Human players and FIRST games

[Grim Tuesday]

Originally Posted by Basel A

If teams on Einstein finals thought robots score better than humans, then that was probably the better strategy. Therefore human players can score all they want but robots will usually win out. Therefore Lunacy was a robot-based game, if with a larger human element than previous years. It can further be supported that the larger human element had little impact on high-level gameplay, especially for teams with the 'right' strategy.

Of all the thousands of teams in FIRST, if you base how the game was on an elite few, then thats not what the game was. If at regionals, the HPs were scoring most of the points, then that was a HP based game.

[Basel A]

Originally Posted by Grim Tuesday

Of all the thousands of teams in FIRST, if you base how the game was on an elite few, then thats not what the game was. If at regionals, the HPs were scoring most of the points, then that was a HP based game.

You cannot base it only on total scoring! If every single human player played the same, then as an overall all human players didn't make a difference, no net change. Of course they were not exactly the same, but in this case, it was proven that teams who trusted their robots won out.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Originally Posted by Grim Tuesday

Of all the thousands of teams in FIRST, if you base how the game was on an elite few, then thats not what the game was. If at regionals, the HPs were scoring most of the points, then that was a HP based game.

Grim,
I would be shocked if a human player can score let alone throw the entire distance end to end of the playing field.

[Joe Ross]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

Grim,
I would be shocked if a human player can score let alone throw the entire distance end to end of the playing field.

In 118's video, the human player throws one tube that scores, and one tube that lands in the safe zone.

[Grim Tuesday]

Joe, you beat me to it.

Anyways, I think that robots should be built by humans, and the game should be played by robots. If a team doesnt finish their robot, I don't feel that they should be able to compete on the merit of their human players. I would rather help them fix their robot, and have that compete than have the human player be the focus of the competition.

Just by 2 cents.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

In the real world, humans and robots interact with each other. Machines are loaded with parts/raw materials, they are programmed for different tasks, and are adjusted/maintained by people.

These interactions must be taken into account by the engineers (be it mechanical engineers or manufacturing/process endineers). Without paying attention to these human/machine interactions people will get hurt and efficiency will be lost.

So, Martin, what part of this robotics (not robot) competition don't you get?

[Grim Tuesday]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

In the real world, humans and robots interact with each other. Machines are loaded with parts/raw materials, they are programmed for different tasks, and are adjusted/maintained by people.

These interactions must be taken into account by the engineers (be it mechanical engineers or manufacturing/process endineers). Without paying attention to these human/machine interactions people will get hurt and efficiency will be lost.

So, Martin, what part of this robotics (not robot) competition don't you get?

I think that robots should interact with humans in a way that the "skill" of the robot, not the skill of the human decides the outcome.

Also, isn't human drivers enough?

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Grim Tuesday

I think that robots should interact with humans in a way that the "skill" of the robot, not the skill of the human decides the outcome.

Also, isn't human drivers enough?

I guess here we have to agree to disagree. I believe the outcome should include the skill of the robot AND the skill of the humans (driver,operator,feeders,analyst,and coach).

... and I believe that removing anyone of them lessens the game (or weakens the alliance).

[TEE]

Originally Posted by Grim Tuesday

I think that robots should interact with humans in a way that the "skill" of the robot, not the skill of the human decides the outcome.

Also, isn't human drivers enough?

I believe 2009 definitively shows that, in the end, the skill of the robots determined the outcome, not the skill of the human players. Even the teams with the best human players were ultimately defeated by the teams with the best robots.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Originally Posted by Joe Ross

In 118's video, the human player throws one tube that scores, and one tube that lands in the safe zone.

Joe,
I wonder how often that actually occurs and since we haven't competed as yet, whether it will occur under real world conditions.

[TEE]

In 2009, I believe my team had one of the best human players (if not the best human player) of the game, so you could say I have a unique perspective on the matter. He consistently scored almost all of his moon rocks, and usually scored one or both super cells. There were several matches where he made the difference between a win and a loss, and there was at least one match where he scored 2 super cells to tie the score, so if the argument is that the human players had an impact on the game, then yes, they did, but from what I witnessed throughout the season, they didn't alter the competition so much that it was no longer about the robots.

In 2009 still, each human player started with 20 moon rocks, and could only get additional moon rocks if a robot delivered them, and could only use a super cell if the robot delivered an empty cell. Every thrown moon rock that didn't end up in a trailer was fair game for the robots, and so the robots that were the best at getting the moon rocks off of the ground and into the other robots' trailers had the advantage.

Further, the trailers were attached to the robots! A well-driven robot was difficult for human players to score on, while a poorly-driven robot was comparatively easy to score on. In autonomous mode, the goal of just about every team was to avoid being scored on, and our robot did that particularly well. All our robot had to do was drive straight for a couple of seconds, and then spin for the rest of autonomous.

**This is kind of off topic, but in Traverse City that year, I remember the announcer crediting team 85 for coming up with the spin strategy, when, I think (correct me if I'm wrong) we were the first team that did it at that competition; our autonomous was finished during build season, and we only changed it at nationals to try other methods of avoiding human players, and to try to run an empty cell in autonomous.**

Anyways, at every competition I attended, the teams with the best robots won. At Traverse City, team 85 (BOB) dominated, because their robot was the best at picking up and scoring moon rocks rapidly. In spite of our human player, we couldn't beat them. At Wayne State, teams 910 and 66 did particularly well— At the Michigan State Championships, teams 217 and 67 won, and at Einstein, 111, 971 and 67 won (which is particularly significant, not only because they won that final match, but also because they had to win their way through qualifications and eliminations to get there).

So, my point is that no matter how much of an effect human players have, it will still be a robotics competition. Once the season starts, human player strategies can be copied, and human players themselves can hone their abilities, but the robots (even if they can be changed slightly) can not be copied, and so are the most significant part of the teams, from a competitive standpoint.