Go to Post Every event that starts with "a little bit of fun" has the potential to end in disaster. Please think about all possible outcomes before you do anything stupid. - sanddrag [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > Old Forum Archives > 1999
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #31   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-06-2002, 22:42
archiver archiver is offline
Forum Archival System
#0047 (ChiefDelphi)
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pontiac, MI
Posts: 21,214
archiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond repute
Design from Scratch

Posted by Dodd Stacy, Engineer on team #95, Lebanon Robotics Team, from Lebanon High School and CRREL/CREARE.

Posted on 5/3/99 8:48 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Not Alone in the Woods posted by Dan on 5/3/99 4:43 PM MST:



Dan,

The conceptual part of the design process is heady stuff for sure. I'm not sure that repeating the game interferes with this part of the process, at least presuming the teams are 'allowed' to come up with a totally new design for the new year. I think it would probably be pretty difficult to draw the line between 'slight additions' and new functionality anyway. In any event, I don't think that a restriction to static robot designs should be necessarily linked to the concept of repeating games.

What I really want to say, though, is that none of the robot designs are created purely from scratch. They all derive from other stimuli and embed details proven to work in other applications - like previous years' robots. I think someone from Team 177 was saying on this board recently that they've used the same basic arm mechanism for the past three years, and it IS a thing of functional beauty. I would even claim that a new game each year and a six week build period DISCOURAGES creativity and innovation in design. Any team that is really focused on the competitive aspect of the er, um, Competition is crazy to abandon what they had working well (or nearly working) the previous year. None of this precludes the kids being exposed to and being a part of the visionary problem solving process.

Dodd


__________________
This message was archived from an earlier forum system. Some information may have been left out. Start new discussion in the current forums, and refer back to these threads when necessary.
  #32   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-06-2002, 22:42
archiver archiver is offline
Forum Archival System
#0047 (ChiefDelphi)
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pontiac, MI
Posts: 21,214
archiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Design from Scratch

Posted by Dan, Student on team #10, BSM, from Benilde-St. Margaret's and Banner Engineering.

Posted on 5/3/99 9:08 PM MST


In Reply to: Design from Scratch posted by Dodd Stacy on 5/3/99 8:48 PM MST:



I agree that we very rarely design from scratch. Our team investigated the Genie Lifts in our gym and Wildstang's lift from last year before designing our lift.
But maybe this just comes down to my personal experience it's a much different process when you have no idea what direction the other teams are going in. I know it's different because I've done both; our first year we pretty much modeled our robot after Beatty's national champ machine since we didn't know what we were capable of. But this year we were given a clean slate to work with and I definitely enjoyed it more.
It could be argued that the current format neglects the re-engineering process which could probably be argued to be *more* important than the 'design-from-scratch' since most designs in life are knock-offs of others (or it's the same product altogether just with a clock on it.)
So what it all comes down to is personal preference, and I prefer design from scratch. I can see the arguements for the other way though. :-Dan


>>>Any team that is really focused on the competitive aspect of the er, um, Competition is crazy to abandon what they had working well (or nearly working) the previous year. None of this precludes the kids being exposed to and being a part of the visionary problem solving process.
__________________
This message was archived from an earlier forum system. Some information may have been left out. Start new discussion in the current forums, and refer back to these threads when necessary.
  #33   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-06-2002, 22:42
archiver archiver is offline
Forum Archival System
#0047 (ChiefDelphi)
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pontiac, MI
Posts: 21,214
archiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond repute
I'm against

Posted by Ken Patton, Engineer on team #65, The Huskie Brigade, from Pontiac Northern High School and GM Powertrain.

Posted on 5/8/99 7:14 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: You know my vote... posted by michael bastoni on 5/2/99 7:32 AM MST:




(I'm sorry I came into this late - I somehow missed this thread. I hope I'm not too late!)

