2013 Lessons Learned: The Negative

[Negative 9]

Serious Question: Would any of you really give up the awesomeness that was Ultimate Ascent for easier to build field elements?

I definitely think the GDC should do their best to make sure teams have the easiest time possible testing their solutions, but I think the overall quality of the game should come first.

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by Negative 9

Serious Question: Would any of you really give up the awesomeness that was Ultimate Ascent for easier to build field elements?

I definitely think the GDC should do their best to make sure teams have the easiest time possible testing their solutions, but I think the overall quality of the game should come first.

I think we can all agree that the pyramid was not one of the (many) things that made Ultimate Ascent awesome.

[Anupam Goli]

Originally Posted by Oblarg

I think we can all agree that the pyramid was not one of the (many) things that made Ultimate Ascent awesome.

I dunno, I thought it was pretty awesome. Seeing teams actually faced with the decision to go for certain game elements over others was a nice change from 2008-2012's era of do-it-all bots.

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by Oblarg

I think we can all agree that the pyramid was not one of the (many) things that made Ultimate Ascent awesome.

No, we cannot.

[Libby K]

Originally Posted by TEAM1100soft506

I just want to say, as a member of a team who has been around for over 10 years now, the concept of a hall of fame is just plane rediculous. We are here to work and play and spread the message of FIRST. To me, the hall of fame recignizes the teams who have the most money and are able to do great extravagent things with it. Dont get me wrong, they worked hard to earn it, and I am most definitely not knocking philanthropy or the value of becoming a chairmans winning team, but the hall of fame shouldnt exist. It is not fair to have a team like mine who can barely keep afloat, is using old equipment for design, programming, and building our robot, to have to compete against a team like Ms. Daisy (no offence) who has multiple heavy hitter sponsors, is able to travel internationally to show off their robot in the United Kingdom, as well as other wonderfull things like that. I believe that yes these teams types of teams should be an example to others, But I do not believe that other teams should get less of a chance to compete due to financial reasons.

As a lifetime member of the FIRST community and the child of two CCA judges...

...that attitude about the Hall of Fame could point to why your team's not in it.

Your team won an RCA this year. Therefore you were in contention for the Hall of Fame 2013 spot. If you don't want the HoF to exist, why did you even bother presenting? You don't have 'less of a chance to compete' - you just have different resources to work with. Do the best you can with what you have and you're doing perfectly fine.

The Hall of Fame exists as a way to recognize the Championship Chairman's winners. They are our role models. If you think they're only in the HoF for their sponsors, you're straight up wrong. They are there because they've made an impact in spreading the mission and values of FIRST as well as improving the FIRST community from the inside.

I stand by my position - the Hall of Fame deserves bigger and better recognition. Especially to help remind people with attitudes like yours why we HAVE a Hall of Fame.

[CalTran]

Originally Posted by Oblarg

I think we can all agree that the pyramid was not one of the (many) things that made Ultimate Ascent awesome.

Guess I'm not in the same boat then. Yes, the pyramid was a pain. Yes, the thirty point club (And dump club) is smaller than it could have been, but that doesn't make the pyramid as a challenge any less awesome. It was amazing to see how many different ways to scale the pyramid were, and how effective some of the methods were. Seeing the likes of 1114 or 67 rocket their way up the pyramid for a quick dump (Or I suppose spit...), a slow and steady 1810 ascent with a surefire dump (Shout-out to a local team), or even the wild acrobatics of 148 swinging about up and down proved to be one of the most inspiring sights of the season yet.

And the strategic decision of driving under the pyramid vs having a tall FCS was incredible. It lead to a lot of variation in design, a bit of head banging for not thinking of going under the pyramid, and made driving quite the challenge. I loved it.

[AlecMataloni]

Originally Posted by Oblarg

I think we can all agree that the pyramid was not one of the (many) things that made Ultimate Ascent awesome.

Wait, it wasn't?

[PVCpirate]

This is the problem with the webcasts. Most of them ARE NOT WEBCASTS. Most "webcasts" we see consist of what is on the projector screen at the event. These do what they are supposed to, which is to provide close-ups and alternate angles so spectators can get a good look at the robots during each match. They are not ideal and are hard to watch. A few events have real webcasts, designed specifically for those watching online. These are usually just a stationary camera showing the whole field, which is much better. I find that most of these are run by teams or by third parties like a local TV station. If FIRST or an event isn't willing to do this kind of broadcast, maybe teams can pull something together themselves. We can build robots, who thinks we can do this?

