Seating Lottery?

[Michael Hill]

2 people, even "scouting captains" wouldn't be enough. Most teams still rely on paper methods for scouting so having "scouting captains" separate from the rest of the scouters is useless.

[peirvine]

Originally Posted by Michael Hill

2 people, even "scouting captains" wouldn't be enough. Most teams still rely on paper methods for scouting so having "scouting captains" separate from the rest of the scouters is useless.

Like I said, my team mainly used them for watching matches. Our whole scouting team was together for the whole regional. We used them for watching matches. They were handy for talking with other teams though...

[jvriezen]

I am absolutely convinced that any significant 'improvement' to the seating issues will require a strong incentive to make use of 'crowd' scouting and then relegating teams that don't participate in crowd scouting to some of the least desirable seats. Seating priority during qualifications (if done via signage or otherwise enforced) should be something along these lines (The priority order could be argued a bit but not much, in my opinion.)

1. VIPs/major event sponsors.
2. Teams in current match, red section, blue section (limited to capped seat count, large teams just deal with it) Maybe 6x30 seats. Traffic flow signage could be arranged so that cheering squads can self-queue and quickly swap out between matches without formal volunteers.
3. Crowd-scouts 36 seats total.
4. Public not closely associated with any team (this includes parents who are not coaches/mentors)
5. Rest of team members (no laptops, printers, file boxes etc consuming extra seats -- no seat saving allowed !
6. 'Traditional scouts' and team 'storage' location. These folks can spread out in the remaining seats and stake out a spot and save seats and use extra seats for equipment, coats, bags, etc, with at least one or more team members remaining present to keep an eye on stuff. In some venues, depending upon seat count and public presence, this might be 'end-zone' seats.

FIRST is about engineering, engineering is about efficient use of resources and making trade-offs. It makes no sense for each of dozens of teams having 6 or more scouts all counting the same game pieces being scored. If each bot is watched by 4 to 6 crowd-scouts (36 seats!), you'll have a very accurate data collection.

The goal of providing an excellent viewing experience for the public (both in terms of view quality and comfort in not struggling to find 'unsaved' seats), far, far outweighs the goal of providing six or more premium seats per team for scouting.

Plus, won't the public be more impressed when it is explained to them that the crowd-scouting section has teams working together for the benefit of all?

Each team could be given one button (like a driver button) that is an informal ambassador button, which is intended to be used to sit in the public section and welcome visitors and explain the game/FIRST to them.

[connor.worley]

Questions about crowd-scouting

Are teams required to contribute crowd-scouts?
Do you share data with teams that are unable to contribute?
If yes, will teams abuse this? If no, who makes that judgement call?
How is the data managed, averaged, and shared?
Do I get to take the data home Friday night?
Could the data be poisoned before and/or after averaging? Will it be?
How do you keep scouting sheets circulating between 36 people? (already difficult to do with 6)

[PVCpirate]

At the Granite State Regional, there is a small section (I think 50-100 seats) right in front of the field that only goes halfway up the lower bowl of the arena, and it is reserved for teams in the current match. There's usually someone making sure people enter and leave in an orderly fashion, but I don't remember any problems with it. The teams that have good seats don't use it as much, and the teams that get stuck along the sides get to watch their own matches up close.

[sanddrag]

Originally Posted by PVCpirate

At the Granite State Regional, there is a small section (I think 50-100 seats) right in front of the field that only goes halfway up the lower bowl of the arena, and it is reserved for teams in the current match. There's usually someone making sure people enter and leave in an orderly fashion, but I don't remember any problems with it. The teams that have good seats don't use it as much, and the teams that get stuck along the sides get to watch their own matches up close.

They had this at Los Angeles (Long Beach) also, but the problem is they had one entrance/exit, and it took so long for the whole stands to exit, that there was a pileup of people waiting to enter, and it blocked a lot of area and caused folks to almost miss their match getting stuck in the crowd. So long as there is a defined entrance and exit side, this area works well.