Mike-

I am in total agreement with you that our single biggest problem is that of sustainability. The great things that happen on all of these teams is because of big efforts from individuals working together, and if we do not have the individuals working, we will not grow into thousands of teams. It applies to teachers, engineers, students, and the entities that allow us to use their facilities (schools, businesses). All of them need to be considered in our sustainability plan. I agree with you that this is what we need to work on as we help to improve FIRST. Lets not lose that even if we disagree on this 'same game' issue.

I think your ideas on the kit are good ones. Making the motors, etc. a bought kit instead of a donated kit will make more sense if we have a lot more teams. Availability would still be an issue - perhaps making sure that each team can get one set of parts through a source that packages everything together - one set per team - would take care of that.

On to the disagreement...

I do not see how keeping the game the same helps. Following are three reasons why. I don't think you have addressed them in your arguments for keeping the game the same. I just don't see how it makes things better.

1. I really do not believe it will be less 'robot work' because, with a carryover game, teams will then have to work on their robots year round if they want to remain competitive. If they know the game, they will start working on it. You can say, sure, wait until the new school year, but I really doubt thats going to happen. Any competitive student/teacher/engineer will start working on it last week. Burnout will become a BIGGER factor, in my opinion. It will be harder to get people to be on the team. It will be harder to work on non-robot projects like fundraising and community awareness, because there will be one other big thing to do.

2. It is not as inspiring to keep the game the same. Re-engineering is important and relevant, but it is not as useful for teaching students the lesson that engineers can make something from nothing, and teams of engineers can do the 'impossible' in an 'impossibly' short time. They won't be impressed by what technical professionals can do with their minds, because they'll know that we just copied last years TechnoJuggerKat or SonOfBeattyAces, because thats probably what it will take to win. I put a lot of value on this point, and I don't think your proposal does.

3. What are the new students going to be inspired about? The drivers will have been practicing all summer, so the new students won't get a chance to drive. The design team will have solidified ideas on what the robot should look like, and the new students will be in a catchup mode until when? Until the game changes again or until the 'players' graduate? What do we do when we are interviewing new students for the Year2000 team - tell them that they will have an impact on the design? I know I'm not going to lie to them. I want to be able to tell them that their ideas will go onto a brainstorming list that will be used. If they don't think they will get to 'play' will they still want to join the team? The reason I think this is important is that, in my opinion, the earlier we get the students on the team, the better. I think we can impact 9th grade lives more than we can impact 12th grade lives. We get the 9th graders for possibly 4 years (and more if they come from a Lego League school).

I just don't see the benefits to keeping the game the same. I totally agree with your emphasis on sustainability, though.

Ken



__________________
This message was archived from an earlier forum system. Some information may have been left out. Start new discussion in the current forums, and refer back to these threads when necessary.
  #34   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-06-2002, 22:42
archiver archiver is offline
Forum Archival System
#0047 (ChiefDelphi)
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pontiac, MI
Posts: 21,214
archiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond repute
Re: changes to the game each year

Posted by Elaine Anselm, Engineer on team #191, X-Cats, from Jos Wilson High School and Xerox.

Posted on 4/30/99 12:21 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: a box with wheels posted by michael bastoni on 4/27/99 5:27 PM MST:



Some of our adult and student team members have discussed the idea of the same game year over year and we unanimously agreed it is not something we would like to see. Xerox has partnered with Wilson High School in FIRST since 1992 and we have never looked at producing the most competitive robot as our primary objective. Some years we do well, others we don't, but each year we come home feeling great. We feel that the same game year over year would put too much emphasis on winning.

There are going to be great robots in the finals, I have no doubt about that. If our robot is not among them we are all ok with that - adults and students (even if we think our robot should have been there). Each year we work really hard to make the best robot we can and some years our capabilities are better than others. We state right up front with everyone that if there is a conflict between building a more competitive robot and inspiring kids, inspiration wins out, every time. I know we inspire kids regardless of what the robot does at the competition.

