A plead to FIRST, anyone else agree?

[FRC4ME]

I have a couple of things to add to this thread:

1. Competition vs. coopertition: this has come up every year that I can remember (that would be 2007 and onward) and people are always complaining about rules, penalties, and seeding systems that discourage defense and "take the competition out of the game," so they say. "On the field you should play to win." Of course you should play to win! FIRST wants you to play to win; in 2010 GDC altered the seeding system after Week 1 to specifically clarify that teams are supposed to play to win.

Do not confuse rules against defense with rules against winning. It becomes more and more obvious to me each year that FIRST wants us to do one thing: build a robot that achieves the scoring challenge. It's that simple. We should play to win by scoring points, not by stopping other teams from scoring points. How do you beat a top-notch scoring team? Build something that can score better.

FIRST are not a bunch of hippie communists for wanting us to do this, but they simply encourage scoring for two reasons. First, GDC spends months developing a unique challenge for us each year; they want to see more teams tackling that challenge rather than building a brick on wheels. Second, this is how it works in the real world. What can you do if your competitor is beating you? Pretty much one of two options: (1) design a better product or (2) do something to hamper the effectiveness of your competitor's product. Option (1) leads to better technology for everyone; option (2) usually leads to an antitrust lawsuit. I'm glad FIRST is training future engineers to choose option (1).

Of course, for the competition itself to be fun it must involve some defense. I don't think recent games have gone so far as to prohibit this. Design a robot to play the game, and you have no penalties to worry about. Play defense when necessary, but be aware that it is risky - just as in the real world - and don't make it your primary focus. Above all, have fun, and remember that the competition season is only a small part of the FRC experience.

2. Do you think an average FRC game has more convoluted rules than American football, basketball, and baseball? Not even close. Yet those three sports are immensely popular. Many - probably a majority - of spectators who watch those sports do not understand the nuances of all of the rules, yet they still seem to enjoy watching the games.

FIRST doesn't need to dumb down the challenge to make the game fun to watch.

[jason701802]

Originally Posted by E. Wood

That’s why the two highest awards given have nothing to do with the robots performance but instead with a team’s ability to achieve the goals of FIRST. If you are unsure of what these goals are visit the FIRST website and read their mission statement.

I so wish this were true. The Chairman's award and the Engineering Inspiration award are not given to the teams that do the best to spread the word of FIRST, instead they are given to the teams to best spread the word FIRST. It has become virtually impossible for a team to win the Chairman's without starting a FRC or FTC team and mentoring tens of FLL teams. We live in a small, fairly isolated community that is incapable of supporting another FRC team. Why can't we be given credit for showing kids what is so great about science and technology and for getting people together in our community instead of getting a few people involved with a FRC or FTC team. It can be very had to convince people that FIRST is so great when the cost per person is so high and similar benefits can be had without being directly involved in FIRST.

I am not saying that FIRST does not benefit those involved in incredible ways or that it is not an incredible program, just that FIRST involvement is not the only way to get kids excited about math, science and engineering, and that FIRST needs to recognize this fact.

Originally Posted by E. Wood

2. Do you think an average FRC game has more convoluted rules than American football, basketball, and baseball? Not even close. Yet those three sports are immensely popular. Many - probably a majority - of spectators who watch those sports do not understand the nuances of all of the rules, yet they still seem to enjoy watching the games.

FIRST doesn't need to dumb down the challenge to make the game fun to watch.

Yes, but the "major" sports work because they have the same rules year after year and the general goal is simple. Having a new game each year is part of what makes FIRST so fun, but if FIRST wants more people walking in from the streets, they need to create games that can be concisely described. Breakaway and Aim High are good examples of this, Lunacy wasn't even that bad, but I think this years game may have been the worst in my 10 years of FIRST (in terms on simplicity and explain-ability).

[AndyH]

This year especially, I have several concerns with FIRST. I realize that they have a right to do as they choose, but we have a responsibility to evaluate our participation in FIRST.