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by jvriezen

I am absolutely convinced that any significant 'improvement' to the seating issues will require a strong incentive to make use of 'crowd' scouting and then relegating teams that don't participate in crowd scouting to some of the least desirable seats. Seating priority during qualifications (if done via signage or otherwise enforced) should be something along these lines (The priority order could be argued a bit but not much, in my opinion.)

So the teams that don't think your idea is the best idea should be put in the worst seats, because obviously their method is worse than yours?

Every team scouts differently. Every team wants different data. Collaborative scouting works with one or two teams because you talk to them in advance and collectively decide what data to collect, when to collect, how to collect it, and how to distribute it.

No two scouting systems are created equal. In 2009 team 67 had 18 scouts, 1 for each robot, one for balls in each trailer, and one for each human player. It doesn't sound like they would benefit from crowd scouting. Since they don't scout like you do, we get to shove one of the best teams in FIRST (and world champions that year) in the corner? No thanks.

[Andy A.]

I would be largely satisfied if FIRST could ensure that there is, for every match, high quality video feed of the whole field, without any cuts to close ups or drive teams or whatever. Just a single camera with a high angle view of the whole field, uninterrupted for any reason.

Relay that to some projectors and make the video available to download or burn to a disk or whatever. Heck, just provide a AV hookup for teams that want to record that feed as they deem fit. That'd give you a pretty solid base of scouting data to review and work from after matches.

That, for me at least, would answer a lot of the 'scouts can't watch matches' issue. It's not a replacement for scouts seeing matches in person, but at least you can afford to miss one, or not have an awesome view of the field. It'd also help smaller teams that can't manage to have scouts watching matches and working the pits.

I dunno, it's not really an answer to the 'saving seats' issue, but it'd at least answer a lot of scouting problems, in my mind.

[Pendulum^-1]

Originally Posted by Andy A.

I would be largely satisfied if FIRST could ensure that there is, for every match, high quality video feed of the whole field, without any cuts to close ups or drive teams or whatever. Just a single camera with a high angle view of the whole field, uninterrupted for any reason.

Relay that to some projectors and make the video available to download or burn to a disk or whatever. Heck, just provide a AV hookup for teams that want to record that feed as they deem fit. That'd give you a pretty solid base of scouting data to review and work from after matches.

Considering that video equipment is so cheap now that multiple teams (including our team) currently have their robots equipped with GoPRO cameras capable of recording 1080P video for 6 consecutive hours on one 32 GB chip, I fail to see why the above cannot be done at multiple venues for not much cost. Get GoPRO or another video vendor to sponsor it and set it up. The poor video feeds to the internet, and lack of video feed availability in general, really needs to be addressed. And it should help address the scouting/seating issues. Want 20 scouts pouring over match data? No problem. Examine the (multiple-angle?) HD video for hours, using pause, slow-motion, whatever. The access to such match video data should help teams improve their scouting significantly.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Pendulum^-1

Considering that video equipment is so cheap now that multiple teams (including our team) currently have their robots equipped with GoPRO cameras capable of recording 1080P video for 6 consecutive hours on one 32 GB chip, I fail to see why the above cannot be done at multiple venues for not much cost. Get GoPRO or another video vendor to sponsor it and set it up.

All right, I'll bite.

Let's assume that there are 20 fields, each needing its own camera(s). Let's assume that the powers-that-be want a streaming version (any); each camera is $200 minimum (GoPros in this case). Let's also assume that one is NOT enough--pretty reasonable assumption. Let's randomly say that each field gets 5 (partly because that gives a pretty good view, and partly because that gives some nice round numbers). Let me say again: One is NOT enough! If one doesn't work for instant replay, one probably won't work for scouting. (For one thing, how do you identify the robots from above?)

