Petition: Lower technical foul values to make this game better

[xXhunter47Xx]

No.
This is unfair to week 1 and week 2 regional teams who have already played and have lost because of unintentional tech fouls on their end. If you lower them, then that means we would have to play all the week 1 and week 2 regionals again because of changes made in the rules.
The rules that tell both teams and refs how fouls/tech fouls should be assessed have been around since kickoff. Teams should have already known about what causes foul/tech foul and designed/practiced around not causing said fouls.
Every single team has had at least 6 weeks to know the rules of the game. Lowering tech foul points for something that everyone knows will cause an infraction is unacceptable. The biggest tech foul I've seen is HP over passing their border. The human player should have it ingrained in their mind that they cannot pass the border that was set by FIRST in the HP zone.
Other tech fouls sometimes cannot be avoided, sometimes they're even unintentional, but if you play their game you play by their rules. No exceptions.

[Gaurav27]

It is important to note that teams have looked the penalties carefully throughout the build season and designed accordingly. As mentioned above there are penalties that are more dependent on strategy alone.

That being said, I feel reducing the technical foul values will definitely make the game outcomes better. In the meantime, I feel little things such as talking to your alliance partners about preventing penalties and implementing strategies that minimize the risk of incurring penalties, definitely helps.

I agree with Billy here, matches will be more interesting and perhaps will also be less controversial.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by xXhunter47Xx

No.
This is unfair to week 1 and week 2 regional teams who have already played and have lost because of unintentional tech fouls on their end. If you lower them, then that means we would have to play all the week 1 and week 2 regionals again because of changes made in the rules.

This alone is horrible logic. Let's spite teams for over a month of regionals and championships just so people that have already played don't feel bad? If it's broke, fix it.

It's broke, by the way. No doubt about that.

[FrankJ]

Originally Posted by inquiryteacher

Definitely Yes.


The same teams who were cleverly included this year are also the most at risk. The simple apparatus necessary to compete often lack the sophistication to quickly be moved out of harms way. Asking for students to design a bot with allowances for a 20 inch overhang, and then repeatedly dinging them for contact within the perimeter of another bot is a design flaw in the contest. This type of contact should have been expected without the addition of any safe zones and bots should be designed sturdily, to withstand the rigors of the contest.

While there naturally should be some sort of penalty associated, We will likely see teams exploiting this flaw to gain foul points as the weeks go by, as I believe I have already witnessed a few times. It will decide contests and it is simply to easy for them not to.

This was addressed in Team Update 2014-3-04

G28

Initiating deliberate or damaging contact with an opponent ROBOT on or inside the vertical extension of its FRAME PERIMETER is not allowed.

Violation: TECHNICAL FOUL

High speed accidental collisions may occur during the MATCH and are expected. ROBOTS extend elements outside of the FRAME PERIMETER at their own risk; no penalties will be assigned for contact between two such extended elements.

A ROBOT with an element outside its FRAME PERIMETER may be penalized under this rule if it appears they are using that element to purposefully contact another ROBOT inside its FRAME PERIMETER. Regardless of intent, a ROBOT with an element outside its FRAME PERIMETER that causes damage to another ROBOT inside of its FRAME PERIMETER will be penalized, unless the actions of the damaged ROBOT are the catalyst for the damage.

[mathking]

The logic of it being unfair to week 1 and 2 teams is a bit flawed anyway. All of the teams at those regional and district competitions had to compete with the same rules. Making rule changes to improve the game is perfectly legitimate. In spite of frustrating problems sometimes from our bot, this game is really growing on me. Well crafted strategy can easily compete with amazing robots. (Though well crafted strategy employed by the amazing robots is hard to stop.) So I would love to see some of the foul values reduced and I think it would improve the game.

