Who would like to see longer matches?
 

I feel that the FRC matches are just too quick. Just as they get going, their over. Also the shortness of the matches and the rush the fill as many matches as you can leaves teams with almost no time in the pits. (There were times where we were getting queued 15 min after our last match). Also as a spectator, you don't have time to get familiar with the robots, once you've finally figured out whats going on... the match is over.

I would prefer having 7 or 8 4-min matches than 12-2 min (set up accounts for close to 3 min of the ~5min match time).

I'd like to see the matches get switched back to a 2v2 with a robot on the side, who gets *tagged* in. This way you could incorporate the human player as a pit crew, responsible for quickly changing the battery and making small adjustments.

Go to a 45 sec 3v3 autonomous similar to what you saw in FTC this year, 2v2 teleop is 2:15 seconds, and a 3v3 end game for the last minute.

I think it would create an interesting dynamic to the game.
What do you think?

Re: Who would like to see longer matches?
 

Sure it would be nice to see matches a bit longer, maybe extended to a total of three minutes in length. Not only would it increase excitement excitement of the game, but scores as well. I think the main problem with this is that there are some very large regionals where there are barely enough matches to create an accurate ranking list to begin with. Accuracy is of course dependent upon who you ask...

For example lets look at the Virginia Regional. There are normally at least 62 teams registered, which equals out to about 9 qualification matches per team. Extending the length of the matches would cause teams to play less matches and create a less accurate ranking system.

Last year, the Virginia Regional played 95 qualification matches. At the current guide of 6 minute matches, that equals to 570 minutes. Increasing matches by just one minute would drop the number of matches available to be played to 81, reducing teams from 9 matches each to 8.

If my team is paying $5,000 to attend a regional, I want the students to be able to participate in as many matches as possible.

Plus, with the complexity of the robots being produced in recent years, can the batteries withstand longer matches?

Re: Who would like to see longer matches?
 

You bring up some really good points, maybe FIRST would have to limit the # of teams allowed to register for an event. At BAE we had 11 matches even with an hour delay.

The battery issue brought up the idea for a pit crew to me. I think it would be awesome to see the human player change out a teams battery in the middle of a match.

I totally understand wanting to get your $s worth. WPI has come up with a model for doing regionals at a fraction of the cost as FIRST so hopefully FIRST will get on board so all teams have at least 2 regionals. It would be nice if we could have a FIRST season rather than a FIRST regional.

This could be done by having university events, and then regional events, and finally the championship event

Re: Who would like to see longer matches?
 

I really like two minute matches. For "bad" robots on the field, they're short enough to stay interesting. For "good" robots, they're long enough to see some magic.

Re: Who would like to see longer matches?
 

My interest was also for spectators. FIRST is not very viewer friendly in comparison to most spectator sports. For me a FIRST match is like a 4 inning ball game.

I think increasing the human aspect to the games would make it more interesting. The pit crew in nascar adds an emotional aspect to racing, FIRST could take from this.

Re: Who would like to see longer matches?
 

The issue with that is the boot time for the bridge would put the robot out of operation for about a minute.

Re: Who would like to see longer matches?
 

And then you have to deal with the saftey issues of changing a battery mid match. You would have to stop the match or create a special lane for robots to go to get repaired/changed battery. We already know that teams aren't very good at going in lanes they're not suppose to be in...

Re: Who would like to see longer matches?
 

Yeah, I was worried about this too. It would be an interesting challenge to try to make your robot efficient enough that it could run for a 4 min match in order to avoid the battery swap.

Also for teams willing to take the battery swap, it would given them essentially the equivalent of a power play, because they would tear it up for a minute or two, before going in for a battery swap. When the 3rd teammate could take over...

Re: Who would like to see longer matches?
 

Reinstate a backup battery for the radio and cRio?

Re: Who would like to see longer matches?
 

oooo good call, I totally forgot about those things. Would the backup have enough power to run the crio? Or you could have two power breakouts one for crio and radio one for the rest. It would be sweet to have the weight of 2 12v batteries to play with too. Or we could use the minibot battery for crio and radio :).

I seem to remember the older one's being 5v

Re: Who would like to see longer matches?
 

Requires some additional components/weight. Could be done, though.