Here are two of the things bugging me:

1 - Where is Woodie? He is the educator; Dean is the salesman. In my opinion, FIRST is heading away from the former and toward the latter.

2 - Whatever we do, FIRST is always asking for more. Not, "We know that schools are really cutting budgets, and we appreciate that you have made this a priority. Let's talk about how we can keep this affordable." Instead they ask, "What can YOU do for FIRST? How can you get more teams involved, etc?" Perhaps they should also focus on keeping current teams involved. FIRST seems to no longer care about sustaining. Growth is the only goal, and it's HUGE for them. In my opinion, this has gotten more and more obvious over the past few years.

Notes - I know that they have done the light bulbs. That doesn't actually help make the program more affordable. It's more promotion for FIRST. A REAL savings would be to not require us to use motors that burn out frequently and are $20 to replace. For FTC, Lego is clearly making a fortune.

Also, we DID try to get people involved. We made a huge deal in our community to get people excited about the championships. Now we don't even know if there will be room for them to sit, but that's another thread...

[mwtidd]

Originally Posted by FRC4ME

2. Do you think an average FRC game has more convoluted rules than American football, basketball, and baseball? Not even close. Yet those three sports are immensely popular. Many - probably a majority - of spectators who watch those sports do not understand the nuances of all of the rules, yet they still seem to enjoy watching the games.

FIRST doesn't need to dumb down the challenge to make the game fun to watch.

Well first one key difference between the rules of most sports and first is scoring.

Multiplicative scoring is absurd. It didn't make sense in 05 or 07 so why try it again now.

In every sport scoring is summation based. In basketball and football, you have the opportunity for extra points, but for the most sports your score a goal, you get x points for it.

In football, you may not understand all the penalties, or even the scoring, but you can quickly be told the goal and understand the basic idea.

Logomotion, not so much.

The problem is the way FIRST games are played. I understand the reason for autonomous / teleop / end game, but undertsanding this means to describe the basic format of the game, you have to describe 3 games each uniquely distinct, with distinct rules.

I would like to see all 3 of these incorporated into a single task making the game one game, but incorporating all of these elements, autonomous, teleop, and bonus.

I know nearly everyone would disagree with me, but end game takes away from the "game" aspect. No other sport or game has a concept of the end game. I will say that end games are very exciting for spectators, but maybe there is an alternative way of incorporating endgame in a field goal type manner. A fieldgoal / 2pt conversion doesnt break the flow of football, its not like its a completely different task than typical football play. I think having the endgame a natural extension of the game would be a cool idea. I think lunacy had something like this and overdrive did this very well. Also I'd like to see autonomous incorporated into the game, create a dead zone or something, where robots can only accomplish certain goals using autonomous, rather than having an autonomous period. Image the 2x ball in 04 only being able to be acquired using autonomous. This way autonomous would give you a distinct advantage, but during a match we wouldn't have 15 seconds of 1/3 of the robots moving. I think it would create an interesting dynamic to autonomous, that doesnt currently exist. Also then matches could be 3 minutes long, no 2 minutes with a different game at the beginning and the end.

Basically sports have crazy rules, with many outliers, but the basic idea is easy to understand, and you catch on to critical outliers very quickly. I think FIRST can learn a lot from sports, and not detract from the challenge in doing so. Also linear scoring is important too...

but knowing first, next year we'll see binary or exponential scoring

[Enigma's puzzle]

I definately don't agree with the bashing of Gracious Professionalism, and Coopertition. You say that they detract from the competition, however your dead wrong. Although it seems like they use the words too much, but if I had a patented word... it would appear in as many sentences as I could swing it.


Gracious Professionalism:
How many Sports have trash talk? I don't know if you have ever played any competitive sports, but it is quite demoralizing getting beaten badly, and then reminded by your opponents. I have yet to see that in FIRST, as is the goal of Gracious Professionalism. It keeps people from getting demoralized to the point of anger, and hopefully instead drives them to work harder.

