Limitations too far?

[HUNT397]

Looking at this year's game rules, when is FIRST going to give us detailed robot assembly instructions? It appears that FIRST is limiting on our creativity way too much, challenges are one thing but where is the line? Never before have we had so many restrictions on our robot such as wheels, playing size, trailer attachment, and now after wasted precious hours no descoring or blocking trailer. Can the FIRST GDC come up with an interesting challenge in the future without destroying competitiveness and creativity.

Chris Hunt

[Petey]

Originally Posted by HUNT397

Looking at this year's game rules, when is FIRST going to give us detailed robot assembly instructions? It appears that FIRST is limiting on our creativity way too much, challenges are one thing but where is the line? Never before have we had so many restrictions on our robot such as wheels, playing size, trailer attachment, and now after wasted precious hours no descoring or blocking trailer. Can the FIRST GDC come up with an interesting challenge in the future without destroying competitiveness and creativity.

Chris Hunt

I agree, I feel that this game is far too limiting. Some limits (like not being able to extend outside the footprint) force you to think outside the box. Other limits (like limiting you to the vertical plane of your bumper perimeter) crush the box entirely.

[Laaba 80]

They want to see something different from the usual robots. Also, remember they have to try and make this fair for all teams, and restrictions are the way to do that.

They also want to encourage creative thinking. Honsetly how hard is it to think that you could cover up your own goal? Thats not creative at all.
Joey

[HUNT397]

Originally Posted by Laaba 80

They want to see something different from the usual robots. Also, remember they have to try and make this fair for all teams, and restrictions are the way to do that.

They also want to encourage creative thinking. Honsetly how hard is it to think that you could cover up your own goal? Thats not creative at all.
Joey

But being inside of the box makes you sacrafice other options of scoring, while covering, or using the trailer behind you as a hopper and removing balls from it.

[Laaba 80]

Originally Posted by HUNT397

But being inside of the box makes you sacrafice other options of scoring, while covering, or using the trailer behind you as a hopper and removing balls from it.

I didnt mean it would be easy to design. I was talking from a strategy standpoint.

[GregW11]

It just got worse: Nothing can extend outside of the bumper perimeter at all.

Seems like now we're relying on skill of the drivers and accuracy of the people shooting the balls, and that's it. (or are they teaching us to find every loophole possible?)

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by GregW11

It just got worse: Nothing can extend outside of the bumper perimeter at all.

Seems like now we're relying on skill of the drivers and accuracy of the people shooting the balls, and that's it. (or are they teaching us to find every loophole possible?)

It's not 'finding every loophole possible', it's applying proper engineering to the problem and gaining advantage from the design.

From my perspective, with all the design requirements, "It's just another challange".

Oh, and by taking teams out of their comfort zone ... Kudos to the GDC.

[Petey]

Originally Posted by Laaba 80

They also want to encourage creative thinking. Honsetly how hard is it to think that you could cover up your own goal? Thats not creative at all.
Joey

It was actually very difficult (and required creative chassis) given the footprint restrictions.

Originally Posted by Matt C

As originally written and intended, rule <R08> did restrict any sort of mechanism.

No it didn't.

[waialua359]

Someone posted how this year's game has evened the playing field.
I totally disagree.
I think the very capable teams will be able to meet the much more restricted rules and still build whatever they want and incorporate much more programming creativity to have their robots function how they want.

If anything, I felt that the '07 (ramp bots) and '08 (speedsters) had a much greater chance if they couldn't build a robot for the main objective.

Sure, there are human players scoring, but so does everyone else. There's a tall, talented "basketball" player that can be found on every team, I'm sure.

[nuggetsyl]

I have to agree there are far to many limitations on this year robots. To many aspects of this years robot have been decided for teams instead of challenging them to come up with creative solutions to solve the problem. I hope i am wrong but i think this year we will see the same generic robot for 90% of the teams.

[Alexa Stott]

Originally Posted by Laaba 80

They want to see something different from the usual robots. Also, remember they have to try and make this fair for all teams, and restrictions are the way to do that.

Does a start-up company looking to design the next mobile media player have the same knowledge/experience/advantages as, say, Apple? No. Apple has worked for many years designing new things and working to perfect their methods.