[mrnoble]

No. The OP cited G40 specifically, and safety rules are ones that shouldn't ever lend themselves to strategic decisions ("if I play in such a way that I might violate this rule, I'd still statistically have a chance at an advantage"). The GDC addressed the "pinkie" problem with their update last week. Students who grudgingly accept that they can lose a game by putting their hand in the arena, and thus will try to avoid the penalty (and the wrath of their alliance partners) are students who are NOT losing an arm to a fast-moving machine. I've seen industrial accidents and this game definitely has the potential to produce one. Keep the 50 points.

[xXhunter47Xx]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

This alone is horrible logic. Let's spite teams for over a month of regionals and championships just so people that have already played don't feel bad? If it's broke, fix it.

It's broke, by the way. No doubt about that.

Okay, I'll give you that.
But there's been 6 weeks to know the rules. Maybe the HP got into the heat of the moment and tossed the ball in without paying attention. TF for whatever alliance he's on. He should already know that it was a TF.

A better suggestion.
Give a little more leeway in tech fouls, or at least the G40 one. There are a lot more technical fouls that do deserve a 50 point penalty.
Let's say you lowered it to 20 points.
Red alliance has 2 robots that can throw and 1 can catch and hit one pointer.
Red alliance accidentally commits a G12 against Blue alliance.
20 point penalty to Red.
Red goes for truss shot, the second red bot catches and goes for high goal and makes it, all in an amount of time for it to not be considered an extended amount of possession.
30 points, already made up for the Tech foul and got 10 points to spare.

Now lets keep it the way it is, at 50 points.
Now Red is still behind 20 points.

For G40 infractions, give it just a little bit more leeway. But for other tech fouls (like in the example) I'd say keep it the way it is.

[billylo]

Athletic sports' scoring system is a good place to learn from. The systems have been refined over many many years by large communities.

Football: Very few (if any) single foul directly gives an opponent some points, let alone point values that would swing the outcome of 59% of important matches in one foul.

Hockey: Fouls like tripping, high sticking, too many men on the ice, results in the offending player going into the penalty box for 2 minutes. The offending team is crippled and forced to play defence; but again no points are automatically awarded to the opposing team. For fouls that prevent a clear scoring opportunity, a penalty shot is given. You still need to beat the goalie to score on the given penalty shot.

In both cases, sufficient and seasoned referees who officiated the same game for years are there to help with minimizing mis-calls.

So, our situation is a combination of both problems (high penalty values and difficulty to make reliable calls.)

Changing rules mid season is never ideal. But, the question remains: are we better off doing nothing and "suck-it-up"; or make adjustments to make it better for a large number of games remaining in 2014? Reminder: many teams can only afford to play in one regional.

Hope this helps. Keep the conversation going! Thanks.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by xXhunter47Xx

Okay, I'll give you that.
But there's been 6 weeks to know the rules. Maybe the HP got into the heat of the moment and tossed the ball in without paying attention. TF for whatever alliance he's on. He should already know that it was a TF.

This isn't teams being stupid (always) - these are hard to avoid, incidental infractions that do not affect the game at all. Teams have gotten G40s for catching a ball thrown at them by field reset with just a bit too much force. Teams get tournament ending technicals for a ball bouncing in their robot, returned to the floor faster than an out of bounds ball would have.

For G40 infractions, give it just a little bit more leeway. But for other tech fouls (like in the example) I'd say keep it the way it is.

Your example really, really trivialized how easy it is to score quickly. If teams racked up 30 points that fast frequently, this wouldn't even be a problem.

[xXhunter47Xx]

Take this with a grain of salt because I wasn't able to view all the matches, but at the SD Regional, very few fouls were called. Only a G40 here and there and some parts flying off.
So I don't see it as a huge problem, but others may. G40 is really the only big problem I see, and that can be easily fixed.
My statement still stands that there are a lot more Tech Fouls than G40 that deserve the 50 point penalty.

Originally Posted by Chris is me

Your example really, really trivialized how easy it is to score quickly. If teams racked up 30 points that fast frequently, this wouldn't even be a problem.

