3 Year FRC Cycle? - The CON's
 

The FIRST booklet in the Popular Mechanics magazine mentions going to a 3 year cycle, where the game would stay the same for 3 seasons, and then a new game announced. With ths cycle, all 4 year students would see 2 games, and most other students would see either 1 or 2 games depending on the cycle.

I can think of many positives and negatives to such a system - what do you think?

This thread is for the NEGATIVES ONLY! A separate thread is for the positives.

EDIT - THIS IS IN THE "RUMOR MILL" BECAUSE IT IS BREIFLY MENTIONED IN THE SUPPLEMENT TO THE PM MAGAZINE. I DO NOT KNOW WHERE THE IDEA CAME FROM OR EVEN IF IT IS BEING CONSIDERED AT FIRST. IT IS AN INTERESTING IDEA, SO I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE GOOD TO SEE WHAT THE CD COMMUNITY THOUGHT.

Re: 3 Year FRC Cycle? - The CON's
 

It would level the playing field more. By the time that we got to the third year, teams would have gotten other team's ideas.

HOWEVER: by the third season... the entire robot might be (in theory) another teams. They may not have spent as much time on their own conception of building a robot, and instead waiting until season two or three to just copy the "really good teams"

Re: 3 Year FRC Cycle? - The CON's
 

Huge negative #1 - by year 2 and 3, every single robot will look largely the same. As it is, there is a ton of design convergence between Week 1 Regionals and Championships.

Huge negative #2 - many students (for a variety of reasons) don't get to participate in FRC for all 4 years of high school. Repeating the same game would rob many of these students from the "Oh my god, how are we going to do this" moments that is an important part of the feeling of accomplishment that comes when your robot finally scores a tube/ball/whatever.

There are many, many more negatives (far more, in my opinion, than there are positives)

Re: 3 Year FRC Cycle? - The CON's
 

I thought a major component of FIRST was solving a novel problem in a limited amount of time. Using the same game for 3 years is just practicing refinement.

Re: 3 Year FRC Cycle? - The CON's
 

I'm not a fan of this. I think having students on the team for 4 years experiencing 4 different games is great because they have the opportunity to work with the many different obstacles that are presented over those different games and time period.

Just my $0.02.

Cass

Re: 3 Year FRC Cycle? - The CON's
 

It definitely takes a lot of the challenge out of it. I think it would also be very discouraging for a student to come onto the team during the second or third year of the cycle. They might come in with new ideas, but be unable to actually implement any of them because the team has already found a winning design. At that point, they just become glorified maintenance workers.

It would also make me less motivated to get a working design during the first year because I would know that I have the next two years to perfect it, rather than just six weeks. A 3-year cycle defeats the purpose of FIRST having a deadline.

It would also just simply get stale. As already pointed out, teams would eventually just start designing essentially the same robot. I'm not sure about everyone else, but I'm usually ready for something new by the time the last off-season events are being played.

Re: 3 Year FRC Cycle? - The CON's
 

I think it would greatly take away from FIRST.

There would be less motivation/stress.

Re: 3 Year FRC Cycle? - The CON's
 

Robots would look the same.

I do NOT want to be stuck with a game I don't like for 3 years.

Not as much "real world" experience because of such a long deadline

Re: 3 Year FRC Cycle? - The CON's
 

I would not want to be stuck with a game I DID like for 3 years.

Re: 3 Year FRC Cycle? - The CON's
 

That would just ruin the fun! I couldn't even stay with the same game for two years! It would be fun the first year, but then get continuously boring each consecutive year played. Like previously mentioned, every robot would look the same after the first season. PLUS, we wouldn't be able to get the great feeling of excitement we get before kickoff, and the way a new game gets our minds working in that "great engineer" like way, having us think of endless possibilities for various parts of the robot. AND, we would have to wait longer for a water game!!!

Re: 3 Year FRC Cycle? - The CON's
 

Would new teams be able to form after second or third season of same game??? and if so they would have a huge disadvantage.

