Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Koko Ed
What did FIRST do this year that could be done better next year?
|
There were a lot of great things, as always, about this year's events. Since this thread is about the not-so-great...Most of my thoughts have been covered elsewhere, but I thought it might be helpful if I gave some depth on my big four.
The rules need to be made static before the first regional unless there is a significant risk to safety that must be addressed.
The volume and degree of changes to the rules this year was maddening. We spend a lot of time working on how we will play the game and coach our students very well to understand the game in-depth and how to play it to maximize the chances of winning while playing a clean, sportsmanlike game. There is a fair amount of analysis and coaching involved, as any rule prohibiting certain behaviors must be translated into positive, allowable behaviors before they can be coached effectively. For instance, something as simple as changing the definition we were given for loading zone infractions at the regionals: "the load is considered complete when the tetra is in possession of a robot" to "the load is not considered complete until the robot has exited to loading zone" is a pretty big shift of thinking when you are trying to transfer the change of that definition into a sportsmanlike on-the-field behavior, especially when you are working with alliance partners who may have a different interpretation of what they heard. However minor the rule change, each team has put thousands of hours into designing a robot to play the game as originally specified. This includes a lot of discussion about trade-offs at the margin. Even a small change in the rules can throw out 100s of hours of investment and since our mentor's time is our most valuable resource, every hour is precious. I think we need to cycle back to the "intent-based rules" approach that we cycle back to each time the rules get out of hand.
Penalties are not the answer.
While I agree that we don't want the game to be battle bots, fair and sportsmanlike defense needs to be part of the game, especially in a game that clearly favors teams with means. When I talked to referees, they were managing 1-1/2 pages of penalties. It is no wonder there was such a big problem with consistency, the refs were not process-capable of managing a list that long during a 2-minute match. Penalties that are so large that they will change the outcome of 90% of the games are not good for the sport or the spectators. Here is a case in point: We played 229 on Saturday morning. They have a great robot and a solid alliance. They clearly dominated the game, but because one of their horizontal rods brushed our partner in the loading zone, they lost the match. Now, given that we hadn't beaten 229 all season, I'll take the win
, but I would much rather have earned it. I am glad that they called the penalty as written (for the sake of consistency), but 229's brushing our partner had no other impact on the game and was clearly incidental. I have a saying on our team: "solve design flaws with better design, not better software." I think this same logic can be applied to the game: "solve design flaws with better design, not penalties (and rules changes)". If the goal is to protect the human players, let's make it clearly difficult for robots to engage each other when the human player is near the field. If the goal is to promote offense and get rid of the battle-bot approach, I have some other thoughts that I will put on Dave Lavery's game design thread.
Queuing times need to be significantly reduced
24 minutes of lead time x 7 matches = 168 minutes in queue, even if we are running on time. My understanding is that while in queue, the teams must stay with their robots. 3 hours in queue without moving is a lot to ask of a team, and with match turnaround in the 6-minute range, is clearly excessive. I think some application of queuing theory could significantly reduce the time in queue and make everyone happier.
The score and outcome of the game need to be observable on the field at the end of the match
There was a point at our first regional that I stopped counting tetras, as the outcome of so few matches actually matched what was on the field at the end of the match. Between the penalties and the rules that gave a team a goal when the other team knocked the tetras off of it, people in the stands couldn't tell you the score or the outcome of the game until it was put up on the board. It makes the game very tough to coach and very hard to explain to spectators, not to mention frustrating for the teams.