2013 Lessons Learned: The Negative

[Jay O'Donnell]

There isn't very much, but FIRST can't be changing big rules at the end of build season, our team built a ground intake because we thought human players would be able to throw lots of frisbees full field. Also, real time scoring was a problem.

[bardd]

Originally Posted by Jay Money 1058

There isn't very much, but FIRST can't be changing big rules at the end of build season, our team built a ground intake because we thought human players would be able to throw lots of frisbees full field.

FIRST changed that rule as it was a major safety hazard they didn't forsee and didn't know about until the week 7 scrimmages, I do not hold it against them, even though I understand your point.

[Jay O'Donnell]

Originally Posted by bardd

FIRST changed that rule as it was a major safety hazard they didn't forsee and didn't know about until the week 7 scrimmages, I do not hold it against them, even though I understand your point.

I know that was the reason, and I definitely agree to it, but 3 days before build season ended was just poor timing.

[bardd]

Originally Posted by Jay Money 1058

I know that was the reason, and I definitely agree to it, but 3 days before build season ended was just poor timing.

Oh... Sorry I must have misread your post.

And while we're at it I think FIRST should test their games actually playing matches. I don't know if they do or not, but I think if they did it would prevent this sort of things from happening. It'll be terrible logistically for the GDC though.

[rsisk]

The inconsistency of counting game pieces at some regionals.
The video quality on the webcast of some regionals. Would love this to be consistent and good.

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by bardd

And while we're at it I think FIRST should test their games actually playing matches. I don't know if they do or not, but I think if they did it would prevent this sort of things from happening. It'll be terrible logistically for the GDC though.

Not to derail too much, but from talking with Mr. Merrick about this at Northern Lights/ Lake Superior Regionals this year, he explained a bit about their testing process for games-- basically the have their challenge, and HQ builds some preliminary designs (he was very clear that these were not something any team would want on their robot) in order to see how "hard" a given challenge is. I was going to ask him how they tested something like a 30-point climb would be tested, but unfortunately our time ran a bit short.

So no, from talking with Mr. Merrick, they don't test actual match play, but rather individual mechanisms. I agree that some "internal" matches, or even some better analysis (for example, of the "blizzard") might be in order, especially for a game as complex and awesome as Ultimate Ascent.

[PVCpirate]

Originally Posted by sentientfungus

So no, from talking with Mr. Merrick, they don't test actual match play, but rather individual mechanisms. I agree that some "internal" matches, or even some better analysis (for example, of the "blizzard") might be in order, especially for a game as complex and awesome as Ultimate Ascent.

This was hashed out when the rule change was made, but I still don't get how the GDC didn't see the blizzard coming.

[Steven Donow]

Originally Posted by PVCpirate

This was hashed out when the rule change was made, but I still don't get how the GDC didn't see the blizzard coming.

They had too much confident in the atheltic ability of the FRC community