As far as the same game, some of our thoughts about it:
Our team builds half of the excitement into the anticipation waiting for the rules. It is like a party.
We attract adults to the program who are just as excited to see what the new game will be. We have graduated students who come back on kickoff day, just to see the game rules.
The same game reinforces the competition as the most important thing, not the engineering and inspiration of students - over eight years we have found countless ways to inspire students that are not centered on placing #1 or #2 or even #32
With the same game, returning teams would have all year to work on perfecting their designs. Some teams have all new kids each year, so in this case, who is doing the perfecting? The adults? Teams that don't participate could put their old robots up for sale to new teams (That's probably a little extreme, but maybe not)
When you start to place the focus on winning, it is too easy to see winning as the objective, then, if you don't win, you have nothing.

Sorry, but I have to give a thumbs down to this approach.

Elaine


__________________
This message was archived from an earlier forum system. Some information may have been left out. Start new discussion in the current forums, and refer back to these threads when necessary.
  #35   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-06-2002, 22:42
archiver archiver is offline
Forum Archival System
#0047 (ChiefDelphi)
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pontiac, MI
Posts: 21,214
archiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond repute
Re: changes to the game each year

Posted by michael bastoni of team #23, PNTA, from Plymouth North High School sponsored by Boston Edison Co.

Posted on 5/2/99 3:48 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: changes to the game each year posted by Elaine Anselm on 4/30/99 12:21 PM MST:



Elaine,

I am not proposing we keep the game the same forever...just for longer periods of time than we currently do.
Imagine that the FIRST year was not 12 months...say it was 36 or 48 months....during which time we would
recruit new teams, partner with new institutions and yes like the
race car folks...sell old robots when we thought we needed to build new ones...

It;s about more choice and flexibility...not about winning...we are not
wrapped up in winning....we do it for the educational benefits...
some teams do it for the inspirational benefits...We actually do FIRST
cause it helps our students get into engineering school...we have that
well documented...

What I am proposing makes that MORE possible...not less...so please maintain your point of view.
Please stand by your attachment to changing the game every year...
But think about what you would say to another person who is MORE into it
than you...what if someone proposed we play twice a year and change that game
twice a year??????

So all I'm asking is that we do not hold 12 months sacred....who said
12 months was a inviolate number...why not 6 months?

Or more sanely,,,why not 36 or 48?

I invite all of you to look outside the box just for a minute...and tell me what you see?

Am I Alone in the woods?

Mr.B





__________________
This message was archived from an earlier forum system. Some information may have been left out. Start new discussion in the current forums, and refer back to these threads when necessary.
  #36   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-06-2002, 22:42
archiver archiver is offline
Forum Archival System
#0047 (ChiefDelphi)
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pontiac, MI
Posts: 21,214
archiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond repute
Re: a box with wheels

Posted by Frank of team #97, Psychedelics, from CRLS sponsored by MIT.

Posted on 4/28/99 2:21 PM MST


In Reply to: a box with wheels posted by Joe Johnson on 4/26/99 8:14 PM MST:



We didn't have the plywood box, but we had some alliances that
couldn't do anything but drive. If I remember right, one (possibly 2)
of our partners were ever able to get on the puck. That severely
limited our ability to score. One round we had a robot that could just
drive around.

I think there should be some way of seeding teams based on performance
in regionals. The teams that did well are rewarded by being paired with
another good team. There were many good teams (WildStang, Bomb Squad,
Beatty, and Delphi to name a few) that we all know are some of the best
teams in the competition that seeded well below many other teams. 540s
were rare especially compared to their frequency in Detroit. It seemed
as if all the good teams had really weak pairings.

Everyone should be able to compete in Nationals though. These robots
take a lot of time and effort (not to mention money) to build and teams
should be able to take them to Disney. But for the students to be
truely impressed as Dean wants, they have to see the big boys..those
teams that bring an excellent robot every year. These are the teams
that inspire. Two of my fellow MIT students
never heard of Bomb Squad until they were walking by their pit and took
a look. My friends were really impressed, but #16 didn't get the big
attention they deserved because they were not in the top of the pack in
seeding.