I'm not exactly in favor of matches going much longer. Maybe an extra 15 seconds or so, but much beyond that and we lose the "cool" factor.

I might suggest 15 second automode and 15 second end game tacked on to the end of the 2:00. Back before I started, matches were 2:00, no automode, no real endgame. In 2003, a 15-second automode was added to the start of the match.

So, instead of having the end game in the 2:00 teleop, have it right after. Put a big automation bonus in, or maybe full automode. Slightly longer match, but could be really fun to see what happens.

Re: Who would like to see longer matches?
 

Could all be integrated into the PDB.
A brownout detector circuit that would switch the 24 boost converter and 12v radio power regulator inputs to the backup battery.

How did the IFI backup work?
Was it in parallel with the 12v main power?

Re: Who would like to see longer matches?
 

Yeah I saw it being done something like nascar, where there is a specific area where you can do it. all robots in the "pit" have to be disabled before you're able to enter the "pit".

Whats interesting is that FTC is almost 3 min this year. I think the game would have to be designed for a longer time (something like CTF would be interesting, if you get pinned you lose the flag logistics of which i'm not sure about ;) )

I really find matches hard to watch if I'm not emotionally connected to one of the robots, and lets face it, the general population doesnt give a hoot who x team is. I would love to see FIRST become something the general population could develop an emotional attachment and excitement to just going to an event. However right now its just too much too fast, where as most spectator sports are actually slowed down. After a big play in football, you get an instant replay that describes what happened. It would be cool after a match to have a similar thing while we were waiting for results.

On several occasions I've gone to events just to watch, and the tend to get draining when you are not emotionally invested in the teams. You try so hard to keep up, but eventually you just give up and then it gets boring. I think part of it is also trying to distinguish teams. I wish red and blue were not allowed on the robots, and rather you had to have cathodes, that made your robot glow the color of the alliance.
Rather than cheesy fabric bumpers being the only indicator of a team's alliance.

Re: Who would like to see longer matches?
 

The IFI backup was a 9V straight to the controller. If the main voltage coming in dropped too far, the backup kicked in to keep the controller alive and responding. It was required from 2004-2008; before then, robots that had low voltage could wander all over the field and not respond to the E-stop.

The cRIO responds by having a monopoly on power after a certain low voltage is reached. The IFI system did not.

If something like this were to be implemented, I could see something like this:

Each team gets one or two "pit crew" members and a temporary disable switch (like the pressure pads in 2003 and 2005, only less finicky). They have to be in a box the whole time. Each alliance gets one pull-through lane, ideally with a barrier (and a DQ for entering while an opponent was in there, penalty if nobody's inside). Each robot gets one main battery and a "staying alive" battery. The "staying alive" battery has a dedicated PDB section, or similar way to distribute power, and a breaker of its own. (This to allow for full shutdown, because the battery obviously wouldn't go through the 120A main.) NOTHING can connect to that section except the cRIO and the radio (Connection type TBD by the EE types).

Robot pulls into the lane, and the pit crew runs/steps out with the fresh battery, hitting the disable as they go. Battery is replaced, minor "loose ends" get tied up, and the pit crew runs/steps for their waiting area, hitting the disable again to re-enable the robot. Robot pulls out the other side. Legal repairs include pulling off trailing items, checking cables, and changing batteries. No loading game pieces (unless that's part of the game--pull in and do some work, and you can load up with X game pieces). NO working on an enabled robot (DQ--safety violation). Think a NASCAR pit stop for a quick example--tires, fuel, tweak suspension/air inlet, get rolling again, except that in this case full shutdown of the engine (disable) happens.

Biggest problem: How cramped are the arenas the fields get set up in? You'd want decent space for the crew away from the field. Lane could be built into the field design, with a decently-high barrier.

Re: Who would like to see longer matches?
 

I think it would also be cool to see alliances tow their dead partners into the pit, hopefully limiting the damage a dead robot does to a match.

I think by keep the game to a 2v2 at one time would open up the field. Think about how much space the tower structure took up in 04 or the ramp in 03. 2v2 games naturally have a lot more space.

And then a 3 robot collaborative end game would be cool, something like 07. Maybe a robot pyramid. The highest pyramid wins :)

Re: Who would like to see longer matches?
 