Anyways, 5 x $200 X 20 fields gives $20,000 to set up the cameras that are now broadcasting on a WiFi signal. This does not include any receivers or recorders. Not too bad--but you have no spares (figure 1/field, for an extra $4000) and potential interference.

Let's briefly assume that instead of sending out on WiFi, the cameras record data--just record it. For it to be useful to a group of scouts, the records need to be pulled out of each camera. 32GB is a lot of data to pull at a time, and now there are 5 of those... per event... going up AND being downloaded (and that doesn't even factor in parsing). Not to mention the multi-view options.

Essentially, it could be done. But it's not going to be easy, or cheap.

The poor video feeds to the internet, and lack of video feed availability in general, really needs to be addressed. And it should help address the scouting/seating issues. Want 20 scouts pouring over match data? No problem. Examine the (multiple-angle?) HD video for hours, using pause, slow-motion, whatever. The access to such match video data should help teams improve their scouting significantly.

I'll also bite here. Yes, the poor feeds need to be addressed. Guess what? FIRST does not run the feeds. Local teams/groups do. But they take the video from the video board at the event--there's typically a drop box near Pit Admin or somewhere like that specifically for that purpose--so you get what's being shown on the screen. (I know there are exceptions--teams place their own cameras for some casts.)

It gets better, though. For webcasting, you need an internet connection. Field traffic gets top priority--FMS sends data to FIRST after each match, FTAs may need to e-contact their know-how to help solve problems, stuff like that--and usually has a dedicated line--which may be the only one in the building. If there isn't another one, webcasting over wireless could be somewhat problematic.


However, I don't see that as helping scouting OR seating in the slightest. I can't say that I know of many teams who use video to scout in the first place--they might record matches and just look at the ones they want on occasion, or use video to help their drivers, but very few actually use the video to scout, regardless of source. Also, now you have the entire scout team sitting down somewhere to watch video (or just sitting down)--now another 10 or so of those 40 seats saved by 4 persons have people in them, so it's 14 saving 40 instead of 10 saving 40. (Or maybe 14 saving 50--something like that.)

[Pendulum^-1]

Originally Posted by Pendulum^-1

...... I fail to see why the above cannot be done at multiple venues for not much cost.....

Originally Posted by EricH

All right, I'll bite.
.......

Outstanding critique of my half baked ideas about cameras. I now understand more about the technical details and costs. Seriously, I don't know much about either setting up video feeds or running a fully staffed, elite scouting squad.

And that is why I post it here on CD, to get critiqued. So that we can put the less practical suggestions away early.

In order to avoid a multi-post digression on the financial, logistical, and technical details about camera installations on this thread about seating, I suggest that we get back to what can be done about the seating issue(s) in general.

[EricH]

I've seen a lot of seating discussion over the years. I think what we've got right now is the worst possible way, except for all the others.

Open seating--teams save seats (against the rules) and won't let anybody not with their team sit with them. Students also sit in the aisles--not cool. Later-arriving teams get whatever's left; spectators get locked out; potentially, teams get split up. (Current method)

"Cheering section" seating--you have the "fun" of moving 6 teams in and 6 teams out of seats with a good view. You also get more of saving seats, as teams have nowhere to sit when they aren't playing--unless they save a block of seats. The other alternative that I've seen is a standing cheering/dancing section if the bleachers don't go to the floor--usually better traffic flow.

"Scouting section" seating--This one may work, except for a couple of details. First, most teams use somewhere around 6-10 scouts, who may or may not also be the cheering section, if they scout at all. This means that you should figure, say, 240-400 seats at a district event alone (though that could probably be dropped by 100 at any given event). Second, most teams like to sit together--hence the seat saving mentioned earlier. I don't think they'll like to be split up, meaning that the mad rush will be for the seats right behind the scouts.

"Spectator seating"--IMO, a spectators-only zone should be small. My opinion (not that I've been just a spectator at all) is that spectators often get the most fun/inspiration out of the event by sitting WITH some of the teams, asking them questions. Saying "You have to be in this area down front" cuts off that whole aspect--in addition to potentially scooping up team-associated parents.