The competition has never been exactly fair, and it's always tried to
be hard on teams that lose early on (remember last year's bracket), but
this year something really seemed amiss with the final seedings. Just my
two cents on the matter.

Great job everyone! See you next year!

Frank


__________________
This message was archived from an earlier forum system. Some information may have been left out. Start new discussion in the current forums, and refer back to these threads when necessary.
  #37   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-06-2002, 22:42
archiver archiver is offline
Forum Archival System
#0047 (ChiefDelphi)
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pontiac, MI
Posts: 21,214
archiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond repute
Re: We just got Lucky, but more importantly

Posted by Mike Kulibaba, Student on team #88, TJ², from Bridgewater-Raynham Regional and Johnson and Johnson.

Posted on 4/28/99 2:53 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: a box with wheels posted by Frank on 4/28/99 2:21 PM MST:



I feel kinda bad for the people that got stuck with a 'plywood box' or somebody who could just drive. The reason why we got to be the number one seed is because we got partnered up with great robots in ever round except one. Our robot is a good robot but there is no way we are the number one seed if we don't get allianced with the teams we did( Thanks Wildstang, Woodside high, X-Cats for our 3 highest rounds)but if we get allianced with someone esle I don't know if we get those scores. That's why I think the National competition needs to be only the elite teams that go to the regionals and have a good robot. If A plywood box cost my team a chance to make the top 16 or make it into the finals, I would not be a happy camper and also it's not in the spirit of the game to lose cause the robot at the national competition, which is suppossed to be the best of the best, costs you a match because they don't work. It is about being there and about having fun but it is about being competitive and having a working robot. I commend the team for trying but I just don't think that is far to the teams that had to play with them. If My team was just a box of plywood I wouldn't show up at the nationals, I think it makes a mockery of what this competition is trying to do. It is a competition and when it comes down to it in the end it is about winning. I'm not saying winning is the most important thing because it is not, being there with a working robot and putting in the months and years of working on the robots and fundraising to get there is a tremendous part of it. Plus learning about engineering and making long lasting freindships are the most important part of it. But you can't me for all the work everyone puts in to this great program that people don't want to win. I worked harder this year then any other year and if we just sat there for each round or barely moved or what not I'd feel bad that my team cost some other team the chance to win because of our robot. I'm sorry if I offend people by saying that but this is the way I feel. What do people get out of having a plywood box.

Kuli


__________________
This message was archived from an earlier forum system. Some information may have been left out. Start new discussion in the current forums, and refer back to these threads when necessary.
  #38   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-06-2002, 22:42
archiver archiver is offline
Forum Archival System
#0047 (ChiefDelphi)
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pontiac, MI
Posts: 21,214
archiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond repute
and on the flip side...

Posted by Nate Smith, Student on team #74, Holland FIRST Robotics, from Holland High School and Haworth, Inc..

Posted on 4/28/99 6:49 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: We just got Lucky, but more importantly posted by Mike Kulibaba on 4/28/99 2:53 PM MST:



: The reason why we got to be the number one seed is because we got partnered up with great robots in ever round except one.

and the other side of the page...

our team performed consistantly throughout the entire competition, but you wouldn't know it by looking at our 196 ranking(which is probably why we didn't get selected, but that's another thread)...

except for one round, we kept the other team under 100 points, with several rounds being under 30 pts. In 3 of our six rounds, our ally broke during the round, once falling to lose the 3x multiplier that could have won us the round.

i've been in favor of this alliance thing from the beginning(to a point), but now i'm starting to have my doubts...

Nate


__________________
This message was archived from an earlier forum system. Some information may have been left out. Start new discussion in the current forums, and refer back to these threads when necessary.
  #39   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-06-2002, 22:42
archiver archiver is offline
Forum Archival System
#0047 (ChiefDelphi)
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pontiac, MI
Posts: 21,214
archiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond repute
Re: We just got Lucky, but more importantly

Posted by Dan, Student on team #10, BSM, from Benilde-St. Margaret's and Banner Engineering.