I dont believe that it would be very fun if they did this. Its just not the same thing that I participate in FIRST for.

Also Teams would be designing a robot during the off season so that they are prepared to just start building when the 6 weeks start. or start building before the 6 weeks even start !

Re: 3 Year FRC Cycle? - The CON's
 

I'm not really even sure how you'd delineate between seasons, since the current structure is kickoff->build->ship->regionals->championships(->offseasons).

They would most definitely have to find some way to change the current rules about build season. Would teams be expected to build (or rebuild) a robot every year? Or could they reuse the same one? Since FIRST always seems so intent on taking competitive advantage away from veteran teams, how would they even the playing field for rookie teams?

One last point: I know that my life would be a lot less exciting if I didn't have the frenzy of kickoff and build season to look forward to each winter.

Re: 3 Year FRC Cycle? - The CON's
 

Agreed. I liked Breakaway, to an extent, but after Championship 2010, I was MORE than done with it. It will be the same way with Logomotion, I think: It's a great game (In my humble opinion), but, at the same time, losing that "Oh my God, what will the game look like this year?!" feeling this coming January would really disappoint.

Re: 3 Year FRC Cycle? - The CON's
 

If the cycle is implemented incorrectly, we will very easily see what many are predicting, the same exact bots year 3.

EX: Year 1 of 3: Team YYYY, a veteran team, feels no challenge in the new competition and finishes their bot week 3 and tests for the remaining 3, and take home 3 regional wins and a championship division.

Year 2 of 3: Team YYYY uses the exact same build technique as last year, with any minor things they found useful. 80% of the robots at their events look like theirs did a year earlier. They take 3 regionals and the world champion title.

Year 3 of 3: Again Team YYYY uses almost the exact same bot and techniques as they did in the previous two years. They take world champion again. ALL of the robots at their events look like a version of theirs that participated in the previous two years.

You see my point? FIRST needs to either prevent this type of thing from happening or make it so that innovation in technique or build is rewarded.

See my thoughts on the pros of this cycle.

Re: 3 Year FRC Cycle? - The CON's
 

Agreed!

Also, under a 3 year game cycle, the intensity and focus of the build season would likely be diminished reducing the challenge and benefit of them being exposed to the entire "high speed-high stress-high performance" aspect of the process. Now, we only get one season to get things right & are pressed to do so. Knowing there's a couple more seasons to get better or "copy" concepts... seems likely to dull the edge that can otherwise be developed in the face of the challenge as we do now.

Why even have a "build" season at all after the 1st year?

Would they then limit off-season work, or allow it and become an official year-round activity? It already is for many teams so limiting work could shut some teams down.

What about rookie teams who enter in the 3rd year when everyone could be theoretically already at max. potential. Level playing field?? Not likely.

Re: 3 Year FRC Cycle? - The CON's
 

The only motivation for a change like this is $. This is about saving cash through the streamlining of logistics and purchasing.
This has very little to do with the students (or coaches) overall experience.

Despite the fact that my life would get so much easier, I am TOTALLY AGAINST THIS!!!

My question is this...... Are we trying to create a generation of innovators or a legion of kids that are really good at "Benchmarking" (i.e. copying) ideas?

Re: 3 Year FRC Cycle? - The CON's
 

I don't want a year-round build season. January through April is enough for me.

Re: 3 Year FRC Cycle? - The CON's
 

I've also posted this in the pros thread...

But this isn't the first time this idea has come up. Back in 2005, the following thread proposed a replayed game: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=37726

Of course, it did have a few other proposed tweaks, but we'll assume those are completely forgotten about.

Re: 3 Year FRC Cycle? - The CON's
 

Personally... I would get bored. Yeah, the first year would be fun and exciting... But as a mentor, what's left for me to do in the second and third years? There's no real design portion left to help the kids with - they have a working robot with a design sitting right in front of them, and if they were smart, they walked around the regionals the previous year and took detailed notes about the best design so they could copy it. There's nothing new and novel for me to be excited about - I'd essentially be there to watch the kids use the machines and make sure they didn't cut off a limb.

