Here's the problem with the minibot

[LightWaves1636]

The head ref at Alamo said he learned from someone on the GDC that the minibot race was going to be the last minibot wins instead of the first one but then they changed their minds last minute over it.
I found that to be interesting.

[Stephen Liggett]

Originally Posted by LightWaves1636

The head ref at Alamo said he learned from someone on the GDC that the minibot race was going to be the last minibot wins instead of the first one but then they changed their minds last minute over it.
I found that to be interesting.

That would be interesting! I'd bet most teams would still build the fastest possible minibot and play chicken at the last second.

We made two minibots from pieces in the FTC kit of parts, a piece of PVC we already had, one extra motor, and an extra battery. We never had a sub 1 second minibot, nor one that would win every race. But when we DID deploy, we got our minibot to the tower before the 9 second mark, and hit the top every time. We made it up in around 3 seconds, but unless we were rammed during deployment, our minibot went up. Money wise, we only bought the extra battery and motor. The rest was made from the FTC kit of parts. While I think FIRST was encouraging creativity in the minibots, I think they also wanted to see what we would do with the parts we were given, and how we could manipulate that to our advantage.

Personally, I think this year's endgame was alright. Not bad, but not the best I've seen. On the down side, it's the only endgame I know of where an opposing alliance can legally stop you from receiving points. On the up side, it gave teams something new and different to consider when designing their robots, with the whole deployment and rules effecting deployment.

[PayneTrain]

To design, test, improve, and enter the best series of minibots and win the Coopertition award at the VA Regional, we spent ~$2,700 dollars for minibot construction.

For non-KOP robot construction: not even half that.

That's my gripe about it. Unless your team made more than one, younger/smaller teams can be screwed out of victories simply through money.

2010 could have pizza boxes on wheels and be competitive. Not anymore.

[rsisk]

If only they had made the minibot race to be the last one to reach the top before the end of the game, now that would have been interesting

Edit: Shoot didn't see LightWave1636 post above. We must have talked to the same people ;>

[JohnBoucher]

Same points for all teams finishing is a very interesting twist.

[Chris Hibner]

I like the "complete the task - get the points", but I would like to add a twist: once your minibot scores the points - your hostbot is disabled (also, you must trigger the tower before the match expires).

One thing I haven't liked over the past few years is the defined endgame: "thou shalt only play the end game after the sound comes from on high". I like the old end games that require a little gamesmanship (like 2000/2003/2004).

Getting the points for a minibot regardless of time but disabling the hostbot would be a really fun twist to the game.

1) It would benefit FAST minibots since the hostbot could continue to score until the last second and then go deploy.

2) I would benefit SLOW (but repeatable) minibots since the team could theoretically deploy it with 30 seconds to go and then continue to score tubes until their minibot scored and their hostbot gets disabled.

Deploy too late and you don't hit the target until after the match ends: too bad - you cut it too close.

[Jared Russell]

There are many issues with the minibot competition this year, and I fear we haven't seen the end of controversy yet. On both ends of the minibot race, there have been documented problems. Even in week 6, there were issues with towers failing to trigger. And we are relying on human eyes to decide whether or not you deployed early by 1/100th of a second. On Einstein, where there are sure to be several ~1 second minibots, an early deploy can mean the difference between 1st and 4th.

In our second to last qualification match of the Philly Regional, a ref decided that we deployed early. It was freeze-frame close - I maintain (as do all of the spectators I spoke to from a number of teams who saw it) that the driver simply timed it perfectly. But the tower was disabled, and the 40 point swing (-30 for us, +10 to opponent) cost us the match and the #1 seed. The referees watching the towers (at least at Regionals) are not head referees, and have had little formal training. Yet they have the power to make a judgement call in 1/100th of a second that can decide an event.

Ultimately, you cannot blame referees for not having perfect vision and timing. But a game whose outcome can be almost completely decided by such calls is fundamentally flawed (and the higher the level of competition, the more likely such an event becomes).