Posted on 4/28/99 7:48 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: We just got Lucky, but more importantly posted by Mike Kulibaba on 4/28/99 2:53 PM MST:



What's the story behind the plywood-box team anyways? I might understand the box if there robot was lost in shipping, but I will never understand why they were allowed to go on field. :-Dan



__________________
This message was archived from an earlier forum system. Some information may have been left out. Start new discussion in the current forums, and refer back to these threads when necessary.
  #40   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-06-2002, 22:42
archiver archiver is offline
Forum Archival System
#0047 (ChiefDelphi)
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pontiac, MI
Posts: 21,214
archiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond repute
Re: a box with wheels

Posted by Tom Wible, Coach on team #131, chaos, from central high school manchester and osram-sylvania.

Posted on 4/28/99 8:23 PM MST


In Reply to: a box with wheels posted by Joe Johnson on 4/26/99 8:14 PM MST:



I think that the moment this team knew they were in trouble, an announcement should have been made in the pit.
Then all of the teams who had people available, should have come running with spare parts and brainpower to get this team up and running. I'll bet we could have come up with a working robot pretty quickly.
I think it would be great to have the opportunity to help out a team like the 'box' team.

Tom Wible
Team 131


__________________
This message was archived from an earlier forum system. Some information may have been left out. Start new discussion in the current forums, and refer back to these threads when necessary.
  #41   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-06-2002, 22:43
archiver archiver is offline
Forum Archival System
#0047 (ChiefDelphi)
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pontiac, MI
Posts: 21,214
archiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond repute
Re: a box with wheels

Posted by BDH, Other on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled lake Western and TRW.

Posted on 4/28/99 8:50 PM MST


In Reply to: a box with wheels posted by Joe Johnson on 4/26/99 8:14 PM MST:




I don't know if its been said yet but I remember the team because it's the only one I looked at with Chris and Dave before we went to Epcot for lunch. The team was from Miami, Was a high 200 number and had no big sponsors. They were there because they wanted to build the robot and compete like everyone else. Their only problem was they didn't have the big money(and probably technical help) to back them up. The robot did work long enough to make it to the center of the field
Brian


__________________
This message was archived from an earlier forum system. Some information may have been left out. Start new discussion in the current forums, and refer back to these threads when necessary.
  #42   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-06-2002, 22:43
archiver archiver is offline
Forum Archival System
#0047 (ChiefDelphi)
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pontiac, MI
Posts: 21,214
archiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond repute
Re: alliances

Posted by Andy Grady, Coach on team #42, P.A.R.T.S, from Alvirne High School and Daniel Webster College.

Posted on 4/27/99 8:54 AM MST


In Reply to: alliances posted by Austin Martus on 4/26/99 7:00 PM MST:



I feel that FIRST should probably get rid of the alliance thing all together. Who you are paired up with can decide your fate no matter how good or bad you are. For instance, my team was sitting in the top 16 all weekend we were holding on to 7th when we came to our last match. Our alliance partner couldn't provide their robot, which made it two on one, we came out of that round with only 9 points and we were knocked out of the top 16. Now it is part of the game, but if we were gonna go down I would have liked to have gone down with a partner so that I wouldn't have to look back with a 'what if'. But hey, those are the breaks.
Congrats to all,
Andy Grady


__________________
This message was archived from an earlier forum system. Some information may have been left out. Start new discussion in the current forums, and refer back to these threads when necessary.
  #43   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-06-2002, 22:43
archiver archiver is offline
Forum Archival System
#0047 (ChiefDelphi)
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pontiac, MI
Posts: 21,214
archiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond repute
Let's fix alliance problems, not trash it

Posted by Jeff Burch, Engineer on team #45, TechnoKats, from Kokomo High School and Delphi Delco Electronics Systems.

Posted on 4/27/99 10:30 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: alliances posted by Andy Grady on 4/27/99 8:54 AM MST:



>>>> Sorry for the cross post. I posted this same message on a similar thread in the General Forum but it probably fits in better here.

