View Single Post
  #157   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-03-2013, 13:19
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty Moriarty is offline
Registered User
AKA: Brendan Moriarty
FRC #4302 (Robophins)
Team Role: Leadership
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Rookie Year: 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 81
Moriarty is a splendid one to beholdMoriarty is a splendid one to beholdMoriarty is a splendid one to beholdMoriarty is a splendid one to beholdMoriarty is a splendid one to beholdMoriarty is a splendid one to beholdMoriarty is a splendid one to behold
Re: What we learned from week 1

Looking at the long run for FIRST I am extremely excited in how this year is going. As others said, the playing field is leveled and this is an important step in making FIRST a much more teamwork driven, competitive spectator sport. Now teams have to scout, and clever game-day strategy can trump superior robot design. FIRST isn't only about the robot, and this change can foster better teamwork and make FIRST even more exciting. No one wants to see a match where 3 bots work and of those only 2 score. A match of 6 robots, with different skill levels (like in the elimination matches of previous years) is a lot more exciting than a match where the outcome can be predetermined by robot design.

Some teams have expressed disappointment in thinking their specialized design (e.g, 30 point climb + 20 point dump) has turned out less effective than they thought. This is a product of what I see as a move towards teamwork driven competition. A fully autonomous climb, while a feat of engineering, is not the best team player. Teams with these kinds of robots will need to focus on clever team matchings (macro-strategy?) rather than in-game strategy (micro-strategy?). This reflects another aspect of this years game: trying to stop teams from being able to do everything. I think some teams are having trouble adjusting. This year (for the vast majority of teams) the winning alliances will not be composed of robots that can do everything. Now, regardless of which strategy you pick (climb, close shooter, ground pickup, etc), you can still contribute to an alliance.

However, something that may not be as obvious is the effect of this on team sustainability. Beneath the obvious reasons for loss of teams (money, mentorship, resources) lies a more fundamental and psychological factor of sustainability: Team morale. I suspect many new teams that come into the competition unable to compete become so discouraged that they don't want to come back next year. For newer teams (mine included) qualification matches became a game of chance: we would scan the match schedule in the hopes of being paired with a team that could actually score. This left much of my team discouraged, and many of our members quit. This applies to many newer teams. An encouraged team that comes into the competition able to contribute to their alliance is much more likely to be determined to become better. In order to become better they will then seek fundraising and professional mentors. Making a game where an alliance of rookie teams could work together and defeat a veteran team through strong teamwork and preparation could help solve the sustainability issue in FIRST on a psychological level, and without the need to invest millions in sustaining grants to discouraged teams.

A change is coming, and everyone, veteran teams included need to be conscious of it. Those that rely too much on robot design and not enough on teamwork may find themselves performing worse in this year than in others.

EDIT: I need to work on concise writing.... o.o
__________________
2009 - 2013 FTC 3216
2012 - 2013 FRC 4302

Last edited by Moriarty : 04-03-2013 at 13:44. Reason: wording and grammar
Reply With Quote