I absolutely do not want longer matches. Reasons:

You'd get fewer of them.
If something on your robot breaks or doesn't work, it hurts you more.
The better teams gain an even bigger lead.
Too many robots don't work well enough to make it interesting for a longer amount of time.
You'd potentially need a bigger battery, or design mechanisms to be lower-powered.

Re: Who would like to see longer matches?
 

What if it was done in collaboration with university events. Essentially every team would get one minicomp after ship date to get the bugs fixed.

If you read the other posts, the battery issue was actually incorporated into the game, to make it more exciting. And designing mechanisms to be lower-powered sounds like a very real design requirement, especially in this day and age.

Also if something you build fails in real life. Its going to hurt pretty bad.

I definitely understand your concerns, but I think if it was done right, it could change how FIRST competitions are viewed by the general public, change it from redbull-driven insanity into an exciting sport.

I also think it would somewhat level the playing field by redefining the design requirements.

Re: Who would like to see longer matches?
 

Guys,
You have brought up one issue, the battery, without thinking about what is actually going on in the robot. Remember that the battery is potentially capable of 7200 watts at full charge or about 1kW (or more) constant over a two minute match. While some of that power is going into real work, some of it is going into heat. Extend the match and increase the heat. For some teams the saving grace is a match that is only two minutes with a limited amount of battery energy. There is cool off times in the finals for a reason.

Re: Who would like to see longer matches?
 

I would enjoy watching longer matches.

Re: Who would like to see longer matches?
 

See the thing is if u wanted to see something like we do in football or nascar stuff like that, you couldnt have the 40 teams like you do at michigan comps cant remember if its districts or regionals, i think its district but it eludes me. Anyways you would have to have like 6 teams or 12 maybe. It wouldnt be a big bunch of teams just a couple a teams duking it out in a couple of matches, but we couldnt do this because robotics doesnt have enough spectators yet and that really wouldnt work.

Re: Who would like to see longer matches?
 

Absolutely, I love the pit-stop idea, it would make matches alot more interesting. It would also give a chance for downed or damaged robots to get back in the game, instead of the frustration that comes when you see your bot dead in the water and cant do anything about it. It would also help teams increase engineering efficieny during the pitstop. Even if double/triple long matches were only in elims, that would still be cool.
What if alliances (randomly selected like now) could pick a "backup" team to join? that would be pretty awesome...

Re: Who would like to see longer matches?
 

A longer match would force teams to consider more efficient mechanisms, which is very important in real world applications. Think of it as a engineering challenge. I don't think many teams would actually try to do a pit-stop, even if you could swap out your battery in 15 seconds, that is still time wasted not scoring points.

Re: Who would like to see longer matches?
 

The big thing that's different in FIRST compared to something like the NFL is that FIRST has a LOT more teams. There are many teams who can't afford to go to more then one regional so they need to cram an entire season worth of games in to a few days, unlike say football where they have an entire season for an entire season's worth of games.

I think that the only way you could do longer matches (assuming the technical problems can be overcome) is by either making regionals longer to accommodate the increases in time or making more of them so that there's less teams at each one.

The downside I see with longer matches from a spetators point of view is that scoring could be slower. I know the game would be different but take this years game, in the higher level matches eventually the racks would be full and the game would start to get drab.

I think that for the purpose of getting more spectators longer matches wouldn't be the best place to start, I'd look at number of game pieces and stuff like that first.

Re: Who would like to see longer matches?
 

For a 2 minute game to be interesting, they should switch back to 2v2. Its chaotic on and off the field, and for a spectator its tremendously easier to watch 4 robots compete rather than 6.

Regarding a second regional, I spoke on it briefly, but FIRST regionals usually cost between 200 and 300k. WPI has a model to host a regional for between 50k and 75k. By hosting a season of university events, then regional events, and finally the championship, all teams could attend 2 events. If it was a goal of FIRST to support this model, you could attend a university event for 500 - $1000. Much of the cost to a FIRST regional is due to renting out huge venues, where it is nice for a big event, being a pig like that has its cons. Also where some teams pay 5k for a rinky dink venue, vs teams that pay 5k for BAE and other huge regionals is not fair.

