Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber
I don't think this is as impossible as you think it is. Actually running thousands of matches may be impossible but within a week I've often run simulations of thousands of matches (likely many more). That's me, with excel/R. Like seriously, it's not hard. Do I catch everything? Nah. But it woulda told me that 2011 the minibots were ridiculously over valued. (2012 was the first year I started doing real models and running a bunch of scenarios, they've gotten more complicated every year).
|
I'm interested in this. What sort of testing/validation do you think would be possible through mathematical simulations and modelling?
---------
On the thread in general:
I'm withholding my opinion for now. I would like to build on some things people have said though:
The GDC's job is very difficult. They have to design a game that's interesting to build a robot for, play, watch, make it feasible for teams with a wide range of resources, feasible logistically for event organisers, etc. Every year the list seems to get longer.
What could we do to help?
Currently there's only two ways to communicate with the GDC. Indirectly through posting on ChiefDelphi (we know at least one member reads it) and semi-directly through the Q&A.
The rules come out seven weeks before the first regional. That's seven weeks where we can potentially 'fix' a lot of the problems.
For example, the situation at Waterloo, where a team was penalised 50pt because another team accidentally broke their antenna so they extended beyond the 20in perimeter (G24), has existed since January. Could someone have spotted that and alerted the GDC?
G40 exists because it's a huge safety concern. Maybe there's a better, feasible way to keep human players safe but not make it easy to incur a huge draconian penalty.
While CD does not extend its reach to everyone, even here we have a large pool of smart, dedicated people that represent most of the FIRST community: engineers, students, mentors, event organizers, inspectors, refs etc. Why can't we take a more active role in at least informing the GDC, if not helping in a more direct way somehow?
A mentor from 610 (I believe, forgive me for the lack of details - I'm on my phone) suggested finding a means of including more input from the experienced and competition-saavy. Is that the solution and, if so, how can we implement it?
This program is designed to help inspire a new generation of problem-solvers. Depending on your perspective, there's a few problems or a lot of them. I think it's time we shifted the focus of discussion away from "I don't like X; Y needs to be fixed" to "How can we fix X? How can we make sure we don't make a similar mistake in the future? Are our solutions good? Are they feasible and inclusive?".
To get the ball rolling:
I think one of the over-arching problems that needs to be solved is the lack of direct communication and feedback to the GDC. I don't think we should rely on Frank reading a thread on CD to highlight major issues/possible solutions to the game. I think a dedicated, official, public, suggestion/feedback site akin to the Q&A could work, where more people can highlight issues and discuss solutions for the GDC to consider and maybe partake in.