How can you help GDC make this game better?

[RoundTabler]

This game has potential to be great fun if these issues are addressed. A huge issue is the foul calls. We saw up to 150 points of fouls at GSDE - in the ELIMS! We personally got called on 2 50 point fouls in the FINALS!! Foul points decided many matches. The head ref was overruling the vast majority of fouls by the end of Sat (two tech fouls called on our bot were annulled in final match 1).

[Tom Line]

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.

100X yes. There are far more balls than needed for both alliance - I counted at least 6 for each. Permanently mark those auton balls with white tape or paint - PLEASE. Help the spectators enjoy the game!

[carlgrass32]

This year's game seemed kind of boring. No offense. 1 ball per team? really? Sorry.

[Steve W]

As I posted in the G40 rule thread:

In past games human players were closer to the field and had smaller,more difficult places to stand. There was a rule that another robot could not interfere while loading. This is another way of helping us with the safety issue. I did not see (doesn't mean that it oesn't happen) robots over the barrier when loading. To have the HP load a robot that is not being bashed by another to prevent them loading the safety factor is huge. Just think, even with the existing rules HP's can get hurt by flying pieces from robots being hit and parts breaking. Put in a no touch loading zone. This will increase on field action with more robots being loaded and fix the safety issue. Remove safety zone for HP's but retain the no reach over field barrier.

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by Steve W

As I posted in the G40 rule thread:

In past games human players were closer to the field and had smaller,more difficult places to stand. There was a rule that another robot could not interfere while loading. This is another way of helping us with the safety issue. I did not see (doesn't mean that it oesn't happen) robots over the barrier when loading. To have the HP load a robot that is not being bashed by another to prevent them loading the safety factor is huge. Just think, even with the existing rules HP's can get hurt by flying pieces from robots being hit and parts breaking. Put in a no touch loading zone. This will increase on field action with more robots being loaded and fix the safety issue. Remove safety zone for HP's but retain the no reach over field barrier.

We had that before, in 2005. It was one of the most hated FRC rules ever, with just as many penalties generated if not more as G40 today.

[Tom Line]

Originally Posted by bduddy

We had that before, in 2005. It was one of the most hated FRC rules ever, with just as many penalties generated if not more as G40 today.

That seems odd. Perhaps it was difference circumstances. In the last 3 years, 11, 12, and 13, we've had 'safe' zones where defending robots weren't allowed. The rules were figured out fairly quickly and I don't remember them causing particular heartburn.

[Steve W]

Originally Posted by bduddy

We had that before, in 2005. It was one of the most hated FRC rules ever, with just as many penalties generated if not more as G40 today.

What was hated was the way the HP had to stand. It was changed by week 2

[Basel A]

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.)

Libby, you've been a VC, do you think it's feasible to expect events to bring in ~2 more trained (and hopefully experienced) volunteers this late in the game? Question goes out to all the other event-runners as well.

[Mr. Van]

After playing in week 1, here are my suggestions:

1. Move the human player box back so that it is nearly physically impossible for a person to reach out into the safe zone (or the field perimeter or wherever you want to make the penalty start). This is a SAFETY ISSUE. You can't have a penalty which is inconsistently called be your safety system. Design the safety INTO THE FIELD SETUP. (This is equivalent to putting a guard to prevent access to a pinch point vs. telling people "be safe!"). One is true safety - the other is more safety theater.

2. Place a piece of clear polycarbonate over the pipes above the driver station. Balls bounced back out of the goals quite often. Since very, very few teams have a full regulation field, it was quite a surprise for many when their carefully tuned shot bounced right back out of the goal. Since the practice fields do not have these bars, it was pretty difficult to try to fix the problem.

The first change would ideally be made by making the pipes that separate the human player from the field longer so that the player was physically kept further from the field. I understand that this might be problematic (i.e. costly), but a very simple solution would be to move the tape marking the box further from the field. We are used to playing games (basketball, baseball, football, soccer, etc.) where the field is not defined by an invisible vertical plane, but by where your feet contact the field itself and keeping your feet in a zone is something that many more people will be able to DO as well as understand.

The second change is a simple set of several polycarbonate sheets placed over the two pipes above the player station. A few well placed holes and a few cable ties or straps and that should be good to go.

Both of these changes would make the game much more spectator friendly, and allow teams to play in a more "natural" way. They also do not require any sort of major re-writing of rules or penalties.

- Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox

[Libby K]

Originally Posted by Basel A

Libby, you've been a VC, do you think it's feasible to expect events to bring in ~2 more trained (and hopefully experienced) volunteers this late in the game? Question goes out to all the other event-runners as well.

I can only speak from my own experiences as a VC, but my intent is always to have extra refs and scorekeepers so that people can take breaks. (Example, if FIRST asks for 4 refs I try to have 5 or 6, so that at least one can rotate in and give people a chance to sit down/take a break, especially considering sometimes events can run through lunch.) In that situation, it'd be very easy to put the one or two extras on scorekeeping. If an event is right-on-the-number, then yes - that's definitely more difficult. I'd love to hear other VCs/event people chime in as well on this, but in my head it's doable.