Re: 3 Year FRC Cycle? - The CON's
 

This is a response to a post in the PRO's thread:

But are we willing to sacrifice the benefits of one game per year in order to appeal to the public? People always talk about having FIRST on ESPN and whatnot, but I honestly don't see that being in the future and I don't understand why people want to emphasize it so much. Isn't FIRST about inspiring students to pursue careers in STEM? I understand that there is a lot of pandering to sponsors and sponsors want publicity, but at what cost? Additionally, most of the qualification matches (at least at regionals) are incredibly boring. There are some matches where 3-4 robots don't even move and the other two just sit there driving in circles, maybe scoring one game piece with their poorly implemented arm/claw. Sure, we might be able to get the public interested in the 2nd or 3rd year of the game, but, again, at what cost to the teams? It would also mean that the public would have to deal with a disappointing year every 3 years.

Re: 3 Year FRC Cycle? - The CON's
 

3 years of Regolith?

Re: 3 Year FRC Cycle? - The CON's
 

How many minibot motors can we go through in 3 years?

Re: 3 Year FRC Cycle? - The CON's
 

I think we've already got this. It's called BotBall.


I think we've already got this. It's called Battlebots.

Re: 3 Year FRC Cycle? - The CON's
 

3 years of:

Loading Zone violations (2005)
Line-crossing penalties (<G22>, 2008)
Lane violations (2011)
Card-happy rules (it's not even really the ref's fault--2011)
Fluky automatic scoring (2006, 2011)

Anybody want that?

The best way to handle a 3-year game is to change point values (say, lower minibot points/raise tube points) and tweak penalties between the years, and maybe make a tweak to the game itself (Lunacy on carpet, anyone?). Oh, and improve stuff like I mentioned earlier.

Re: 3 Year FRC Cycle? - The CON's
 

Essentially what we'd get is a great first year of the cycle and 2 more years of apathy.

Exactly how are we supposed to motivate students to THINK about a challenge from problem to product if they already know the solutions to the challenge? I think a 2-year cycle would be better, and would allow for exactly 1 chance for another design cycle. Not only could teams redeem themselves for past failures, the GDC could redeem themselves for some of the worst rules in the year. Then, they could also add a twist to the game that would enable them to further challenge teams (4th logomotion shape, 4 levels instead of 3, add in this idea for the minibot, etc).

Re: 3 Year FRC Cycle? - The CON's
 

I've seen it mentioned briefly already, but I want to reiterate it...

The only way this would possibly be accepted by the current FIRST community is if the game was modified each year. Maybe the relative obstacles stay the same and its a different game piece, or maybe the game pieces stay the same with different obstacles. Basically, it would allow you to use a skeleton of a robot for all 3 years and then just tweak year to year.

I'm still totally against it, but if it were simply the same game for 3 consecutive years, I'd imagine by year 3 we would see nothing but an army of whatever robot 1114 came up with in year 1.

-Brando

Re: 3 Year FRC Cycle? - The CON's
 

Once the programmer has completed the autonomous code and teleop code he has nothing to do for the next 3 years.

Re: 3 Year FRC Cycle? - The CON's
 

On the upside; a programmer's job is never complete (as one, trust me, it almost never will).

Unless they require teams to do some crazy stuff when it comes to their bots in between seasons, it's very likely something like this will occur.

Re: 3 Year FRC Cycle? - The CON's
 

That gives me two more years to tear apart the game for being too rule-happy or too beneficial to high-dollar teams or too one-sided or too simple or too complex...

Why would anyone want this in FIRST? The organizations that do this are nowhere near as awesome.

