Team Update 2012-02-14

[Chris is me]

This is week 6 and they redefined a fundamental part of the game, impacting multiple teams' well thought out and carefully crafted designs. I'm far too frustrated to say more right now.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

This is week 6 and they redefined a fundamental part of the game, impacting multiple teams' well thought out and carefully crafted designs. I'm far too frustrated to say more right now.

A couple of years ago they did it after week 1 events

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

This is week 6 and they redefined a fundamental part of the game, impacting multiple teams' well thought out and carefully crafted designs. I'm far too frustrated to say more right now.

This was obviously a strategy that was never going to be allowed. Nevertheless they should have been more careful with their definition of bridge.

This is better than 07 when 111 asked if you could stack robots pre-match for points and the gdc said yes then turned around and made it illegal during the season.

[Aren_Hill]

Originally Posted by Cory

This was obviously a strategy that was never going to be allowed. Nevertheless they should have been more careful with their definition of bridge.

If they respond twice, to two questions asking for the definition of bridge, with an answer that defines that ramp as part of the bridge, on a QnA forum defined as official interpretation, why wouldn't it be allowed?

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Aren_Hill

If they respond twice, to two questions asking for the definition of bridge, with an answer that defines that ramp as part of the bridge, on a QnA forum defined as official interpretation, why wouldn't it be allowed?

Because the intent is clearly to be on top the bridge. If they dont want people hanging from the bridge why would they want you to drive under it to balance?

Its obviously a loophole that they mistakenly opened with their Q&A response.

Obviously you shouldnt have to judge intent and the Q&A needs massive improvement but nobody should be surprised at this update.

[gurellia53]

We are given a definition. We design around that definition. The definition changes but the deadlines don't. Sounds kind of like engineering...

Originally Posted by Cory

nobody should be surprised at this update.

Ok, in the future I will push my team's designs away from being creative and no more thinking outside the box.

[GW Kalrod]

Originally Posted by gurellia53

We are given a definition. We design around that definition. The definition changes but the deadlines don't. Sounds kind of like engineering...



Ok, in the future I will push my team's designs away from being creative and no more thinking outside the box.

Not the purpose at all, look at the breakaway finals. You just have to be prepared for rule changes.

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by gurellia53

We are given a definition. We design around that definition. The definition changes but the deadlines don't. Sounds kind of like engineering...



Ok, in the future I will push my team's designs away from being creative and no more thinking outside the box.

Part of engineering is anticipating what your customers want. Ever worked a project before it's fully funded? I have, and it was because if I didn't I wouldn't have met the schedule expectations. How creative teams get with that anticipation is 100% on the teams.

If FRC were the open marketplace, the GDC basically just said customers aren't going to buy cute little troll bots with pink hair. If this were the government or a large company who put out an interactive RFP, this is like them saying "that's not what we meant". And "that's not what we meant" was almost a weekly occurrence on some of my projects.

So Swamp Thing -- does your bot still comply? I'm not sure what all encompasses the "Bridge Base", but from a first look it still does.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by JesseK

Part of engineering is anticipating what your customers want.

Yup. I'm actually pleased that FIRST is moving even more toward a non-positivist rules set, wherein reasonable interpretation of intent guides design. It's much more realistic...

...at least FIRST doesn't change parameters like footprint, weight, and allowable power sources during the build season -- that would be an even more realistic engineering project!

[its da PAT!!!]

I remember in 07', we got to champs and they told us that if any part of a tube was touching your ramp then the lift didn't count. Which made us very mad.

[BrendanB]

Wait, people were surprised by this update?

[Aren_Hill]

Originally Posted by BrendanB

Wait, people were surprised by this update?

The fact it's week 6 and we had some things based off the "official" answer to two QandA questions, that were "official interpretations", yes I am surprised by it.

Engineering drawings don't have gray area, the one they referenced even had the balloon breakouts labeling every part, and they used that twice as answers to what defined "the bridge", you'd think if they were referencing a drawing they could at least read the list that is on the page for the sole purpose of quickly showing what is included in an assembly....

[ThirteenOfTwo]

Tough luck for the teams who built a design around this concept, but I have to say I saw this one coming a million miles away. To me, it was always obvious that the intent of the rule was to get you to balance while only touching the top of the bridge. Since the Q&A that defined the bridge wasn't related, you probably should have been a little more suspicious about this one.

I feel like they definitely should have had a ruling out on this sooner, though.

[lemiant]

Even though this doesn't affect us, this makes me really mad . I remember when I was at champs in 2008 and one of the teams had a base that couldn't move and a crane that picked up the ball and moved it around the field. They won their regional, but the GDC screwed them between then and champs by changing the rules to make their strategy illegal. This seems wrong. Think how discouraging it would be to any teams who did use this strategy.

I don't like the comparison to engineering either. This is not engineering, this is a sport. The objective is to compete within the framework defined by the rules. The rules should be static and not open to killing edge-case designs. No one changes the rules of hockey because they came up with a new play. Even battlebots had the decency to let Son of Wyachi ride it's lawyering to a victory before changing the rules next season.

My 2 cents,

- Alex

[IndySam]

Originally Posted by its da PAT!!!

I remember in 07', we got to champs and they told us that if any part of a tube was touching your ramp then the lift didn't count. Which made we very mad.

It was worse that that, they said any part of the robot.

In the first match we had two robots on top of us and they ruled that our arm was touching a tube so it didn't count. The ruling was that the the tube was supporting us!