Who would like to see longer matches?

[sanddrag]

I absolutely do not want longer matches. Reasons:

You'd get fewer of them.
If something on your robot breaks or doesn't work, it hurts you more.
The better teams gain an even bigger lead.
Too many robots don't work well enough to make it interesting for a longer amount of time.
You'd potentially need a bigger battery, or design mechanisms to be lower-powered.

[mwtidd]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

I absolutely do not want longer matches. Reasons:

You'd get fewer of them.
If something on your robot breaks or doesn't work, it hurts you more.
The better teams gain an even bigger lead.
Too many robots don't work well enough to make it interesting for a longer amount of time.
You'd potentially need a bigger battery, or design mechanisms to be lower-powered.

What if it was done in collaboration with university events. Essentially every team would get one minicomp after ship date to get the bugs fixed.

If you read the other posts, the battery issue was actually incorporated into the game, to make it more exciting. And designing mechanisms to be lower-powered sounds like a very real design requirement, especially in this day and age.

Also if something you build fails in real life. Its going to hurt pretty bad.

I definitely understand your concerns, but I think if it was done right, it could change how FIRST competitions are viewed by the general public, change it from redbull-driven insanity into an exciting sport.

I also think it would somewhat level the playing field by redefining the design requirements.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Guys,
You have brought up one issue, the battery, without thinking about what is actually going on in the robot. Remember that the battery is potentially capable of 7200 watts at full charge or about 1kW (or more) constant over a two minute match. While some of that power is going into real work, some of it is going into heat. Extend the match and increase the heat. For some teams the saving grace is a match that is only two minutes with a limited amount of battery energy. There is cool off times in the finals for a reason.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by lineskier

Who would like to see longer matches?

I would enjoy watching longer matches.

[Brian Ha]

See the thing is if u wanted to see something like we do in football or nascar stuff like that, you couldnt have the 40 teams like you do at michigan comps cant remember if its districts or regionals, i think its district but it eludes me. Anyways you would have to have like 6 teams or 12 maybe. It wouldnt be a big bunch of teams just a couple a teams duking it out in a couple of matches, but we couldnt do this because robotics doesnt have enough spectators yet and that really wouldnt work.

[dudefise]

Absolutely, I love the pit-stop idea, it would make matches alot more interesting. It would also give a chance for downed or damaged robots to get back in the game, instead of the frustration that comes when you see your bot dead in the water and cant do anything about it. It would also help teams increase engineering efficieny during the pitstop. Even if double/triple long matches were only in elims, that would still be cool.
What if alliances (randomly selected like now) could pick a "backup" team to join? that would be pretty awesome...

[cire]

A longer match would force teams to consider more efficient mechanisms, which is very important in real world applications. Think of it as a engineering challenge. I don't think many teams would actually try to do a pit-stop, even if you could swap out your battery in 15 seconds, that is still time wasted not scoring points.

[MaxMax161]

The big thing that's different in FIRST compared to something like the NFL is that FIRST has a LOT more teams. There are many teams who can't afford to go to more then one regional so they need to cram an entire season worth of games in to a few days, unlike say football where they have an entire season for an entire season's worth of games.

I think that the only way you could do longer matches (assuming the technical problems can be overcome) is by either making regionals longer to accommodate the increases in time or making more of them so that there's less teams at each one.

The downside I see with longer matches from a spetators point of view is that scoring could be slower. I know the game would be different but take this years game, in the higher level matches eventually the racks would be full and the game would start to get drab.

I think that for the purpose of getting more spectators longer matches wouldn't be the best place to start, I'd look at number of game pieces and stuff like that first.

[mwtidd]

Originally Posted by MaxMax161

The big thing that's different in FIRST compared to something like the NFL is that FIRST has a LOT more teams. There are many teams who can't afford to go to more then one regional so they need to cram an entire season worth of games in to a few days, unlike say football where they have an entire season for an entire season's worth of games.

I think that the only way you could do longer matches (assuming the technical problems can be overcome) is by either making regionals longer to accommodate the increases in time or making more of them so that there's less teams at each one.

The downside I see with longer matches from a spetators point of view is that scoring could be slower. I know the game would be different but take this years game, in the higher level matches eventually the racks would be full and the game would start to get drab.

I think that for the purpose of getting more spectators longer matches wouldn't be the best place to start, I'd look at number of game pieces and stuff like that first.

For a 2 minute game to be interesting, they should switch back to 2v2. Its chaotic on and off the field, and for a spectator its tremendously easier to watch 4 robots compete rather than 6.

Regarding a second regional, I spoke on it briefly, but FIRST regionals usually cost between 200 and 300k. WPI has a model to host a regional for between 50k and 75k. By hosting a season of university events, then regional events, and finally the championship, all teams could attend 2 events. If it was a goal of FIRST to support this model, you could attend a university event for 500 - $1000. Much of the cost to a FIRST regional is due to renting out huge venues, where it is nice for a big event, being a pig like that has its cons. Also where some teams pay 5k for a rinky dink venue, vs teams that pay 5k for BAE and other huge regionals is not fair.

Where we don't have a whole season, and spectators don't have time to get familiar with the teams, increases the need for a longer match so they can at least get familiar with the robots in that match.

Again I think FIRST could learn a lot from video games and field games. With video games there are many conscious design decisions that incorporate into how much fun a game is to play and watch.

but I agree, it would be a big change, and if done wrong, it would go horribly wrong. However in my eyes the current FIRST model is starting the break (hence the 10% loss of teams every year). I think FIRST should start looking to reduce costs and a good place to start is the $5000 price tage for everyone. If you go to a rinky dink regional that costs 100k to pull off you should pay less than someone who goes to a 300k regional.

[Jared Russell]

I would like matches to remain at 2 minutes, but with (a) smaller fields and (b) a 2 vs. 2 format.

Reasons:

1. Eventually FRC will reach a critical mass and "6 robots per round" will no longer be sufficient to give every team in the country a decent number of plays - the same reason we started to see three robots per alliance in 2005.

2. 4 vs. 4 is too much going on at once. In my opinion, even 3 vs. 3 is a bit too much. Going back to 2 vs. 2 makes the game less chaotic and more watchable.

3. 2 minutes (+ auto mode) is a good length of time from both a watchability and battery life/heat standpoint.

4. Smaller fields mean that many/most venues can fit two of them. While match A is being played, match B can be putting down robots and synching with the field. Less wasted time between matches means more excitement for spectators, and more plays for teams.

5. Smaller fields make it easier and less expensive for more teams to be able to build and practice on a full field.

[XaulZan11]

Who are these spectators that you are referring to? Are they people already involved in FIRST or complete non-FIRST people? If it is the later, I don't think we should change the competition model for a very very small group of people.

[mwtidd]

Originally Posted by Jared341

I would like matches to remain at 2 minutes, but with (a) smaller fields and (b) a 2 vs. 2 format.

Reasons:

1. Eventually FRC will reach a critical mass and "6 robots per round" will no longer be sufficient to give every team in the country a decent number of plays - the same reason we started to see three robots per alliance in 2005.

2. 4 vs. 4 is too much going on at once. In my opinion, even 3 vs. 3 is a bit too much. Going back to 2 vs. 2 makes the game less chaotic and more watchable.

3. 2 minutes (+ auto mode) is a good length of time from both a watchability and battery life/heat standpoint.

4. Smaller fields mean that many/most venues can fit two of them. While match A is being played, match B can be putting down robots and synching with the field. Less wasted time between matches means more excitement for spectators, and more plays for teams.

5. Smaller fields make it easier and less expensive for more teams to be able to build and practice on a full field.

These are awesome points! I actually prefer this solution to longer matches myself. I just would love to see the incorporation of a pit aspect to the match .

[mwtidd]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

Who are these spectators that you are referring to? Are they people already involved in FIRST or complete non-FIRST people? If it is the later, I don't think we should change the competition model for a very very small group of people.

Its a very very small group of people because there is nothing to keep them coming back, there is no value proposition for them. FIRST should be a spectator sport, but its not. I think it would be very valuable to FIRSTs agenda to have the goal of turning that small group of people, into a larger audience.

To achieve this it would have to be more of a sport and less of robotics.

In my opinion for FIRSTs business model to cross the chasm, non FIRST spectators are essential.

I'd personally love to see betting at the las vegas regional . It would be an incredible fundraiser...

[Teched3]

Pit stops in FIRST, IMO, would be akin to watching a timeout. In NASCAR, the race is still on. Two minutes is long enough to play the game and showcase your capabilities as they are presently designed. I can remember the days when there were only three robots on the field. Two match losses and you were out. Looking back can give you a truer perspective of where we are now. I want to see more alliance combinations, not less

[Jared Russell]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

Who are these spectators that you are referring to? Are they people already involved in FIRST or complete non-FIRST people? If it is the later, I don't think we should change the competition model for a very very small group of people.

Whether FIRST or non-FIRST, I don't think anyone disagrees with the premise that watching robots compete is more fun than watching them be carried on and off the field.