Where we don't have a whole season, and spectators don't have time to get familiar with the teams, increases the need for a longer match so they can at least get familiar with the robots in that match.

Again I think FIRST could learn a lot from video games and field games. With video games there are many conscious design decisions that incorporate into how much fun a game is to play and watch.

but I agree, it would be a big change, and if done wrong, it would go horribly wrong. However in my eyes the current FIRST model is starting the break (hence the 10% loss of teams every year). I think FIRST should start looking to reduce costs and a good place to start is the $5000 price tage for everyone. If you go to a rinky dink regional that costs 100k to pull off you should pay less than someone who goes to a 300k regional.

Re: Who would like to see longer matches?
 

I would like matches to remain at 2 minutes, but with (a) smaller fields and (b) a 2 vs. 2 format.

Reasons:

1. Eventually FRC will reach a critical mass and "6 robots per round" will no longer be sufficient to give every team in the country a decent number of plays - the same reason we started to see three robots per alliance in 2005.

2. 4 vs. 4 is too much going on at once. In my opinion, even 3 vs. 3 is a bit too much. Going back to 2 vs. 2 makes the game less chaotic and more watchable.

3. 2 minutes (+ auto mode) is a good length of time from both a watchability and battery life/heat standpoint.

4. Smaller fields mean that many/most venues can fit two of them. While match A is being played, match B can be putting down robots and synching with the field. Less wasted time between matches means more excitement for spectators, and more plays for teams.

5. Smaller fields make it easier and less expensive for more teams to be able to build and practice on a full field.

Re: Who would like to see longer matches?
 

Who are these spectators that you are referring to? Are they people already involved in FIRST or complete non-FIRST people? If it is the later, I don't think we should change the competition model for a very very small group of people.

Re: Who would like to see longer matches?
 

These are awesome points! I actually prefer this solution to longer matches myself. I just would love to see the incorporation of a pit aspect to the match :( .

Re: Who would like to see longer matches?
 

Its a very very small group of people because there is nothing to keep them coming back, there is no value proposition for them. FIRST should be a spectator sport, but its not. I think it would be very valuable to FIRSTs agenda to have the goal of turning that small group of people, into a larger audience.

To achieve this it would have to be more of a sport and less of robotics.

In my opinion for FIRSTs business model to cross the chasm, non FIRST spectators are essential.

I'd personally love to see betting at the las vegas regional :). It would be an incredible fundraiser...

Re: Who would like to see longer matches?
 

Pit stops in FIRST, IMO, would be akin to watching a timeout. In NASCAR, the race is still on. Two minutes is long enough to play the game and showcase your capabilities as they are presently designed. I can remember the days when there were only three robots on the field. Two match losses and you were out. Looking back can give you a truer perspective of where we are now. I want to see more alliance combinations, not less :) :)

Re: Who would like to see longer matches?
 

Whether FIRST or non-FIRST, I don't think anyone disagrees with the premise that watching robots compete is more fun than watching them be carried on and off the field.

Re: Who would like to see longer matches?
 

This is why I proposed 3v3 with 2v2 on the field. This would give it aspects of hockey and nascar.

*for the record I hate nascar, but it is one of the few instances where people have been excited by competitive machines. I think we could learn a lot from them. (unfortunately I think a lot of their success comes from beer :( )

Re: Who would like to see longer matches?
 

I think 3 minutes would be enough for the competition.

Re: Who would like to see longer matches?
 

I think a longer autonomous would be great. Maybe 20 seconds, 30 seconds at the absolute maximum, to let the programmers shine. It warms my heart to see the robot doing it's own thing, my own thing. <3

Re: Who would like to see longer matches?
 

Eventually we will reach a point where matches will have to expand to more robots, the district format will become the dominant competition format, or both.

If you want a match that is x% longer, you will need an identical increase of robots on the field, which will introduce FMS variables and a whole host of other possible issues.

Re: Who would like to see longer matches?
 

Not I, said the que team. As if our days aren't long enough.
I'm sure plenty of field volunteers would feel the same.

Re: Who would like to see longer matches?
 

I'd like to see longer autonoumous periods, personally. Many people have commented that it's really an RC contest, because robotics implies autonomous operation.