Coopertition:
Improvements can always be made. Some other team is always going to know something you don't, and you should be able to learn from them. But if they keep everything a secret, its going to be difficult. Since the goal of the competition is to learn, being open and helpful is essential, thus Coopertition.

[cyberjoek]

Originally Posted by lineskier

A fieldgoal / 2pt conversion doesnt break the flow of football, its not like its a completely different task than typical football play.

Actually this was exactly the example I was going to go for but as the opposite proof.

For 95% of the game of American Football teams do not want the ball to touch the ground and they use their hands to carry or throw the ball towards pre-marked zones at each end of the field.

In the other 5% a specialized player enters the field to put the ball on the ground then send it through specially marked Vision Targets (also referred to as Uprights).

Each competitive teams needs one or two people who can perform the specialized action in order to win (in some games the majority of points comes from the specialized action).

The difference is in FIRST we move all the field goals to the end of the game and it's not an iconic standard thing that has been there since the beginning of time.

-Joe Kavanagh

[Cuog]

I would say I have very mixed opinions on some of this. I guess I'll start with the bad and end with the good for those that like to be a little more optimistic.

First and foremost in my mind is the cult like nature of FIRST lately(maybe longer but its struck me heavily in the past few years). The current expansion methods seem right out of the cult playbook, there's #1(Dean) that everyone needs to worship for his amazingness($$ Segway etc.), next get some celebs to talk about you for a second and publicize that sentence to death. Don't forget the most important thing you can do as a member of FIRST is to get more people to join. My opinion is that this is the wrong way to grow FIRST. It is a great program focused on gracious professionalism and mentorship, and I think if it were allowed to grow naturally the program would be so much better for the students. I think that the push for more is leaving those who have already joined FIRST out in the cold. It's a little bit of one in hand two in bush scenario, and I wish FIRST would stop dropping the kids in hand to chase those hiding in the bushes.

Second, and what hit me hard, is the focus on Engineering only. For those that forgot FIRST = For Inspiration and Recognition of SCIENCE and Technology. This past year, I have stepped up a lot more to what has been the hardest challenge for me so far: mentoring my old team. During my time mentoring I've spoken with a number of people from educators, business people, members of FIRST, parents, and many more. All of them are excited to hear about the help I've given in sharing my experience with the students, and helping the bridge the generational gap. They're excited to hear my personal projects, building a small machine shop, the cars I'm building, the electrical and programming challenges I give myself build amplifiers and gadgets. Then things turn, they ask what I'm studying in school. I tell them Environmental Science. They all give me the same look that says nothing more than "Oh, what a waste" and the conversation is over. All through High School, I didn't know what I wanted to do for a living, but I knew I liked building things. I came from a line of engineers, I enjoyed FIRST, so everyone everywhere told me to become an engineer, it seemed to make sense, so I did. When I got to engineering I found it very much wasn't for me. While I've been pretty decent at math and problem solving, it just pulled the soul out of me, and I had no desire to continue. It turned out my passion had been machining, something I've been working on heavily in my spare time with what little money I have to spare. My area of study moved to one of my interests that most people wouldn't guess: Environmental Science. Had anyone spoken up against the wave of engineering to encourage me to pursue machining originally I would have taken it, but instead, I got to take the long way.

They're small problems, but I feel they're the cause of most of the things I hear complaints about, and I think they're holding back FIRST's potential to be truly great.

Now the good:
Spectator games: I know FIRST isn't as successful at this as some would like, but I am glad they are making the effort, and I hope with practice they become proficient at making games enjoyable to watch, and enjoyable to design toward.

Mentorship:
When I was a student on the team my team prided itself in being 100% student run/managed/led, because we didn't have the advantage of working with skilled mentors, I feel that I missed out on a good opportunity. I'm glad that is not the direction FIRST is taking, and I am quite glad my team has left that tradition as well.

