Please fix auto

[ajd]

Originally Posted by Mike Soukup

Back to the topic. I agree with Don, once a vast majority of the teams show a capability to complete - or at a bare minimum, attempt - the autonomous challenge then FIRST should consider upping it. Until then, I'll happily take extra nights off after the robot ships instead of staying late to fiddle with autonomous.

In my opinion, this argument against more challenging autonomous modes is not quite valid. It doesn't take into account the fact that increasing the complexity/importance of autonomous mode w.r.t. the game as a whole would cause teams to actually create better autonomous programs because the importance of autonomous mode would be increased in the decision calculus of how much time to spend on different tasks. Our team (and, I suspect, many others) does not prioritize autonomous programming because (a) it is the last thing that can be done, often requiring a fully put-together robot to be tuned effectively, and (b) it is simply less valuable than the mechanical pieces in terms of scoring well in the game. If FIRST gave teams more incentive to produce good code, teams would put more effort into it, and more students would learn more about control systems.

For example, in this last year's game, autonomous mode was worth a fairly significant number of points, but it relied on a team having a fully tested and operational autonomous in order to receive any reward. Why not allow "partial credit" - some points for doing the first (easy) step of autonomous, and then increasing points earned as teams accomplished more autonomously. (In 2011, this could have been, say, 3 points for following the line to the alliance wall in addition to the Ubertube bonus.) This would make it profitable for even rookie teams to create simple autonomous programs, giving them experience that they could build on in future years.

[WizenedEE]

I think that from this thread alone we can see how devalued programming is. People are saying, "We shouldn't put teams at a huge disadvantage just because they don't have good programmers," which people seem to agree with, but nobody would agree with, "We shouldn't put teams at a huge disadvantage just because they don't have good engineers/mechanical folk."

I really like the idea of having an autonomous mode that gets you small points for something small and big points for something big. Last year, it was easy to score if you were in the front zone since the goal was relatively large from that distance, so a novice team could just have a dead reckoning program that was dead easy. Then, the better teams could score three goals from the far zone, which was much harder. Sadly, the whole thing was ruined by the lack of bonus points for autonomous. (It would take about three seconds for the drivers to do the same thing that autonomous did.)

[Tom Line]

Originally Posted by lemiant

And yet even spectacular auto like 233 (sorry I haven't seen the others) is worth very little to the game, it ends up being a challenge they did just to prove they could do it. 233 would get at most 24 extra points for that work in a 150 point game. Its not an equivalency that encourages teams to finish early or put resources into auto.

I think you may be drastically underestimating the importance of autonomous.

FRC isn't about making autonomous the over-riding priority of the game. However, most years it is extremely important.

For instance, a working two tube autonomous was an absolutely incredible boost to the teams that had it.

Now, if your robot wasn't going to be in the top 15 anyway, you're right in that it didn't matter quite so much. However, if you were one of the 8-10 teams that were usually tied or within one match of eachother at the top of the ranking board, it was crucial.

Two tube autonomous was worth 24 points. Only a handful of teams in the country did it consistently. I would wager a steak dinner that 24 points could win you a WHOLE lot of matches.

Indeed, in breakaway, a 2 or 3 ball auton and a consistent lift would win you something like 90% of the week one and two maches. Go look at the final scores on einstein that year and tell me that autonomous wasn't important as well.

[Don Wright]

Originally Posted by ajd

For example, in this last year's game, autonomous mode was worth a fairly significant number of points, but it relied on a team having a fully tested and operational autonomous in order to receive any reward. Why not allow "partial credit" - some points for doing the first (easy) step of autonomous, and then increasing points earned as teams accomplished more autonomously. (In 2011, this could have been, say, 3 points for following the line to the alliance wall in addition to the Ubertube bonus.) This would make it profitable for even rookie teams to create simple autonomous programs, giving them experience that they could build on in future years.

I'm sorry, but I would consider driving forward straight (and even using lego type programming of following the line) and hanging a tube on the lower or even the middle rack as a perfect example of partial credit and a very easy auton that should be able to be done by everyone.

I'm talking about the number of robots that still don't even move (not counting the ones holding a tube for other teams to run double auton).

The fact that teams spend time creating two or three tube autons to make up for their partners because they know that there will be a lot of teams with poor or no auton shows how deep the problem really is. When failure is expected, it's sad.

At least this year, teams could actually do something about it to make up for it. Last year they could do a little (cross the humps)... But, in all previous years it was very hard to overcome other teams poor or non-existent auton by yourself (except 1114 in 2008 when they would just do 17 laps by themselves in auton)....

[Mr. Lim]

If a student of mine raised these concerns, my response to them would be simple:

"Talk to me when you've consistently hung 3 ubertubes in competition"

How many ubertubes did your team hang? Answer honestly, and you'll find out 95% of FRC teams still can't properly program with encoders and gyros. That includes your team, and mine - we only had a 1-tube auton, and it was a significant disadvantage when faced up against 1114 and 2056. We haven't yet mastered the encoder and gyro.

Until then, you've proven nothing, and have no good reason to be asking for anything "more difficult." Show that you understand encoders and gyros first, and can do them well. Show that you can have more fun doing something "simple" that works extremely well, every single time, then something "fun" that barely works at all.

As for autonomous being worth "only" 24 points in a 150 game... talk to a veteran strategian on any team that could consistently score over 120 points. Ask them just how important those paltry 24+ autonomous points were...

[Jogo]

It is very obvious that in most recent games, a lack of a nicely-optimized autonomous mode is much less costly than a lack of a nicely-optimized manipulator. Veteran teams have dedicated programmers who can handle more. If 75% of teams don't want to bother allocating enough resources to software, then of course they should be penalized. This is robotics, not RC-car building.