[dcarr]

Originally Posted by Oblarg

I think we can all agree that the pyramid was not one of the (many) things that made Ultimate Ascent awesome.

Beg to differ. Conquering the pyramid climb & dump was incredibly crowd-pleasing and a rewarding challenge to undertake because of the high risk/reward. Ultimate Ascent wouldn't have been the same without it (the name alone couldn't be the same).

[CalTran]

Originally Posted by PVCpirate

This is the problem with the webcasts. Most of them ARE NOT WEBCASTS. Most "webcasts" we see consist of what is on the projector screen at the event. These do what they are supposed to, which is to provide close-ups and alternate angles so spectators can get a good look at the robots during each match. They are not ideal and are hard to watch. A few events have real webcasts, designed specifically for those watching online. These are usually just a stationary camera showing the whole field, which is much better. I find that most of these are run by teams or by third parties like a local TV station. If FIRST or an event isn't willing to do this kind of broadcast, maybe teams can pull something together themselves. We can build robots, who thinks we can do this?

Like sending a trained 2337 representative to every regional? But seriously, FIRST needs to take a hint or a dozen from how 2337 runs their Michigan archives. 1 GoPro + 1 painters pole + 1 fish eye = AWESOME way for me to be a Michigan fanboy in Kansas.

[Oblarg]

Ok, I guess I have a minority opinion, but the pyramid (excluding 10-point climbs) was largely ignored in pretty much every competition I was at, including nationals. Sure, it was cool to see the occasional robot climb to the top. Did it make the game? Nah, not even close. A combination of low point value and the fact that it was near impossible to build meant that most of its potential went completely unrealized. I'd certainly trade it in the state it was for a more reasonable field element; note that "more reasonable field element" does not mean "easier design challenge."

To be fair, though, I admit a few changes (easier construction, more point value) probably could have made the pyramid much better than it was.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by Oblarg

I think we can all agree that the pyramid was not one of the (many) things that made Ultimate Ascent awesome.

I wouldn't go that far. It wasn't perfect, but it was a solid attempt. I just hope FIRST learns from it and finds a way to make a similarly interesting game object more accessible next year. No small task!

I will point that another major mark against the pyramid geometry is how difficult it was to ref. As a coach, I spent a good chunk of my time determining and implementing how to make it obvious that we were touching the pyramid in different situations. As a ref, I felt terrible that I knew I couldn't catch all the fouls that were happening (there was just no physical way to see them), and had to deal with very upset coaches who saw things--both right and wrong--that I did not. I don't think the GDC meant to create such a contentious situation, so it'd be good if reffing was examined more closely in game design.

[CalTran]

Originally Posted by Oblarg

Ok, I guess I have a minority opinion, but the pyramid (excluding 10-point climbs) was largely ignored in pretty much every competition I was at, including nationals. Sure, it was cool to see the occasional robot climb to the top. Did it make the game? Nah, not even close. A combination of low point value and the fact that it was near impossible to build meant that most of its potential went completely unrealized. I'd certainly trade it in the state it was for a more reasonable field element; note that "more reasonable field element" does not mean "easier design challenge."

To be fair, though, I admit a few changes (easier construction, more point value) probably could have made the pyramid much better than it was.

1. There's this (kinda strange ) kid named Gregor running around ChiefDelphi. I suggest you read the first line of his signature.
2. 1918 would like a word with you about "low point value" out of the Pyramid.
3. What would your definition of a "more reasonable field element" be?

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by CalTran

3. What would your definition of a "more reasonable field element" be?

Something with a similarly difficult design challenge that one could reasonably expect the average FRC team to be able to simulate with reasonable closeness to the actual field object for testing purposes, and whose reward in game scoring accurately reflects the engineering difficulty.

This is not asking overly much. In fact, as I mentioned, the pyramid itself probably could have been this with a few changes to construction and game scoring.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by Oblarg

Something with a similarly difficult design challenge that one could reasonably expect the average FRC team to be able to simulate with reasonable closeness to the actual field object for testing purposes, and whose reward in game scoring accurately reflects the engineering difficulty.

You literally just described the pyramid...