[cglrcng]

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.

Here's a case in point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsyx0QmpPlk#t=138. Watch the action near the far blue inbounder zone at the 2:24 point. The ball bounces off the red defender while the defender was trying to play robot defense against a blue robot. The result was a 50 point penalty that turned a 34 point win into a 16 point loss.

___________________________

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsyx0QmpPlk#t=138

Southfield Q-042...(Watch this qualifying match video) Can anyone who was actually there and witnessed this match explain what actually happened? (The previously referenced video above also shows the same kind of stuff happening too).

First watch the lower closest red alliance bot w/ no ball...(Appears to be placed on the field backwards looking at the launcher and the auto results...Was it penalized for crossing the truss? If so I certainly missed the flag. (though it isn't hard to miss as both flags were untouched throughout the match).

Then watch the blue close sidelines HP throughout the match and all the interaction between the head ref, and 2 field reset volunteers and the HP...What was that head ref (and the volunteers...3 all had input w/ that poor HP), doing on that ball switchout? Plainly a blue ball was on the field when he hands the HP another blue ball, then takes it away, then another is handed immediately to that HP in the very same move.....Ouch, it was flat hard to even watch. I couldn't imagine being a contestant in such a match on that field after watching that painful to watch mess.

-After watching that I'd have to flat say "if the mission is to improve the game"....I'd personally say scrap those sideline HP zones and return the ball to the field at the place where it went out, and do it quickly. But, I never actually agree w/ tinkering w/ the game design after the release....Play it as it was designed.

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by cglrcng

Then watch the blue close sidelines HP throughout the match and all the interaction between the head ref, and 2 field reset volunteers and the HP...What was that head ref (and the volunteers...3 all had input w/ that poor HP), doing on that ball switchout? Plainly a blue ball was on the field when he hands the HP another blue ball, then takes it away, then another is handed immediately to that HP in the very same move.....

The blue ball was thrown over the truss and landed in the low goal. It did not count as a scored ball, and the head referee knew this, which is why he started shaking his head. Another referee appeared to end the cycle anyway. The head referee handed the ball to the human player, and then noticed another blue ball in play. He then decided to just ignore it??? It should have been a foghorn and redo.

Disclaimer: I wasn't actually there, this is just what it looks like.

[bduddy]

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.

Here's a case in point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsyx0QmpPlk#t=138. Watch the action near the far blue inbounder zone at the 2:24 point. The ball bounces off the red defender while the defender was trying to play robot defense against a blue robot. The result was a 50 point penalty that turned a 34 point win into a 16 point loss.

I don't see how that could possibly have been called "possession" under the current rules. Bouncing off of a robot is not supposed to be possession.

[jvriezen]

Based on reports of refs not noticing dead ball requests from alliances, a simple fix would be to supply one (or more) air horns for an alliance to get the ref's attention. Using the air horn at any time other than to signal a dead ball would be a 50 point penalty. Maybe these could also be used to inform the ref that the pedestal has not been lit when it should be. These could be picked up locally by event coordinators for week 2, and packed in the field cases for following weeks.

Far cheaper and simpler to implement than any electronic or driver station based change.

Example: http://www.uline.com/Product/Detail/...Q&gclsrc=aw.ds

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by cglrcng

___________________________

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsyx0QmpPlk#t=138

Southfield Q-042...(Watch this qualifying match video) Can anyone who was actually there and witnessed this match explain what actually happened? (The previously referenced video above also shows the same kind of stuff happening too).

First watch the lower closest red alliance bot w/ no ball...(Appears to be placed on the field backwards looking at the launcher and the auto results...Was it penalized for crossing the truss? If so I certainly missed the flag. (though it isn't hard to miss as both flags were untouched throughout the match).

Then watch the blue close sidelines HP throughout the match and all the interaction between the head ref, and 2 field reset volunteers and the HP...What was that head ref (and the volunteers...3 all had input w/ that poor HP), doing on that ball switchout? Plainly a blue ball was on the field when he hands the HP another blue ball, then takes it away, then another is handed immediately to that HP in the very same move.....Ouch, it was flat hard to even watch. I couldn't imagine being a contestant in such a match on that field after watching that painful to watch mess.

-After watching that I'd have to flat say "if the mission is to improve the game"....I'd personally say scrap those sideline HP zones and return the ball to the field at the place where it went out, and do it quickly. But, I never actually agree w/ tinkering w/ the game design after the release....Play it as it was designed.

At 0:09 the head referee briefly waves his flag (side note: That's a huge pet peeve of mine... Wave it so everyone can see!), presumably to indicate a penalty. He then asks the ref on that corner something, probably whether it touched the blue robot or not - the answer to that isn't clear from this angle, but he never indicates a technical foul.

As for the ball, Gregor is correct that the ball was not scored, which is why it was handed back to the HP. The head ref then turned around to see another blue ball on the field (presumably the other refs had given credit for the score), which quickly bounced out on its own, so the head ref I guess thought it would be OK to just keep one blue ball in play and fix the score later.