Coopertition:
I'm glad to see this idea embodied in FIRST as well. A level of competition is a great fuel for creativity. I very much like the way this is balanced with the idea of cooperation. Some years the execution in the competition isn't optimal as some have already given details. I feel we should all forgive what is such a small misstep in the scheme of things.

For the TLDR crowd:
FIRST needs to stop being a cult, and remember they're for more than just engineering.
FIRST has done great at making an accessible competition focusing on mentorship and coopertition and should continue to improve these aspects of the organization.

As far as the "nerd issue" I would just like to point out that mainstreaming typically nerdy ideas seems to be very successful; just look at the success of recent movies like Tron, Star Trek, Lord of the Rings etc. coming from a nerd heritage can be very advantageous, but that doesn't mean you need to embody the downsides of nerddom. Keep the good and throw out the rest, and make it better.

[mwtidd]

Originally Posted by cyberjoek

Actually this was exactly the example I was going to go for but as the opposite proof.

For 95% of the game of American Football teams do not want the ball to touch the ground and they use their hands to carry or throw the ball towards pre-marked zones at each end of the field.

In the other 5% a specialized player enters the field to put the ball on the ground then send it through specially marked Vision Targets (also referred to as Uprights).

Each competitive teams needs one or two people who can perform the specialized action in order to win (in some games the majority of points comes from the specialized action).

The difference is in FIRST we move all the field goals to the end of the game and it's not an iconic standard thing that has been there since the beginning of time.

-Joe Kavanagh

Actually if you are breaking down football like this, the goal is not to not have the ball touch the ground, but rather for you not to touch the ground.

Your goal is to score, and there are 2 main ways to score. To kick a ball through the uprights, or to move forward into an endzone.

The only way you can move forward is to run or throw the ball.

At the core this is football.


I don't view football in terms of time to accomplish various tasks, but rather the various tasks that must be completed. Actually if you look at football in general, time really isn't a core factor. Obviously as you get deeper into it time becomes a factor, but for a basic understanding of football, time is not needed.

I guess I would break it down the basis for a game to 2 core questions.

How do you score?
How do you play?

In your definition you focus on the state of the ball, rather than the state of the game. The fact that a player puts the ball on the ground to kick a field goal really is unimportant to playing football.

In football where it is a turn based game, the third question I would answer is:

When does a turn end?

When defining problems, it is helpful to break it down into its core elements. I fear that FIRST tends to take your approach when defining games, rather than taking a spectators approach.

To define a game in the way you have, imagine soccer. Try defining soccer in terms of players and goalies. In describing the game of soccer, the goalie is traditionally introduced after the game has been introduced.

[E. Wood]

Originally Posted by jason701802

I so wish this were true. The Chairman's award and the Engineering Inspiration award are not given to the teams that do the best to spread the word of FIRST, instead they are given to the teams to best spread the word FIRST. It has become virtually impossible for a team to win the Chairman's without starting a FRC or FTC team and mentoring tens of FLL teams. We live in a small, fairly isolated community that is incapable of supporting another FRC team. Why can't we be given credit for showing kids what is so great about science and technology and for getting people together in our community instead of getting a few people involved with a FRC or FTC team. It can be very had to convince people that FIRST is so great when the cost per person is so high and similar benefits can be had without being directly involved in FIRST.

I am not saying that FIRST does not benefit those involved in incredible ways or that it is not an incredible program, just that FIRST involvement is not the only way to get kids excited about math, science and engineering, and that FIRST needs to recognize this fact.

I actually had the same thought many years ago. Both of the team I have worked with are from small rural areas with a limited amount of resources. I was under the impression that only "big city team" could win. I however pressed forwarded a a few years later we won. At the time we had a few FLL teams but that was it as far as other FIRST teams go. We did have a lot of community outreach and stories of how we had changed our culture using the principles of FIRST. The presentation is the biggest part of Chairman's Award. Highlighting your teams strengths is a must.