It's much more challenging, so the auto mode would have to be more simple. It would require the field to be autonomous friendly, and the code libraries could be wrappered a little better so more sensors could be used more easily by all.

Of course, the humans might get bored...

Re: Who would like to see longer matches?
 

I like where you're going with this, but I think you're pushing it a bit too far. "Professional" sports are a pure entertainment industry, whereas FIRST is about transforming its participants into the future leaders, thinkers, and inventors of our world. I agree that it should maintain a certain level of spectator friendliness in order to attract new students, sponsors, and mentors, but it shouldn't be the main focus.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard the line "so it's basically just giant R/C cars" from students and parents/adults. IMHO, I'd really like to see longer autonomous modes, and it would probably add more excitement when you know that those machines are operating without human interaction. I don't think I'd ever want to see full matches with no human operators, but we certainly should see more emphasis on showcasing the programming skills.

This, of course, is better-suited in its own thread. But I just wanted to add my two cents on that.

(And yes, I know that not all robots are "self-aware". Look at military/police bomb robots.)

I can imagine quite a few people would like to have a not-so-gracious-nor-professional word or two with the person responsible for adding considerable stress to their jobs.

Re: Who would like to see longer matches?
 

I definitely agree with you on this one, and I'm starting to think that maybe FIRST won't be what I see it to be. Over my last semester at school I spoke with many professors about what was attractive about robotics competitions. I was working on an independent study on UX design, which a lot of web design and game design are almost identical. 7 +/-2, that's where I always start.

FIRST needs to decrease the stress on working memory, by moving goals closer together. In most matches this year, if I was to ask you at a random moment, who's winning, you probably wouldn't be able to answer. There is simply too much math complex math in these games. Unless a team is killing the other one, you have no idea who's winning.

Games like 04 allow you to focus at the center of the field. Also autonomous was a lot more exciting then, because a bin full of 19 dodgeballs dropped if you succeeded. Everything in 04 was Epic. Huge bins of big balls. Three Huge exercise balls. and robots hanging from a 10ft bar.

I wish FIRST would use cathodes to indicate teams too. Imagine if the red team glowed red, and the blue team glowed blue. It would be much easier to identify teams rather than merely by a bumper.

Also in 04, you only had 2 robots, so you had to design your robot to do everything.

It's been a long day of work so I may be leap frogging around right now.

I honestly don't think the game ever transforms people, but rather the experience does. I think the game actually acts as a distraction, and the teams that realize that always do the best.

I have a theory that if you were to start with the awards book rather than the rule book, your team would be more successful.

I would semi-argue with you on one thing, where it shouldn't be ITS focus, it should be someones focus, and that someone should get paid. FIRST is getting big enough that it should start thinking about creating more careers, and maybe utilizing volunteers less for certain positions.

Again they don't publish their staff information, so I have no idea what the paid staff for FIRST looks like.

I am seriously considering starting an IFL (InterFIRST League).
An outdoors based competition of arduino-based robots. Make it something more can afford, and make it so you and the 4 or 5 towns around you can get together on a Saturday, and play games in a school's parking lot.
I'm hoping that by using a high school sports model, rather than a pro-sports model (Which FIRST uses now), robotics can be more realistic.

It's like FIRST is trying to compensate for being geeky by holding these huge events. Personally I don't think there is a reason that all events need to be this big. You don't need a $70k field or a $7k robot to pull off FIRST. Some events should be huge, but i would personally prefer backyard FIRST. Something that anyone can participate in.

You don't need flashing lights and stadiums to make people see robotics is cool. And championships and playoff are big in the high school model too.

And no, I'm not talking about FTC or VEX. I'm talking full size robots (possibly bigger than FIRST robots), and full size playing fields. Games with robot subs, and teams (not random alliances). I'd love to see alliances that were given 400 lbs between 3 robots and see what they come up with

Maybe I'm just sleep deprived, but I think it would be fun :).

Re: Who would like to see longer matches?
 

Being behind the glass and experiencing matches first hand, I have come to think that an extra 30 seconds added onto a match would not be a bad thing.

