 1 regional.

The game is different for all teams that play after week 1, this is a fundamental change from years past where everyone played by the same rules.

Re: Team update 16
 

I disagree. Example 2002 season. FIRST rules stated that you couldn't have any type of entanglement device which ruled out tape measurers. We designed two (11 pounds each) devices that spooled out a 22' length of lexan to score in both end zones.
After our regional FIRST changed the rule and said tape measurers were legal. We were a little miffed, at the change, but we GOT OVER IT.

Re: Team update 16
 

That was before my time in FIRST, although I've heard the story (and seen the frustration when the story is told) many times.

There was a scrimmage weekend and there should have been testing (probably was, but it missed this one). These should have shown enough of the game to proveout the seeding/scoring system. Changing it once some teams are done for the season (because some believe it's broken) is disgraceful and leaves many with feelings of being used.

Don't worry, we'll get over it ... but It'll take a long time before I trust the GDC and FIRST again to keep the playing field even.

Re: Team update 16
 

2002 has been brought up a few times recently.The tethers, 'mice', and 71 were some of the most interesting game elements in first. Anyone want to start a thread for the others?

Any way, This is a good update, much better than update 17 and all of the restrictions it added.

Re: Team update 16
 

We overcame the rule by having a gravity energized steel roll deploy with the end of match signal. No possible entanglement since no one was moving when we deployed. It was dubbed "the magic tongue".

Re: Team update 16
 

It would have been bad strategy for a team to use their "creative" ideas in scrimmage that is meant to throw off their opponent. Only matches that count will actually be useful to gauge the game. Also, I guess I don't fully understand how you feel used. I mean, yes you played the game differently. I know some consider that being guinea pigs...but I prefer to think of it as being on a frontier. You had the same chances to come up with ideas that would revolutionize the game as anyone else. You played it where nobody had real experience. This is the most level playing field possible. I think this more then balances any shortcomings due to rules being edited.

Also, how is the playing field not even? If in 2011, half the regionals play Aim High and the other half play Triple Play. How is this playing field not even? If the two regionals have the same level of difficulty, they are even. Despite having different rules, they are still well-balanced. There is a big difference between being equal and the same.