[wireties]

Originally Posted by Seathan93

The game itself mostly, although seeing as it was the 20th anniversary, that makes more sense than it did initially. Also the video they put up on the splash page during the first week of build season.

if you haven't seen it, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmyVK...eature=related

We could do away with the shameless advertising (which is mostly designed to attract sponsors) by paying $10K per regional - which would be crazy!

[playbass06]

1. The "true" message of FIRST is great, but it does not need to be repeated 200,000 times.
Agreed, but to a point it is necessary to make sure teams get it. There are those who still don't get it's not about the robot alone, and this repetition of the FIRST message will eventually get through to them. I think that's their though process behind it.

2. Go back to more competition, you're beginning to lack in the competitive part of coopertition.
Agreed, there is far too much coopertition. I'm here to have some fun in the game, and that fun is killed when you have matches that are complete shutouts. I don't like how ranking points are based on the opposing alliance score, especially since you can't score for them this year. Breakaway made it okay because you could always turn around and score for the other team, but this year you simply have to pray they get a minibot up.
I say this - complete cooperation off the field, complete competition on the field. This would probably make it more spectator-friendly as well.

3. Enough of the shameless advertising. FIRST is not about the robots, great, but it's not about the politics either, nor is it about FIRST, it's about the future and inspiring our generation, and the next one.
I somewhat agree, and there are things that are being put in place to make a point of this, like the Dean's List award (congratulations to all you finalists!). I really don't think this is happening as you see it, though. I think that FIRST is advertising exactly what you want them to - inspiring our and the next generation. I do have to agree with a previous poster that some celebrity guests are a bit too much, though.

4. Robotics is nerdy. The sooner that is accepted, and embraced, the sooner FIRST can confidently attract others to the program. Nothing says "nerds, beware" like a sign saying "hehehe, it's not nerdy"
Like many before me have said, being a nerd is not a bad thing. We take pride in it. I think the best thing would be to simply stop trying to say anything about nerdiness, be it for or against it. Let people see it as they like, and you'll get students from both sides joining up.

5. You were on a good track with the "spectator friendly" game breakaway, continue on that track.
Breakaway was easy to keep track of due to its simple scoring, but someone (I can't remember who now) mentioned the fact that its goals were on opposite sides, which made it harder for spectators to grasp the concept or follow the game quite as well. I definitely see your point here, and I'd never really thought about that aspect. But there are a lot of sports that have two goals (football, soccer, basketball, etc...) such as this, so I don't think it plays into it very much at all. Maybe I misunderstood and you meant one goal was confusing. I've only been on the team since Lunacy, which was just ridiculous (moving goals aren't a good idea), and I'm split between Breakaway and Logomotion in terms of which was the best. Logomotion is definitely harder to score but I'd say it is more exciting - there's a lot of suspense involved in the gameplay, and some unique defensive robots (3528 and 2240 are the two I've seen with the expandable design, which was pretty cool) make for some very interesting matches.
I don't think the problem is complex scoring, though. I think it's the time it takes to get the final score and how it sometimes differs greatly from what was expected. If FIRST ever gets a completely automatic scoring system, spectators will have no problem following it.

[Seathan93]

Originally Posted by playbass06

4. Robotics is nerdy. The sooner that is accepted, and embraced, the sooner FIRST can confidently attract others to the program. Nothing says "nerds, beware" like a sign saying "hehehe, it's not nerdy"
Like many before me have said, being a nerd is not a bad thing. We take pride in it. I think the best thing would be to simply stop trying to say anything about nerdiness, be it for or against it. Let people see it as they like, and you'll get students from both sides joining up.

I'm not sure whether people just misinterpreted what I said, or jumped down to the summary but:

What I was basically trying to get across is exactly what you said, that we should just stop trying to say anything about it. The accepting it was more towards, that's how most people who are NOT involved with engineering or robotics or FIRST view this competition. Basically, when talking about FIRST, mention all the good things about it, but don't even mention the nerdy/cool aspect of it.