Also, on the topic of national coverage on basic cable---

What is happening at the end of April that anyone really cares about? Besides some NBA Playoff games, ESPN is probably covering bowling and golf tournaments. The novelty and value of broadcasting the nationals seems huge. You only need 10 cameras and 10 commentators, with maybe a couple field correspondents.

It's like the Watson Challenge: it's so novel and uncommon, people would want to see what happens.

Heck, just get elim/Einstein day on TV. That would be quality.

Re: 3 Year FRC Cycle? - The CON's
 

My favorite part of the build season is the first two weeks (preliminary strategy and design).. and this would essentially push that to 2-3 weeks every 3 years!

Re: 3 Year FRC Cycle? - The CON's
 

1. The phrase "Build a robot in 6 weeks" will finally be meaningless, which is one of the great phrases in FIRST that is always overlooked. Granted the 6-week building period isn't really true to form as many teams can use off season projects to build and implement a chassis or system. However still teams are only given 6 weeks to build within a specific set of parameters is something that really knocks the socks off anyone who takes their first look at FIRST. "These high school kids built that robot in only 6 weeks?!" Having the same game repeated is like having a three year build season - much less impressive.

2. It's been said before but I'll say it again - Copycats. FIRST is about innovation, and rewarding innovation. However there is still a core group of FIRST teams that want to win a Championship more than they ever want to win Chairman's or Engineering Inspiration. And here is the kicker - look at this year's robots and you see we have copycating. However it's much different. Most all of them have parts and pieces that imitate 2007 robots, but with a different style of gameplay the arms and chassis will have differences in them. We already have robots that copy style, but with a 4-year difference I am more inclined to encourage archiving of designs and long-team Frankensteining than short-term.

3. Games with abusable loopholes (71 playing Zone Zeal, not really 469 playing Breakaway), dull action (Stack Attack), or constant penalties (pick a year, any year) can become a hassle to witness over and over again. Granted it will help the general public know the game better, but for the most part, the "general public" that come to see the competition are the player's parents and family members. And to be honest, if one reason why to implement this is for the general public to become more involved and understand the game, it's sorta insulting to the general public that they need an extra year or two to get a handle on the game rules. The key to fix this is in the design of the game itself (and I would be one person who would stand up and give 8 months of constant design for this effort, as will others, so don't say there just isn't enough people.)

4. It's a surrender to the fact that FIRST is more about the competition than what FIRST says it stands for. This change would say "We are going to make the competition more accessible to everyone". Isn't one of the things Dave Lavery always surprises everyone with is how unfair the competition actually is and that it's a good thing? Rookies ARE at less of an advantage but it's their need to overcome it. The game does change and teams must overcome it. The real test of FIRST is in overcoming the challenge. This change would eliminate half of that challenge and say the FIRST competition is easier to provide for than FIRST's goals: Real-world working mentors for every team, real-world experiences for every student, real-world opportunities to change the world.

This 3-year cycle would alter FIRST completely and I don't like it.

Re: 3 Year FRC Cycle? - The CON's
 

To me, a key principal of this program has been sharing, and learning from others. However, nowadays, plenty of teams are capable of replicating results of others who have invested in original engineering efforts. An extended competition season would only lead to increased design secrecy.

Re: 3 Year FRC Cycle? - The CON's
 

My first thought - BORING!

Then - when does build season end?

And - I'd sure hate to be a rookie (either a rookie team or a rookie member joining an established team) in Year3 of the cycle.

Re: 3 Year FRC Cycle? - The CON's
 

It a fantasy that FIRST will ever become a spectator sport. It just not going to happen folks and changing to a three year game to make it better for the fans and general public is just a bad idea.

The GDC did a great job in designing a game this year that is easy for the general population to understand. Hang tubes, make logos, race minibots.

They just need to build on that same kind of simplicity.

Re: 3 Year FRC Cycle? - The CON's
 

I feel like every time we have one of these discussions I turn into an angry old man ranting about "the better days," but seriously, this is just asking for it.