In the OP G40 was mentioned. I was trying to say that G40 should get more leeway, but other tech fouls deserve 50 point penalties. G40 is really the only one that really skews the end results, where other ones like G12 in my example are not commonplace in the game.

[Woolly]

Yes.

Originally Posted by Karthik

Agreed, however a 15 yard penalty in football is mere pittance compared to the "match killer" 50 point penalty in Aerial Assist.

Absolutely! I don't think FIRST anticipated the heavy defense being played this year. As a result, they anticipated higher match scores. For regionals and districts fouls should be 10 points, and tech fouls should be about 25, with a re-calibration for Championships based on what kind of scores are seen at the district championships.

Also, A more fitting penalty for G40 would be to disable the entire alliance at fault for 5-10 seconds, and give a tech foul if the human player entering the field was strategic or consequential.

[xXhunter47Xx]

Originally Posted by Woolly

Also, A more fitting penalty for G40 would be to disable the entire alliance at fault for 5-10 seconds, and give a tech foul if the human player entering the field was strategic or consequential.

This is actually more along the lines of what I was thinking.
I couldn't come up with it because I'm being distracted by unimportant non-robot things like homework, but to Chris is me specifically this is more what I meant.

[jman4747]

Yes.

What I don't understand about the "don't change it" arguments is you assume the 50p acts as an effective deterrent to crossing an invisible plane. If that were the case we wouldn't be having this discussion. The penalty does not work. It's like saying jail time prevents crime. And for as many times this 50p foul has been called I again ask how many students were in actual danger and how many were hurt? It is obviously not a very good deterrent.

Inconsequential violations of G40 should be a 20p. If you touch or almost touch a robot then 50p. And for the love of dozer, MOVE THE TAPE BOX BACK. If you want to be more safe make it harder to actually touch the robot. If the point actually is students not touching the robot in the match, make it harder to touch.

This isn't about cheating or unfair advantages. If the kid is a little too excited give him a warning.

[mrnoble]

Originally Posted by jman4747

Yes.

What I don't understand about the "don't change it" arguments is you assume the 50p acts as an effective deterrent to crossing an invisible plane. If that were the case we wouldn't be having this discussion. The penalty does not work. It's like saying jail time prevents crime. And for as many times this 50p foul has been called I again ask how many students were in actual danger and how many were hurt? It is obviously not a very good deterrent.

Inconsequential violations of G40 should be a 20p. If you touch or almost touch a robot then 50p. And for the love of dozer, MOVE THE TAPE BOX BACK. If you want to be more safe make it harder to actually touch the robot. If the point actually is students not touching the robot in the match, make it harder to touch.

This isn't about cheating or unfair advantages. If the kid is a little too excited give him a warning.

Regarding jail as a deterrent (not wanting to start a non-robotics debate, but it bears noting):
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0518111726.htm

I'd rather not use the argument that no one's been hurt yet to lower the consequences for a safety violation. We don't celebrate 10 years without an accident in the shop by relaxing the safety rules.

[AcesPease]

Originally Posted by jman4747

Yes.

What I don't understand about the "don't change it" arguments is you assume the 50p acts as an effective deterrent to crossing an invisible plane. If that were the case we wouldn't be having this discussion. The penalty does not work. It's like saying jail time prevents crime. And for as many times this 50p foul has been called I again ask how many students were in actual danger and how many were hurt? It is obviously not a very good deterrent.

Inconsequential violations of G40 should be a 20p. If you touch or almost touch a robot then 50p. And for the love of dozer, MOVE THE TAPE BOX BACK. If you want to be more safe make it harder to actually touch the robot. If the point actually is students not touching the robot in the match, make it harder to touch.

This isn't about cheating or unfair advantages. If the kid is a little too excited give him a warning.

The technicals acted as a deterrent where we played. Human players were careful. Only a couple teams trapped or stole opposing balls. And most contact was bumper to bumper. This is a very rough game with the fouls, lower point technicals would allow teams to "take the foul" to stop their opponents, that can not be what you have in mind.