Week 1 Analysis

[Doug G]

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

One question: Should referee scoring stations be positioned here, like in this image? http://i.imgur.com/Ufs5xZFl.jpg It honestly gets in the way of the Human Player.

This game is hard to play well. Given that powerhouses aren't setting the high scores, it's anyone's game IMO.

We'll see what inland looks like tomorrow. If you want a good webcast, check out citruscircuits.org/live Full HD, full field video! Hope you all like it!

-Mike

The refs have their work cut out for them this year! They said the scoring panel touchscreen icons have to be pushed several times to get it to respond, which is causing delays in the pedastal lighting up. Also they have to watch robot interactions on one side of the field and then quickly turn around to catch the start of the cycle on the other end. They say this is the hardest game they have had to ref so far. Some have been reffing for 6 years now. Hopefully everyone shows patience with them.

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by Doug G

The refs have their work cut out for them this year! They said the scoring panel touchscreen icons have to be pushed several times to get it to respond, which is causing delays in the pedastal lighting up. Also they have to watch robot interactions on one side of the field and then quickly turn around to catch the start of the cycle on the other end. They say this is the hardest game they have had to ref so far. Some have been reffing for 6 years now. Hopefully everyone shows patience with them.

Great points Doug!

I wish we could just grab the ball, and refs would call a foul if it was too early. We have some great refs at IE, I really hope that translates to great matches!

-Mike

[atucker4072]

What I really don't get is teams clearing off missed auto balls. Is it really that hard to push a ball into the low goal? You don't even have to collect it, it can just be pushed!

Teams need to play in zones. There are so many times when I see two robots on the same alliance go after the ball. What should be happening (at least what I feel like) is that there should be one robot in each zone. Then when you don't have a ball you are playing zone defense.

By the way are we really going to ignore the fact that 148 and 624 got a the ball hot goal auto their first time up? I watched it on a webcast and it was the most intense action all day because of how close they were to missing/making it.

And how about those mecanum drives? Has any team really found it that much better? The ones that are going well are the drives with omni wheels. They are able to just spin out of there. Also I'm pretty sure most traction drives could push mecanum drives.

One last not. The less time that you have, the better. It means you are picking up the ball quick and racking up those assits. I saw several times were a team took a while to collect the ball, even more time ti get the ball stable on their robot just to miss a high goal.

[Steven Donow]

Originally Posted by Doug G

The refs have their work cut out for them this year! They said the scoring panel touchscreen icons have to be pushed several times to get it to respond, which is causing delays in the pedastal lighting up. Also they have to watch robot interactions on one side of the field and then quickly turn around to catch the start of the cycle on the other end. They say this is the hardest game they have had to ref so far. Some have been reffing for 6 years now. Hopefully everyone shows patience with them.

Can confirm that panel response times aren't that great. In regards to the picture, I believe there is no actual protocol for where exactly the panel is supposed to.be placed...I had to move mine around multiple times during field reset just to avoid robots coming on/off from hitting it...

And since this may be a bit of a misconception, Refs do not determine assists. Only Zone Possessions.

[JohnSchneider]

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

This game is hard to play well. Given that powerhouses aren't setting the high scores, it's anyone's game IMO.

148 and 624 put up 200

[Nemo]

I'll first say that I empathize with the hard working volunteers and respect the work done by the FIRST organization to design all of the aspects of this game.

That said, I am pretty concerned about the pedestals not lighting, the assists not being awarded, and the excessive human player penalties. This game has a lot of potential, so I really hope those three major issues are addressed somehow.

Any alliance that gets eliminated this afternoon due to incorrect scoring after having clearly won on the field is going to be pretty crestfallen. It's a bit like scoring a touchdown, kicking the extra point, and kicking off to the other team, then receiving only four points put on the scoreboard. The scoring is certainly more complex than football, but when teams don't receive the correct points for their actions, the level of unfairness is the same in Aerial Assist as it is in football.

[ToddF]

Originally Posted by lineskier

The fix was estimated even before week zero. I heard that given the number of fields it was estimated at over $60k.

If the fix was estimated at $60K, then it was the wrong solution.

Slapping some plywood up there would fix things, but probably not provide the look FIRST is going for. A hundred feet of nylon rope wrapped around the rear two bars and secured with zip ties would solve the problem and not look too bad. Even 1/8" clear polycarbonate isn't that expensive.

But just shrugging your shoulders, giving up and doing nothing is unacceptable. This is an organization that is supposed to provide inspiration for kids to become engineers. Don't tell me that there isn't a simple, cheap way to solve this problem, because if our team were faced with a problem like this on our robot, we'd find one.

[Ether]

Some stats from the Twitter data for Friday's Qual matches:

 99 average winning score
290 max winning score
  7 min winning score

 44 average losing score
181 max losing score

 55 average winning margin
244 max winning margin

 23 average winning foul
200 max winning foul
  0 min winning foul

  6 average losing foul
100 max losing foul
  0 min losing foul

 27 average winning auto
 75 max winning auto

 18 average losing auto
 65 max losing auto

 49 average winning TeleOp
190 max winning TeleOp

 20 average losing TeleOp
102 max losing TeleOp

 17 # matches whose outcome would have changed with no foul points

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by Ether

Some stats from the Twitter data for Friday's Qual matches:

...

17 # matches whose outcome would have changed with no foul points[/code]

Average scores with or without fouls?

[Ether]

Originally Posted by JesseK

Average scores with or without fouls?

All the stats labeled "scores" in the previous post are the final match scores, as in "Red Alliance won the match with a final score of 119 to 87"


Here are some additional stats:

122 average winning score without foul
417 max winning score without foul

 50 average losing score without foul
281 max losing score without foul

[MrForbes]

Ether, how many matches do those statistics cover?

[Ether]

Originally Posted by MrForbes

Ether, how many matches do those statistics cover?

370 Qual matches, for:

ILIL
MICEN
MISOU
ONTO2
SCMB
TXSA
WAAMV

Friday Twitter data

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by PVCpirate

This might be unpopular, but I don't think the bar behind the goal should be changed. When I first saw people posting about it, I pulled up the official drawings and found the part. If I was on a team, there's a decent chance I would have wanted to see exactly how the goal would look at competition, and at least try to adjust my shots accordingly. The rules also state that the ball must go through the goal and stay there to be scored. It's the same bar for everyone, and it was never a secret.

Agreed.

I noticed this when we were practicing on the field here in Georgia (Thanks Walton). I suspect that FIRST knew about this and decided to leave it.

[Madison]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

Agreed.

I noticed this when we were practicing on the field here in Georgia (Thanks Walton). I suspect that FIRST knew about this and decided to leave it.

..and also decided to provide teams with instructions to build a field element that was substantively different than the real field?

I don't buy it. If the bar knocking balls out of the goal was meant to be part of the 'fun', that characteristic of gameplay should be present in the low-cost field parts.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Madison

..and also decided to provide teams with instructions to build a field element that was substantively different than the real field?

I don't buy it. If the bar knocking balls out of the goal was meant to be part of the 'fun', that characteristic of gameplay should be present in the low-cost field parts.

Low cost fields always have 'differences'. This is a known byproduct of using different materials/designs and should be looked at before the competition.

Not sayin' it's right ... but it was in all the field drawings