1. Copycats: It's obvious that this idea would only generate clones of the best robots - even moreso than we see now. Even if the GDC were to tweak the game each year, the fundamentals would remain the same. Thus the game would come down to "who can drive/strategize better" rather than "who can design/build better."

2. Rookies: If you thought they had a disadvantage now, coming in during year 2 or 3 would be a nightmare.

3. Build period: FRC as I envision it, is about learning to build a robot given time constraints. It teaches students how to work with a finite time, prioritize what needs to be done and what realistically can be done during build season. This I think is one of the most important lessons, and something I'd hate to see thrown away.

4. Such a change would do nothing to help inspire students to pursue STEM careers. Most of my students come in in their Soph/Junior years. Why would they want to spend years maintaining a robot? I fail to see how this would teach innovation.

5. I could go on, but this really just seems like a budget move. I've been disappointed in FIRST before (leaving Vex was one big one), but this would make me seriously reconsider supporting this program. Mind you this is all speculation without any details, but as it stands, this would make me point prospective schools in other directions.

Re: 3 Year FRC Cycle? - The CON's
 

As mentioned before, all robots would look the same. To keep things interesting, FIRST would have to add secondary objectives each year and/or make minor rule changes.

Re: 3 Year FRC Cycle? - The CON's
 

If this happened, I believe that it would almost completely destroy gracious professionalism. :( Robots would be protected at competitions, hidden from view in the pits. Everyone would resist sharing how their robot works. Teams with a good robot would do their best to keep other teams from copying, and others would spend all of year one trying to get pictures of another robot's mechanism, to more easily duplicate it. This would ruin FIRST, especially for rookies.

Re: 3 Year FRC Cycle? - The CON's
 

Honestly, I have a feeling there would be at least one game where the top few teams just keep winning over-and-over again. Imagine seeing 217, 33, 111, etc, etc win over and over again for three years in a row. It would be completely fair, but it also might discourage people and really create a boring competition for participants.

Re: 3 Year FRC Cycle? - The CON's
 

A 3 year cycle would be hard on mentors and team organizers. We love our FIRST teams, but need to take a break to get back to our families and jobs. I prefer the rush of a unique challenge in a short duration that we currently have.

Focus on creativity and solving unique problems in short timeframes. Engineering students will have their whole careers to work on refinement, benchmarking and continuous improvement.

Re: 3 Year FRC Cycle? - The CON's
 

One of the reasons I love FIRST is because of how involved I can get in building the robot each year. By switching to a 3 year cycle, you are taking away student involvement in an effort to increase spectator involvement and thus taking away many of the lessons you learn each year as a student (new problems, deadlines, and coming up with your own idea)

Re: 3 Year FRC Cycle? - The CON's
 

this would be terrible, you take a 6 week build season and add two more years continuously, what's the point of stopping if it's the same game? it would probably level the playing field in about year three because all the robot's are the same. teams would become more secretive again if they have the best robot or close to because teams would have a ton of time to reverse engineer it. if first does this, you could see a massive migration to the vex competition. especially since vex is being brought into classrooms everywhere...

Re: 3 Year FRC Cycle? - The CON's
 

Could this create a market for old robots? Say a winning team decided to build a new robot. Their old robot may have value to another team that wants an easy path to a competitive robot.

EDIT: An even better market may be for CAD models. A winning team may be able to sell 50-100 copies of their CAD model for say $500 each. That would fund their next season. Today, CAD models are shared freely because they have little direct value to the next game.

Re: 3 Year FRC Cycle? - The CON's
 

If this gets implemented, I think Vex and Nurc are really going to take off.

Re: 3 Year FRC Cycle? - The CON's
 

The great part about FIRST is going through the design process every year with no prior solutions to go off of. This would destroy the reason why many of us do FIRST. I love that fact that you have to be creative and make an answer to a difficult question without having anything to work from. All this would do is make majority of the robots look like the 111s, 1114s and 2056s robots. This would be a big disservice to the students.