1) As said before, I think it would give an extra time for robots to shine and show what they have to offer. This boosts the morale of the team and team pride. Stretching the thought, it could lead to more spirit at competitions.

2) It seems when I have just gotten into the match, and getting used to the feel of the robot once again, i hear the 15 second mark, followed closely by the finishing of the match. I think that the extra 30 seconds will allow for a more entertaining match, and a chance to score even more tubes.

As well as longer matches, I think that we should incorporate an extra day into the competitions. Let me explain why.

1) FIRST robotics is a great program. We all know and experience this on a day to day basis. The 6 weeks of build season are ones that I will never forget. And then we get to the competition. Coming from a fairly well off team, I am extremely lucky to be able to experience 2 competitions every year. However, even as this is so, I am always wanting / wishing that there was more too the competition. Adding the extra day, would give more time to appreciate all the hard work that we do during the build season (the robot playing matches).

2) The second reason is that playing 9 qualification matches (i think that is the calculated average (correct me if i'm wrong)) is not enough time to really evaluate the ability of the robot. Adding more matches would give more data to work with, and overall a greater perception of what one's robot should truly be ranked before the elimination rounds start.

All in all, I truly believe that adding an extra day to competitions would make them much more fulfilling

PS. The extra day would be the wednesday

Re: Who would like to see longer matches?
 

Or you could take one day out of the competition, and play 12 matches. And just like on late night TV, you get 2 competitions for the price of one!

Re: Who would like to see longer matches?
 

Adding a day would raise the cost by about 1k per team per regional

Re: Who would like to see longer matches?
 

The idea of community-based robotics clubs and competitions seems entirely compatible with FRC, FTC, and even FLL. I haven't been involved for all that long, but from the historical records I've seen, it seems like FRC evolved from high schools meeting at a gym -- was successful enough to outgrow that. It became the Olympics of robotics, but with significant growth, it needed qualifiers. Will it franchise, splinter, cross the chasm and become commonplace? My time machine is broken ... again. What about yours.

Many robotics teams seem to keep the interaction going for more of the year by competing in other contests, doing offseason events, making offseason mechanisms or practice bots, etc. If you can find the right mix of accessibility, cost, and reward, I'd say you should go for it. You could even hit up some of those already involved in FIRST, possibly FIRST itself to take part. If you want to research more about the robot contests already in existence, I'd suggest this forum thread.

To the IFL ideas. I don't get the train of thought. If you compare the needed safety elements of FTC or VEX with FRC, size not only costs in materials, but it costs in transport, field, and safety mechanisms. All sorts of electronics are used for control in the above list of contests, but generally it doesn't seem to be the expensive component.

As for the number of employees and such. Wikipedia of "For Inspiration ... " on the right hand side lists some figures. Also FIRST publishes an annual report which includes a budget summary.

Greg McKaskle

Re: Who would like to see longer matches?
 

I would favour making the autonomous mode longer (say 30 seconds) with two levels of difficulty for the challenge as well as increasing the point value of the autonomous mode. The purpose is to give teams more incentive to tackle the autonomous mode. Of the teams hanging ubertubes, a few were attempting (some successfully) to hang two. With this model, the second ubertube would be worth even more points than the first.

Perhaps, the teleoperated mode for the elimination matches or quarter-final matches could be made longer with more game pieces. This would limit the amount of extra time required to run the tournament and would really "separate the men from the boys". The robots that make it this far would not likely break down and become speed bumps. The teams would have the extra engineering challenge of ensuring their robot can run longer than they normally would have to (during the qualifying matches).

Phil

Re: Who would like to see longer matches?
 

Previous posts have said something about 2v2 alliances.

If 2v2 alliances were incorporated now, specialized robots would start to disappear, as alliances would need 2 fully functioning robots to play the game, unless the game can be played by one robot, in which case it gets boring.

Also if an extra day was added, it would interfere with school. FRC Regionals and Championships already interfere with school days, and to many Sophomores and Junior, missing three days of school per Regional is not worth it, especially when some teams go to 2+ regionals.

Re: Who would like to see longer matches?
 

That being said, my sisters miss 1-3 days of school each week during ski racing season. They still get straight A's. If missing 3 days of school for skiing is worth it. I think missing 3 days for robotics would certainly be worth it :).