It is what it is, and I know I will not be disappointed once Logomotion is over (though I know LEGO/Tetrix will be).

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by LightWaves1636

The head ref at Alamo said he learned from someone on the GDC that the minibot race was going to be the last minibot wins instead of the first one but then they changed their minds last minute over it.
I found that to be interesting.

That would be a terribly boring endgame. The 7 elementary/middle school kids I had at DC were excited because the minibots were FAST. I don't think I'd like to watch a "last place wins" race, ever.

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

My proposal:
Slightly fancier towers with multiple scoring zones marked along the length.
15 pts for triggering the tower.
10 pts for stopping the minibot in the correct, randomly determined scoring zone.

Depending on the difficulty you're aiming for, the random zone could be told to teams at the start of the match, told to the robot through the fms, or indicated on the pole via lights, an electromagnet placed inside the pipe, or something else.

I love this idea.

Any offseason events thinking about going to a flat rate for the minibot race?

[Team 288]

Originally Posted by Stephen Liggett

The motors are $30 and the Batteries cost $50. The starting point is $110.

Ah! I forgot about the batteries! (We have three FTC team so we already had 12)
So it's about 150 per minibot =)

[thefro526]

I think this is a very good thread full of very good insight and I sincerely thank the OP for making this.

My biggest problem with the Mini-bot is that it was created in an attempt to spur the growth of Tetrix. Essentially FIRST created an unnecessary burden on teams, both financially and in the thinning of resources within teams, because they wanted us to build "FTC robots." Anyone who has made or seen a sub 1.5 second Mini-bot, heck even a sub 2.5 second Mini-bot knows that they're EXTREMELY far from being FTC robots, or even Tetrix Robots.

IMO, I think FIRST shot themselves in the foot on this one anyway. I've yet to hear anything positive about the Tetrix Kit from the FRC teams that I'm close with.

Originally Posted by Jared341

It is what it is, and I know I will not be disappointed once Logomotion is over (though I know LEGO/Tetrix will be).

Jared, I fear that the end of Logomotion will not be the mini-bot.

[Racer26]

Originally Posted by thefro526

I fear that the end of Logomotion will not be the mini-bot.

I too fear that the MINIBOT concept will not die with Logomotion in a few weeks time. I'm afraid we will very likely see a return, probably again with the same political BS surrounding it (no VEX parts, etc).

The feature of this season in FRC that blows me away how little its been talked about on CD is the departure of BOTH Dave Lavery (after 10 seasons) AND Woodie Flowers (after all 20 seasons) from the GDC. Both are still listed as part of the executive advisory board on usfirst.org, and still very much a part of FIRST. I wonder how much their departure has to do with the political squabbling that went on.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=90538

[PayneTrain]

The minibot idea will most likely be a part of the endgame for the foreseeable future. The challenge will be different, but the parts will be the same restrictions.

However, I'm waiting for the game rules in 2012 to tell us that we can't use modified Tetrix motors from before 2012 build. That would be disappointing.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by 1075guy

The feature of this season in FRC that blows me away how little its been talked about on CD is the departure of BOTH Dave Lavery (after 10 seasons) AND Woodie Flowers (after all 20 seasons) from the GDC.

Perhaps this isn't much talked about because naked speculation about peoples' motives founded upon a near-complete lack of data isn't particularly professional or gracious?

[Racer26]

Originally Posted by dlavery

Independently, both Woodie and I made the decision to resign from the GDC last week. I will not speak for Woodie and his reasons why. I will just say that I felt it necessary to reconcile actions and decisions that were being attributed to the GDC with my personal standards for professional behavior. When I perceived that I could no longer be an effective advocate for the teams in a way that would maintain my personal integrity, I felt it was appropriate to remove myself from the committee. End of story.
-dave


.

I don't know that this constitutes a "near-complete" lack of data. What I read from this quote, is that Dave had personal integrity issues with something associated with the interaction between advocating for teams and his duties on the GDC.