Re: Human players and FIRST games
 

As a HP of 2005, I remember having plenty of close calls with robots. But the worst part was less about the robots, and more about the other human player. If either of us weren't paying close enough attention, we would have collided.

Re: Human players and FIRST games
 

This is the wrong way to look at it.

I LOVE good human player interactions, I think it makes the game more exciting. ESPECIALLY for the teams that maybe don't finish their robot or have the robot not come out the way they wanted it, it still allows them to be a valuable alliance member. It does not cost money, or require any special equipment, experienced engineers etc. to be a good human player. Just practice. If your team takes the human player role as seriously as the robot and has that person spend their build time practicing then any team can have a great human player. You just have to value the role as importantly from day 1, which all of the "successful" teams do. It can't be an after thought decision made at the competition.

It's no different than saying it's demoralizing to be beat by a great robot because they had engineers, and machine shops and money...FIRST isn't fair. Dean has said this many times, but I think that there is no advantage given to any team at the beginning of build season for the human player role. Every team has equal opportunity to have a great human player.

FWIW I think 2004 was the best human player year.

Re: Human players and FIRST games
 

Grim,
I would be shocked if a human player can score let alone throw the entire distance end to end of the playing field.

Re: Human players and FIRST games
 

In 118's video, the human player throws one tube that scores, and one tube that lands in the safe zone.

Re: Human players and FIRST games
 

Joe, you beat me to it.

Anyways, I think that robots should be built by humans, and the game should be played by robots. If a team doesnt finish their robot, I don't feel that they should be able to compete on the merit of their human players. I would rather help them fix their robot, and have that compete than have the human player be the focus of the competition.

Just by 2 cents.

Re: Human players and FIRST games
 

In the real world, humans and robots interact with each other. Machines are loaded with parts/raw materials, they are programmed for different tasks, and are adjusted/maintained by people.

These interactions must be taken into account by the engineers (be it mechanical engineers or manufacturing/process endineers). Without paying attention to these human/machine interactions people will get hurt and efficiency will be lost.

So, Martin, what part of this robotics (not robot) competition don't you get?

Re: Human players and FIRST games
 

Joe,
I wonder how often that actually occurs and since we haven't competed as yet, whether it will occur under real world conditions.

Re: Human players and FIRST games
 

I think that robots should interact with humans in a way that the "skill" of the robot, not the skill of the human decides the outcome.

Also, isn't human drivers enough?

Re: Human players and FIRST games
 

I guess here we have to agree to disagree. I believe the outcome should include the skill of the robot AND the skill of the humans (driver,operator,feeders,analyst,and coach).

... and I believe that removing anyone of them lessens the game (or weakens the alliance).

Re: Human players and FIRST games
 

In 2009, I believe my team had one of the best human players (if not the best human player) of the game, so you could say I have a unique perspective on the matter. He consistently scored almost all of his moon rocks, and usually scored one or both super cells. There were several matches where he made the difference between a win and a loss, and there was at least one match where he scored 2 super cells to tie the score, so if the argument is that the human players had an impact on the game, then yes, they did, but from what I witnessed throughout the season, they didn't alter the competition so much that it was no longer about the robots.

In 2009 still, each human player started with 20 moon rocks, and could only get additional moon rocks if a robot delivered them, and could only use a super cell if the robot delivered an empty cell. Every thrown moon rock that didn't end up in a trailer was fair game for the robots, and so the robots that were the best at getting the moon rocks off of the ground and into the other robots' trailers had the advantage.

Further, the trailers were attached to the robots! A well-driven robot was difficult for human players to score on, while a poorly-driven robot was comparatively easy to score on. In autonomous mode, the goal of just about every team was to avoid being scored on, and our robot did that particularly well. All our robot had to do was drive straight for a couple of seconds, and then spin for the rest of autonomous.

**This is kind of off topic, but in Traverse City that year, I remember the announcer crediting team 85 for coming up with the spin strategy, when, I think (correct me if I'm wrong) we were the first team that did it at that competition; our autonomous was finished during build season, and we only changed it at nationals to try other methods of avoiding human players, and to try to run an empty cell in autonomous.**

Anyways, at every competition I attended, the teams with the best robots won. At Traverse City, team 85 (BOB) dominated, because their robot was the best at picking up and scoring moon rocks rapidly. In spite of our human player, we couldn't beat them. At Wayne State, teams 910 and 66 did particularly well— At the Michigan State Championships, teams 217 and 67 won, and at Einstein, 111, 971 and 67 won (which is particularly significant, not only because they won that final match, but also because they had to win their way through qualifications and eliminations to get there).

So, my point is that no matter how much of an effect human players have, it will still be a robotics competition. Once the season starts, human player strategies can be copied, and human players themselves can hone their abilities, but the robots (even if they can be changed slightly) can not be copied, and so are the most significant part of the teams, from a competitive standpoint.

Re: Human players and FIRST games
 

I believe 2009 definitively shows that, in the end, the skill of the robots determined the outcome, not the skill of the human players. Even the teams with the best human players were ultimately defeated by the teams with the best robots.