How can you help GDC make this game better?

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Taylor

During qualification rounds, allow 2 red and 2 blue balls in play.
During elimination rounds, allow 1 of each color (as it is now).

Honestly, this is a drastic change but I really like this suggestion despite qualifications becoming different than elims. This game has fundamental design flaws apart from the broken penalty structure and this change would fix the extreme effect of strength of schedule on seeding. This must be coupled with the addition of scorekeepers to relieve the refs of having to do even more work.

[Taylor]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

Honestly, this is a drastic change but I really like this suggestion despite qualifications becoming different than elims. This game has fundamental design flaws apart from the broken penalty structure and this change would fix the extreme effect of strength of schedule on seeding. This must be coupled with the addition of scorekeepers to relieve the refs of having to do even more work.

The precedent has been set - 2012 bridges.
In my mind, this change will bring about two benefits - it will make the quals much more watchable, and it will reduce the amount of robot-incurred robot damage before elims begin. Not just from aggressive defensive play, but from the scrum that results from a red and blue ball, loose on the field, in the same area.

Also, JVN noted that this would be an awesome 2v2 game. I'd like to see that - even if it's during exhibition (mentor?) matches at an offseason event.

[Peter Matteson]

I forgot my other idea that would make arguing with the refs over scoring for assists and trussing less of an issue when teams forget to clear the autonomous balls.

PUT A WHITE STRIPE AROUND THE AUTONOMOUS BALLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can't tell you how many times teams on the field and people in the stands lost track of the fact that the ball being played was an auton ball that rebounded down the length of the field.

Just put a stripe on the ball so people can tell there is a difference.

[orangemoore]

Originally Posted by Peter Matteson

I forgot my other idea that would make arguing with the refs over scoring for assists and trussing less of an issue when teams forget to clear the autonomous balls.

PUT A WHITE STRIPE AROUND THE AUTONOMOUS BALLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can't tell you how many times teams on the field and people in the stands lost track of the fact that the ball being played was an auton ball that rebounded down the length of the field.

Just put a stripe on the ball so people can tell there is a difference.

The problem is that all of the balls are recycled in the match.

[Chris Hibner]

I mentioned this match in the other thread, but here is why something needs to change as far as how scorekeeping is done.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6pHN2gB_8Y

Watch the match, and determine how many points the red alliance scored. Then check out the official score. It's quite an eye opener.

EDIT: For those scoring at home, there was a truss pass with about 10 seconds left in the match that was after the video got cut, so add 10 points to your score for that.

[Karthik]

I'm going to be short and to the point here.

1. Scale back the value of the penalties. The scaling of penalties is completely out of whack when compared to the point scoring potential for an alliance. This is causing penalties to have an overwhelming impact on matches.

2. Allow for certain rule infractions to merely generate a warning for inconsequential actions. The warning will serve as a deterrent, and the match is not unnecessarily affected by an action which did not impact the result. If a team repeatedly performs the same infraction, issue an penalty. This would be similar to a yellow/red card system, but applied to fouls. Actually the better analogy is basketball where you're allowed to commit a certain number of fouls that don't affect a shot, before your opponent is awarded free throws.

[EricLeifermann]

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

I mentioned this match in the other thread, but here is why something needs to change as far as how scorekeeping is done.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6pHN2gB_8Y

Watch the match, and determine how many points the red alliance scored. Then check out the official score. It's quite an eye opener.

EDIT: For those scoring at home, there was a truss pass with about 10 seconds left in the match that was after the video got cut, so add 10 points to your score for that.

counted 125...

EDIT: I see from Spyder you only got 66 points.

[Steve W]

Originally Posted by Karthik

I'm going to be short and to the point here.

1. Scale back the value of the penalties. The scaling of penalties is completely out of whack when compared to the point scoring potential for an alliance. This is causing penalties to have an overwhelming impact on matches.

2. Allow for certain rule infractions to merely generate a warning for inconsequential actions. The warning will serve as a deterrent, and the match is not unnecessarily affected by an action which did not impact the result. If a team repeatedly performs the same infraction, issue an penalty. This would be similar to a yellow/red card system, but applied to fouls. Actually the better analogy is basketball where you're allowed to commit a certain number of fouls that don't affect a shot, before your opponent is awarded free throws.

Second

[Chris Hibner]

Originally Posted by EricLeifermann

counted 125...

I counted 125 as well, yet the official score was 66...

[orangemoore]

Originally Posted by EricLeifermann

counted 125...

Same here.

[Peter Matteson]

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

I counted 125 as well, yet the official score was 66...

I had 135 in the video.

15 mobility
20 for 1 hot auton high
20 for 2x Auton balls scored high in teleop
80 for 2x 40 pt cycles (2 assist, truss, high goal)

[EricLeifermann]

Originally Posted by Peter Matteson

I had 135 in the video.

15 mobility
20 for 1 hot auton high
20 for 2x Auton balls scored high in teleop
80 for 2x 40 pt cycles (2 assist, truss, high goal)

2 assists are only 10 points so that equates to a 30 point cycle not 40.

