Addressing the scoring pegs
 

Have you guys come up with regular ways of addressing the scoring pegs? Off the bat we've been using A-F for columns and 1-3 for rows, but we were thinking it might make more sense to address the columns by right/left grid as well as triangle/circle/square column.

IMO, it's pretty important to get this standardized right away, just because I foresee feeders having to signal these addresses to drivers across the field in a pinch, and they may not necessarily be on the same team as each other.

Re: Addressing the scoring pegs
 

What about them are you asking about addressing?

Re: Addressing the scoring pegs
 

I would think that the coach/drivers should be signaling the feeder what they want, not the feeder telling them where to put things.

Re: Addressing the scoring pegs
 

Their position, as in a grid.

Things that would need to be standardized are:

Their horizontal position
Their vertical position
Where do you start? Top left? Bottom left? Whose perspective?

Re: Addressing the scoring pegs
 

as in, a way of providing each scoring pin with an address to reference them by.

well, yeah. the feeder might have a better view of the grid than the driver, though, but of course the opposite could easily be true as well.

Re: Addressing the scoring pegs
 

We had the same thought. We thought about using this approach with having an Analyst. I drew up a quick diagram with the letters across the top, the numbers down the side, and the preferred symbol grayed out in the box. That way the Analyst, who can be keeping track of what game pieces have been played can say "We need a white circle in B1." We thought we would label them A-F from left to right as the teams are looking at the field. I will do a mock up of the form shortly.

Steve

Re: Addressing the scoring pegs
 

So are you referring to the fact that the manual does not specify what the heights of the pegs are at all? I mean it says adjacent pegs will not vary by more than 8 inches, but that's a lot of potential variance and we cannot build an accurate field or array of pegs without knowing the height of the pegs. Also, would it be the same between different events?

I think that they want to get more teams using the camera to locate field elements, such as the reflective tape. Our programmers seemed confident they could do this, but integrating the hanging of a tube with the recognition of the reflective tape will still present a challenge.

If they don't change the heights at all at individual events or between events, we could find heights that work and stick to those...

Re: Addressing the scoring pegs
 

Agreed. We are planning on putting lights on the robot to indicate which one we want.

Re: Addressing the scoring pegs
 

yeah, exactly. the role of the analyst almost alludes to having to set up something like this.

other things to consider: is 3 the bottom, or the top, which would be more consistent with the scoring? is 6 letters too many to mentally sort while you're in the middle of driving (hence breaking it up into L/R grid as well)?



indeed -- we were going to try this as well (assuming they don't somehow make it illegal, but i don't see how they could or why they would)

Re: Addressing the scoring pegs
 

Good question. While the scoring amounts could be used to reference the row, since we're not calling it "the 3 point row" I think that it would be ok to call the top row "1" - but am okay with it either way.

As to the letters, it is probably because I am a (very) frequent flier - A to F works for me, since that is the standard lettering designation on six seat rows!

Steve

Re: Addressing the scoring pegs
 

Good thoughts. As far as human player-to-coach communication, some sort of sign(s) might be useful. Lunacy (with much simpler communication) had problem enough with less obscured vision.

If we're talking alliance station communication, my initial thought was "Left 1-3" and "Right 1-3". Less ambiguous, but longer to say. A-F seems good too, and likely not too much to process. Frequent fliers or not, most English speakers know without thinking that the first 3 letters are A, B and C. That splits it in half, leaving only 3 choices each again.

As for heights, I'd imagine low/mid/high or bottom/mid/top would catch on quickly. Not sure I understand the need to use numbers for those, especially if there's going to be hesitation on whether to count up or down.

Re: Addressing the scoring pegs
 

You would be surprised how many people think their E seat is MY aisle seat! :)

As for "low/med/high" I agree doesn't have any ambiguity, but is saying "A high" or "b low" or "c medium" clear in the chaotic mess of a match? We tend to hear things like "b low" as "below" or "c medium" as "see medium", and may pause to say "below what?" or "see the what?" - where as "A1", etc ... registers as a matrix location, since it is an alphanumeric combination, rather than phonetic sounds. My thought was to supply a physical sheet with the matrix and symbols on it to every member of the alliance, so by the time the match starts everyone should be clear on the meanings. Having said that, I am still not married to this approach and would encourage other thoughts or ideas! I will post the document up in the morning and put a link on this thread so everyone that is interested can review and comment.

Thanks!

Re: Addressing the scoring pegs
 

How about "High Circle Left" or "Low Square Right", assuming u exclusively wish to place pieces where they would help your alliance in completing a logo.

Re: Addressing the scoring pegs
 

The NATO phonetic alphabet was developed to aid the transmission of lettered information over noisy radio comms. We have a simpler case to handle, but there are 18 pegs, so we wouldn't run out of letters. Just letter each one and say its name when you need to. Now who gets to set :yikes: the left-right-left-up-down-column-by-column sequence of names?

Re: Addressing the scoring pegs
 

--