"Block seat", or "sectional seating", or "lottery"--Ugh. This one's a pretty big mess. If all the teams were the same size, and sat during all the matches, this could work out. The problem is, neither is the truth. There are teams with 60-100 team members--not counting parents, I presume--and there are teams with 10 team members. Then you get the parents added on, and outside spectators. So now you get the problems: Divvying up the seats into blocks, distributing the blocks so everybody gets a fair crack at decent seats, dealing with the complaints from team X that team Y stood during the entirety of their matches so team X, who wasn't in a decent place to begin with, couldn't see a thing, and all that sort of "fun".



All that said, I think there is a solution. It's in the "open seating" model--and yet, it's not in that model at all. It's in the people.

What if...
--Everyone got in line at the doors and walked, not ran, to the seats/pits?
--Seat savers took a smaller amount of seats, leaving some on the aisles and other "boundaries" as "mixing" seats?
--Other teams and spectators were welcomed into the "mixing" seats, not chased away by seat savers?
--Teams that stand through their matches intentionally took the top seats or seats around the sides?


What if FIRSTers actually practiced some Gracious Professionalism in the stands? And yes, there are teams that do that now. How about some of the rest of the teams joining in?

[BJC]

Originally Posted by EricH

All right, I'll bite.

Let's assume that there are 20 fields, each needing its own camera(s). Let's assume that the powers-that-be want a streaming version (any); each camera is $200 minimum (GoPros in this case). Let's also assume that one is NOT enough--pretty reasonable assumption. Let's randomly say that each field gets 5 (partly because that gives a pretty good view, and partly because that gives some nice round numbers). Let me say again: One is NOT enough! If one doesn't work for instant replay, one probably won't work for scouting. (For one thing, how do you identify the robots from above?)

...

Essentially, it could be done. But it's not going to be easy, or cheap.

Eric,

Have you ever seen the FiM Archive run by 2337? This requires one GoPro, one fisheye lens, and one painter’s pole. In 2337's case matches are generally uploaded within several minutes of being played. This is the best recording of matches that I've seen. You can see what any of the six robots are doing at any time. This year I used these videos to keep exact tallies on how many disks were shot, how many were made, auto mode, and the endgame for multiple teams that I was keeping track of/benchmarking to compare to 33's numbers and identify improvement points -- that sort of analysis is impossible for most match videos and is really a testament to how great this single view is. Basically, I would like to respectfully disagree that you need more than one camera to have watchable match video.

Regards, Bryan

[EricH]

Originally Posted by BJC

This requires one GoPro, one fisheye lens, and one painter’s pole. In 2337's case matches are generally uploaded within several minutes of being played. This is the best recording of matches that I've seen.[...] Basically, I would like to respectfully disagree that you need more than one camera to have watchable match video.

I have not. Incidentally, I believe the GoPro stock lens is a fisheye, so no extra lens needed.

I would actually argue that you need more than one camera--or at least more than one memory card. If nothing else, it gives you a spare. More likely, it can speed up "cycle time"--the time to get a match up. If you start a camera recording, then grab the other one, dump the memory card to your computer/upload device, and get the camera set up, the match could theoretically be up before the next match starts. Dependent on internet at the venue, of course!

I would also point out that I was also responding to comments about the webcasts as well as recording for the scouts--while 1 camera could work, I do like the occasional close-up shot (particularly of high-intensity action), which in my experience no GoPro can do. For that sort of application, 1 camera is definitely going to be suboptimal.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by EricH

I have not. Incidentally, I believe the GoPro stock lens is a fisheye, so no extra lens needed.

Confirmed on my GoPro Hero3 and the Hero2 I borrowed at CMP they were both fisheye lenses.

I didn't check the Hero2 but you COULD use the micro HDMI out to stream the footage back and stream it. I haven't tried this though.