I agree there are some kinks to worked out in the qualification process, but I think the alliance concept is the best thing to happen to the competition since it moved to Epcot. The alliances really emphasize the importance of scouting and our students took it much more seriously this year than in the past. In previous years we pretty much had a strategy and tried to stick to it in each match and the scout sheets rarely forced a change to this strategy.

This year it was extremely important to know the capabilities of other teams, and not just the ones you'll play with/against in the matches. To win, your strategy needs to adapt to mach the capabilities of your alliance partner and opponents. You also need to find alliance partners to pick or that will pick you. We got to know other teams better and made more friends on other teams this year than ever before and it's all because of having alliances.

Several of my team members have been talking about one change we would really like to see next year that would make the qualifying matches a little more fair. I think there should be minimum functionality requirements of every robot before they are allowed to compete. This would prevent teams from getting paired with robots that can't even leave the starting gate.

This minimum functionality would be checked during inspection. Teams that meet these requirements at a regional would not have to be re-tested. Minimum requirements could be things like the ability to move at a minimum rate for a minimum distance, ability to turn, and at least one additional function related to the competition requirements (for this year: climb puck, grab post, hold a minimum number of floppies, etc.). I don't think this list is too demanding, but it would force teams to focus on having some basic functionality rather than trying to build the ultimate robot and ending up with a box on wheels.

Comments?





__________________
This message was archived from an earlier forum system. Some information may have been left out. Start new discussion in the current forums, and refer back to these threads when necessary.
  #44   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-06-2002, 22:43
archiver archiver is offline
Forum Archival System
#0047 (ChiefDelphi)
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pontiac, MI
Posts: 21,214
archiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond repute
Functionality Check- Yes

Posted by colleen, Student on team #126, Gael Force, from Clinton High School and Nypro.

Posted on 4/27/99 2:58 PM MST


In Reply to: Let's fix alliance problems, not trash it posted by Jeff Burch on 4/27/99 10:30 AM MST:




I definitely agree with you on that minimum functionality clause, because that would definitely reduce many of the qualms about alliances. I think that's most everyone's main concern with partnering up. If you know the robot can function, then you're only worry will be whether or not the are willing to compromise on a strategy with you (which is something that some teams just don't want to do). If the alliances were to continue next year, something about a robot's ability to work has to be taken into consideration.

And what about, like it Andy's case and other's, teams don't show up? Maybe points could be added to the team there, or at least subtract from the team that didn't show up (average in a zero for not showing up). In andy's case the lost, but i saw an impressive #176 robot, Aces High, win a match completely solo and their partner didn't show, that deserves something..

..so i think..





__________________
This message was archived from an earlier forum system. Some information may have been left out. Start new discussion in the current forums, and refer back to these threads when necessary.
  #45   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-06-2002, 22:43
archiver archiver is offline
Forum Archival System
#0047 (ChiefDelphi)
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pontiac, MI
Posts: 21,214
archiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond repute
Re: alliances

Posted by Jacob Etter, Student on team #177, Bobcat Robotics, from South Windsor High School and International Fuel Cells and ONSI Corp.

Posted on 4/28/99 6:06 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: alliances posted by Andy Grady on 4/27/99 8:54 AM MST:



i agree completely. let the bots go one on one none of the alliance bull**** it would be a much different comptition then. the best robot might even win once in a while, (shudder) what a thought.


__________________
This message was archived from an earlier forum system. Some information may have been left out. Start new discussion in the current forums, and refer back to these threads when necessary.
 


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
BUCKEYE Alliances soap108 Regional Competitions 2 09-03-2003 12:59
Prebuilt alliances? archiver 2001 3 23-06-2002 23:56
Thank You! to our alliances from 'Aces High' Team 176 archiver 1999 0 23-06-2002 22:49
Thanks to all the great alliances out there lil devil Thanks and/or Congrats 1 07-05-2002 18:14
Both alliances sitting in endzone with 10 seconds left? Mike Soukup General Forum 7 24-03-2002 18:55


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 18:47.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi