Team Update #18

[Adam Freeman]

Originally Posted by squirrel

Which team? the team that failed to TRIGGER the TARGET, or the teams on the opposing alliance?

Come on now....

I was referring to the team that failed to trigger the target.

I would not want to win a match, District Championship, State Championship, or World Championship because my opposition built a minibot that was faster than mine, beat it up the pole, hit the target with the specified FORCE, but the sensors did not TRIGGER the target.

Especially if their minibot has an approaching 100% success rate and the failed TRIGGER is the result of some interation of unknown variables.

Seems to me checking to see if minibots trigger the target could be part of inspections. If you get the ok at inspections, then it is assumed that the minibot is designed correctly.

The refs would have the ultimate power to either believe or over rule the sensors. If a sensor does not trigger, but the team has passed minibot inspection (including triggering), the refs can determine the winner and assign the points accordingly. If it is too close to call, then the match will be replayed due to a field fault.

Its already bad enough that we spent 6 weeks designing a HOSTBOT that can achieve all the tasks of this game at a very high level, only to have it marginalized by a minibot that every team can build in one day.

[MrForbes]

Originally Posted by Adam Freeman

I would not want to win a match, District Championship, State Championship, or World Championship because my opposition built a minibot that was faster than mine, beat it up the pole, hit the target with the specified FORCE, but the sensors did not TRIGGER the target.

FIELD – .....

FRAME PERIMETER – ....

I don't see an official definition of FORCE in the rules.

I would be fine winning a match because my opposition built a minibot that beat ours up the pole, but failed to TRIGGER the TARGET, which is what the rules require it to do. The rules do not make any exceptions.

I guess the thing to do is ask the head ref at our next regional whether they will be calling minibot races based on the rules, or something else.

[Matt Krass]

I'm torn on this one.

On one hand, I believe the intent of the minibot race was to get their first (it's a race after all, it's displayed as such on the scoring metric) and I'm glad to see that refs stepped in when the technology couldn't.

But I'm also frustrated at the refs changing the rules again, while I don't agree with this team update, and I think it's a bad idea, if that's the rule, and that's what every team started working towards, it should be enforced as such. This particular dilemma is precisely why I thought it was a bad idea to throw all their weight behind the system like this, I don't think it's ready yet. Of course, we have no way of knowing if it's ready since we're still working on vague definitions of the 'black magic' actually required to trip the sensor. For all we know it's actually working 100% perfectly, but I suspect that isn't the case.

Matt

[MrForbes]

Originally Posted by Matt Krass

Of course, we have no way of knowing if it's ready since we're still working on vague definitions of the 'black magic' actually required to trip the sensor. For all we know it's actually working 100% perfectly, but I suspect that isn't the case.

I talked to someone who should know at AZ, and I get the feeling that it is working 100%.

I'm also eagerly awaiting a Q&A response....

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by squirrel

I don't see an official definition of FORCE in the rules.

I would be fine winning a match because my opposition built a minibot that beat ours up the pole, but failed to TRIGGER the TARGET, which is what the rules require it to do. The rules do not make any exceptions.

I guess the thing to do is ask the head ref at our next regional whether they will be calling minibot races based on the rules, or something else.

Okay, let's just bash at the base of the towers until it triggers. No need to actually race up the pole. So long as we're hitting the pole with our minibot, the minibot is pushing on the tower, which causes the tower to trigger, so it should count.

Fine with me.

Originally Posted by squirrel

I talked to someone who should know at AZ, and I get the feeling that it is working 100%.

I'm also eagerly awaiting a Q&A response....

I can guarantee you from watching the Bayou webcast, it is not working 100%. Not even close.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Okay, let's just bash at the base of the towers until it triggers. No need to actually race up the pole. So long as we're hitting the pole with our minibot, the minibot is pushing on the tower, which causes the tower to trigger, so it should count.

The definition of triggered includes "the act of pushing the bottom disk of the TARGET" as a necessary condition. <G20-B> sees to it that only the minibot does the pushing.

[MrForbes]

I'd like to see a really fast minibot that reverses direction when it returns to the BASE, and goes back up again to make sure the TARGET is TRIGGERED.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by squirrel

I'd like to see a really fast minibot that reverses direction when it returns to the BASE, and goes back up again to make sure the TARGET is TRIGGERED.

That would be neat: install some sort of ratcheting mechanism that is disengaged for the initial ascent. Once it hits the top, it switches output direction, and then winds up for a fixed number of revolutions of the wheels, and then switches direction again (so that it's headed for the top again). Repeat forever.

[MagiChau]

Originally Posted by squirrel

I'd like to see a really fast minibot that reverses direction when it returns to the BASE, and goes back up again to make sure the TARGET is TRIGGERED.

74 already did that. They had a minibot score, then it went down to the base and back up to hit the trigger plate again.

[Matt Krass]

Originally Posted by squirrel

I talked to someone who should know at AZ, and I get the feeling that it is working 100%.

I'm also eagerly awaiting a Q&A response....

I'm sorry but I don't get the feeling. I definitely think it's a lot better, it's certainly an improvement, but it's not ready for prime time yet in my opinion.

Matt

[MrForbes]

Originally Posted by Adam Freeman

Its already bad enough that we spent 6 weeks designing a HOSTBOT that can achieve all the tasks of this game at a very high level, only to have it marginalized by a minibot that every team can build in one day.

I'd like to offer another perspective on this....

We have a mediocre HOSTBOT that designed and built itself, without any effort on our part. It can play at the 90th percentile at an "easy" regional.

A couple of times during our matches, our HOSTBOT had a GAME PIECE right there ready to HANG, but the darn PEG dodged out of the way, and the GAME PIECE fell to the floor.

I wonder if we should have received points in that situation?

[Matt Krass]

Originally Posted by squirrel

I'd like to offer another perspective on this....

We have a mediocre HOSTBOT that designed and built itself, without any effort on our part. It can play at the 90th percentile at an "easy" regional.

A couple of times during our matches, our HOSTBOT had a GAME PIECE right there ready to HANG, but the darn PEG dodged out of the way, and the GAME PIECE fell to the floor.

I wonder if we should have received points in that situation?

I think maybe FIRST is starting to make your brain go in to that oatmeal state....

Seriously though, I think Adam is right, regardless of how well the minibot sensors work, or not, they're a little overweighted in the competition. I've seen a single minibot beat an entire other alliance scoring for the whole game. Just the minibot score. It's kind of frustrating, but it's probably also a topic for another thread.

Matt

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Matt Krass

I think maybe FIRST is starting to make your brain go in to that oatmeal state....

Seriously though, I think Adam is right, regardless of how well the minibot sensors work, or not, they're a little overweighted in the competition. I've seen a single minibot beat an entire other alliance scoring for the whole game. Just the minibot score. It's kind of frustrating, but it's probably also a topic for another thread.

Matt

Analysis of the game scoring should have happened in week 1 of the build season (if not the 1st day).

... and if your alliance cannot score more than the points of 1 minibot then you'd best be able to stop your opponent from launching said minibot.

On topic: The rules state that it is the order of the sensors being triggered by minibots, not the order of minibots to the top of the pole. Lets focus on what triggers (or doesn't trigger) the sensors rather than blame the system when a minibot doesn't trigger the sensors. Does anyone have factual data on the triggering mechinism and its failure modes?

[Matt Krass]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

Analysis of the game scoring should have happened in week 1 of the build season (if not the 1st day).

... and if your alliance cannot score more than the points of 1 minibot then you'd best be able to stop your opponent from launching said minibot.

On topic: The rules state that it is the order of the sensors being triggered by minibots, not the order of minibots to the top of the pole. Lets focus on what triggers (or doesn't trigger) the sensors rather than blame the system when a minibot doesn't trigger the sensors. Does anyone have factual data on the triggering mechinism and its failure modes?

My gripe was with the distribution of the points, just because I'm voicing it now doesn't mean I didn't have a gripe with them in week 1 of build. I don't think it's a question of robot ability, I think it's a question of absurdity, one singular game action should not be able to offset the rest of the game so dramatically, to me that screams unbalanced.

Originally Posted by TheOtherGuy

It sure would be nice if we new all the specifics of the towers, but as it stands, there is a rule that says it is triggered when the sensor trips, and not before then. Sure, the towers may have some degree of unreliability, but if the rules are built that way (and this team update suggests FIRST is standing by their towers), then we all have to play the game they designed, whether we like it or not.

I remember a rule in 2008 that caused large amounts of penalties and was seemingly overdone, but it was a rule, and we all followed it.

I agree that the game should be played by the rules, even if I don't particularly like them. I think it's about time that FIRST gave us some concrete data to work with, if they're going to stand by the towers, we have a right to know what they're (the towers) expecting us to do exactly. I'm honestly getting a pretty sour impression from FIRST on this whole situation.

Matt

[mwtidd]

Originally Posted by Matt Krass

My gripe was with the distribution of the points, just because I'm voicing it now doesn't mean I didn't have a gripe with them in week 1 of build. I don't think it's a question of robot ability, I think it's a question of absurdity, one singular game action should not be able to offset the rest of the game so dramatically, to me that screams unbalanced.

Matt

In qualifications this seems to be true, but as far as Einstein (and many of the finals) goes, the robots will be much more important than the minibots. Teams will need minibots, don't get me wrong, but I don't think they will take home many banners. Minibots are worth at most 50 points, which can be offset by 3 ubertubes and 2 logos. I believe that the game is offset during qualification matches, but creates an incredible dynamic in finals matches.