[Libby K]

Originally Posted by Tom Line

It must be emphasized to every single ref during training that one robot cannot force another to take a penalty. This has long been a core tenet of FIRST except in very special cases. Being pushed into goals, into opposition balls, and out of field perimeter by another robot should not be a foul.

In addition, the rule regarding penetration inside the bumper perimeter needs to be enforced correctly. Damage needs to occur, or it needs to be clearly intentional to generate a foul.

This is an exceptionally good point. A few times at events I've seen, BLUEBOT would get a possession foul (for 'trapping' or 'herding' the red ball), when REDBOT was in fact pinning them to the red ball.

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

G12 needs two penalty levels. I can understand a 50 point penalty if a robot picks up an opponents ball, but contact with the ball that is marginal should be a smaller penalty.

^This would fix that.

Similarly, low goal incursions and extending outside the field perimeter when being pinned to the goal/wall by the opposite alliance happened quite often, and sometimes the G14 violator was not penalized, and the incursion/field perimeter foul was assessed instead.

G14

Strategies aimed solely at forcing the opposing ALLIANCE to violate a rule are not in the spirit of FRC and are not allowed. Rule violations forced in this manner will not result in assessment of a penalty on the target ALLIANCE.

Violation: TECHNICAL FOUL

I think the suggestions about scorekeepers separately from refs is a great one, because it could let the refs focus on the interactions between robots. Several inside-frame-perimeter violations went unpenalized, even when they caused damage, simply because the referees 'didn't see it happen'. If there were a scorekeeper watching the ball instead, the ref would have been able to see the robot interaction. I think it would seriously improve people's impressions of the game if there were scorekeepers dedicated to the ball/assist/scoring/pedestal tracking and the refs could focus on the robots. (This would also help with the scorekeeping errors that are being pointed out in this thread - 125 points scored vs 66 recorded is a BIG problem.)

Originally Posted by Karthik

I'm going to be short and to the point here.

1. Scale back the value of the penalties. The scaling of penalties is completely out of whack when compared to the point scoring potential for an alliance. This is causing penalties to have an overwhelming impact on matches.

2. Allow for certain rule infractions to merely generate a warning for inconsequential actions. The warning will serve as a deterrent, and the match is not unnecessarily affected by an action which did not impact the result. If a team repeatedly performs the same infraction, issue an penalty. This would be similar to a yellow/red card system, but applied to fouls. Actually the better analogy is basketball where you're allowed to commit a certain number of fouls that don't affect a shot, before your opponent is awarded free throws.

Spot on. I've got nothing to say except 'seconded'.

[thefro526]

Originally Posted by Libby K

I think the suggestions about scorekeepers separately from refs is a great one, because it could let the refs focus on the interactions between robots. Several inside-frame-perimeter violations went unpenalized, even when they caused damage, simply because the referees 'didn't see it happen'. If there were a scorekeeper watching the ball instead, the ref would have been able to see the robot interaction. I think it would seriously improve people's impressions of the game if there were scorekeepers dedicated to the ball/assist/scoring/pedestal tracking and the refs could focus on the robots. (This would also help with the scorekeeping errors that are being pointed out in this thread - 125 points scored vs 66 recorded is a BIG problem.)

Yes this, 100 times over, we need dedicated score keepers.

During our Elimination matches at Hatboro Horsham, our scores seemed to be lower than expected, due to some missed auto points, and missed assist points, but we weren't all that concerned since we were winning matches. Then, in Final 1, the posted score was 79 to 59 in favor of the Red Alliance, even though both Alliances* had been scoring in excess of 100pts in each of their previous rounds. (*Semi 1-1, #1 alliance scored 99pts.)

After an intense post match discussion with the head ref, we found out that the initial assists on either end of the field were missed for both alliances, and that some of our previous "same zone" assists (Robot A passes to B in Z1, B moves to Z2) had not been counted as assists in earlier matches... Thankfully the missed assists would have only corrected the scores on both sides and not changed who won the match, so we went to Final 2 where the scores were correct, but it makes me wonder what else may have been missed through the course of the weekend.

It seems like the ideal solution would be to have one scorekeeper for each alliance, sitting at approximately mid-field and have them track the ball. We might not get 100% perfect results, but they'd have to be better than now.

[Carolyn_Grace]

Originally Posted by Peter Matteson

I forgot my other idea that would make arguing with the refs over scoring for assists and trussing less of an issue when teams forget to clear the autonomous balls.

PUT A WHITE STRIPE AROUND THE AUTONOMOUS BALLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can't tell you how many times teams on the field and people in the stands lost track of the fact that the ball being played was an auton ball that rebounded down the length of the field.

Just put a stripe on the ball so people can tell there is a difference.

It's pretty simple to tell when a ball is an autonomous ball by the way the high goals are lit up. As soon as a ball from a lit pedestal is put into play by a human player, the high goal lights up one section. If the pedestal isn't lit up at all, then the ball on the field is an auton ball.

...if the field isn't lighting up correctly in a timely fashion, than THAT needs to be fixed.