It's similar in FIRST. As a senior programmer on my team, I have worked for the past 4 years to learn the best way to code certain functions on the robot. I have learned how to work with sensors, etc. The same goes for the members of our build team. They have worked over many years to try and build "the perfect drive train."

Now, they want to punish people like us who have worked through mistakes to make their robot better? Teams are good because they have experienced downfalls and failures; it's a part of the game. Nobody expects you to pick up the KOP as a rookie and build 1114 or 254-quality robots. Those teams have worked very hard to build their programs. Isn't the idea behind FIRST to inspire students to pursue careers in science and technology? To give them real-world experiences in those fields? A company is most certainly not going to start restricting their older employees just to let you, "the new guy," have an advantage.

Basically, it can all be summed up in the worn adage: Life isn't fair.

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by Alexa Stott

Now, they want to punish people like us who have worked through mistakes to make their robot better? [/i][/b]

Punish? I would change 'punish' with 'challenge'. They never said you cannot use previous knowledge/experience (for example, when faced with a problem now, you probably know how to approach it, unlike a rookie team). Instead they are forcing you to learn new/different knowledge.

[Alexa Stott]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

Punish? I would change 'punish' with 'challenge'. They never said you cannot use previous knowledge/experience (for example, when faced with a problem now, you probably know how to approach it, unlike a rookie team). Instead they are forcing you to learn new/different knowledge.

They make our entire knowledge of effective drive trains and manipulators that extend beyond your bumper zone obsolete. That seems like some sort of punishment.

I simply don't understand why we need to make it "fair." Teams that build effective robots will succeed in the competition.

But hey, like everyone always says, it's not really about what happens on the field, right? So why not encourage creativity? Why does the on-the-field competition need to be fair if it doesn't really matter in the end?

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by Alexa Stott

They make our entire knowledge of effective drive trains and manipulators that extend beyond your bumper zone obsolete. That seems like some sort of punishment.

I sure hope you haven't only learned about drivetrains and manipulators. If so, then FIRST has failed. I think the benifits of FIRST is that you learn the design process, the phsyics/science behind designs, problem solving, working with others, and creativity. If you are saying that your creativity and everything I just mentioned is the same as a rookie team with no experience, then what have you gotten out of FIRST? Knowing how to build the perfect 8 wheel drive to succeed in a FIRST competition won't get you too far in life. I think that FIRST is forcing experienced teams to reuse these skills instead of just coping last years drive.

I think you are underestimating the knowledge and skills veteran teams have and that advantage.

[smurfgirl]

Originally Posted by Alexa Stott

That seems like some sort of punishment.

I don't think it's punishment, I think it's forcing you to be creative. Why, you ask? Well, I explained it in this post which also answers your other complaint, below:

Originally Posted by Alexa Stott

But hey, like everyone always says, it's not really about what happens on the field, right? So why not encourage creativity? Why does the on-the-field competition need to be fair if it doesn't really matter in the end?

Also, in response to:

Originally Posted by Alexa Stott

They make our entire knowledge of effective drive trains and manipulators that extend beyond your bumper zone obsolete. ... I simply don't understand why we need to make it "fair." Teams that build effective robots will succeed in the competition.

Your knowledge of effective drive trains and manipulators which extend beyond the bumper zone is most definitely not rendered obsolete by this game. More than anything else, it is the process of developing said effective devices that is the important thing for you to get out of FIRST. One drivetrain (manipulator, etc.) will probably not fit all... knowing how to design a working drivetrain (or any other engineered assembly) to fit your needs is a skill which you can apply throughout your life. FIRST is being realistic, and is teaching you skills which you can use in the real world. Cut-and-paste isn't always going to get you what you need to solve problems; sometimes you have to create an original work as the solution.

Furthermore, there will never be a game that is completely fair. Why? Well... all the stuff I mentioned in my previous paragraph, the skills and the knowledge of processes and thinking and designing carry over from year to year, game to game in FRC. Veteran teams and experienced team members have an advantage, no matter how you slice it. I don't think Lunacy was designed to "be fair" by "making us all rookies again", I think it was designed to bring us real-world engineering issues, and to push us out of our comfort zones to help us learn new things instead of relying on what we already know.