With regards to field automation, I would like it... provided it works. FRC games don't exactly have the greatest track record when it comes to scoring automation. The 2006 goal sensors had a slew of issues, and many (all?) events verified scores with a human scorekeeper (delays were introduced after autonomous to ensure autonomous scores were correct). The 2010 goal sensors experienced much lower volume, and were thus better performing in general, but there were still cases of
sensors not working and
humans being used to confirm scores. In 2011, there were
quite a few threads covering the issues regarding the sensors on the poles registering minibots. As far as I remember, 2012's automated scoring has been easily the most accurate (ironically, so much so that the
real time scoring was removed from the screens of elimination matches to heighten excitement). 2013's weight sensors once again
had issues resulting in human confirmation of scores and untrustworthy Real Time Scoring.
A lot of that is game design, but as was pointed out earlier in the thread, making a game that is easy to score/referee often results in a game that people don't view as exciting. Excitement comes from constant action across the field, and that same constant action is what makes games more difficult to officiate. Often, this can hold true even for automated scoring (see the issues with ball jams in 2006, DOGMA penalties in 2010, and minibot sensor viability in 2011).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristan Lall
Not much has changed in 11 years. People are still basically arguing that because it is impractical to have a perfect replay system, every replay system is detrimental or infeasible. But the point isn't to be perfect; the point is to be better. |
I'm contesting that the numerous cans of worms opened by video review aren't going to make things better. I can all but guarantee that the first case of a blind spot in video is going to result in a thread like this one, where a party objects to not being allowed to use their teams' video evidence to support overturning the call. Even worse is when two camera angles show contradictory views. Further still, instant replay does nothing to fix judgement calls, and quite frequently exacerbates the situation. I've seen plenty of open hostility towards replay officials this season in the NHL, along the lines of "if they're not going to get the call right, why bother having instant replay?" (Only less polite).
I find the dystopian vision of large teams will full video replay crews in the stands attempting to find ways to reverse the outcome of a match to influence the standings in their favor rather unsettling. And given the lengths team already go through to find an advantage, including both video scouting systems and attempting to shift the
meta strategy of tournaments to influence rankings, I don't find this vision particularly far fetched.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristan Lall
This is clearly an unreasonable way of looking at the problem. What if the effect was subtle or not yet realized (e.g. the student doesn't rejoin the team the next year, and instead joins the chemistry club, which might, in a couple years, lead them to get a degree in science not engineering)? How would you propose to find such a student, given that this probably isn't a metric that anyone tracks?
|
If it's so clearly unreasonable, than perhaps people should stop using this example as to why FIRST needs to improve [aspect X] of the competition experience. This hypothetical has already been brought up in this thread, and many similar threads regarding perceived shortfalls of the competition aspects of FRC. So long as people cite students becoming so discouraged by a bad call that they chose not to go into a STEM field, I will continue challenging them to find me an example.