paper: Spanking the Children

[Chadfrom308]

Originally Posted by JesseK

Long term:
Limit tractive drive train peak power to 1300W or speed to X ft/s?
Add a safety zone to every FRC game?
No more open fields?
Require full bumpers?
Remove the irrelevant autonomous rules?

I hope they allow drive trains with more than 1300w of power! Ours is 2.4 kW!!
But most of those long terms are things teams need to design for.

[cbale2000]

Originally Posted by Chadfrom308

I hope they allow drive trains with more than 1300w of power! Ours is 2.4 kW!!
But most of those long terms are things teams need to design for.

I couldn't agree more. One thing that I've seen in recent years is that many teams no longer build a "robust" robot that's designed to handle the intensity of the game. The robots we all used to build prior to 2007 (the first year bumpers were mandated) make some of the chassis I see these days look like they're made out of tin foil.
Personally I think teams that decide to take extreme weight-reducing measures by compromising the durability of their bots should do so at their own peril.

I do think that offense should be deregulated more (getting a penalty called because a defending robot gets itself in the way of your collector is absurd), but I don't think you necessarily need to super regulate defense (like in 2008) to accomplish a balanced game. I still think 2006 was one of the best, most balanced games to date, and it included an open field, lots of game pieces, good defensive robots, good offensive robots, and few bumpers.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by cbale2000

I couldn't agree more. One thing that I've seen in recent years is that many teams no longer build a "robust" robot that's designed to handle the intensity of the game. The robots we all used to build prior to 2007 (the first year bumpers were mandated) make some of the chassis I see these days look like they're made out of tin foil.
Personally I think teams that decide to take extreme weight-reducing measures by compromising the durability of their bots should do so at their own peril.

I do think that offense should be deregulated more (getting a penalty called because a defending robot gets itself in the way of your collector is absurd), but I don't think you necessarily need to super regulate defense (like in 2008) to accomplish a balanced game. I still think 2006 was one of the best, most balanced games to date, and it included an open field, lots of game pieces, good defensive robots, good offensive robots, and few bumpers.

Emphasis mine.

That's the big key here, by having multiple ways to score it cuts the defense across a couple different people. In 2006 there were potentially 3 scoring robots and only 2 defending robots except potentially in the last period of play. Compare that with this year where exactly one robot is capable of scoring points for their alliance. This leaves 2 defenders on one robot by virtue of having nothing better to do.

I think the core problems with this years game stem from the lack of alternate ways to help your alliance. There are exactly two ways your robot can provide benefit to your alliance: 1) Manipulation of the ball. 2) Inhibit the opponent from manipulating their ball. Being as only one robot can do #1 the other 2 need to do SOMETHING.

[Jean Tenca]

This is a great paper. I couldn't agree with you more. As someone who has been part of the FIRST community since I started competing in 2002, it was a lot of fun to read this and travel back through memories.

A lot has already been said on this thread regarding this, but I do hope they drop the impact of unavoidable and non-malicious actions throughout the game. I also wish they would stop writing rules that use the word "intentional" since it's so subjective. Until then, we'll keep doing our best to have fun and avoid penalties

[Joseph Smith]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Emphasis mine.

That's the big key here, by having multiple ways to score it cuts the defense across a couple different people. In 2006 there were potentially 3 scoring robots and only 2 defending robots except potentially in the last period of play. Compare that with this year where exactly one robot is capable of scoring points for their alliance. This leaves 2 defenders on one robot by virtue of having nothing better to do.

I think the core problems with this years game stem from the lack of alternate ways to help your alliance. There are exactly two ways your robot can provide benefit to your alliance: 1) Manipulation of the ball. 2) Inhibit the opponent from manipulating their ball. Being as only one robot can do #1 the other 2 need to do SOMETHING.

3) Protect their alliance's scoring robot from defense.
I haven't seen much counter-defense played at the events I've watched, but there were times when an "inbounder" or "midfielder" robot were sitting there doing nothing while their scoring robot was getting hammered by defense. In situations like these, a bit of counter-defense could allow the scoring robot to finish the cycle and keep the game moving, where they would otherwise be blocked or keep missing shots due to defense.

[fox46]

I would postulate that back in the days before bumpers gameplay was far more violent. Today we may experience batteries sliding around and wires pulling out during impact but back then a hard hit could completely destroy a robot's frame. I remember one team with a beautifully engineered and constructed robot made of laminated maple. It was a piece of art. One hit by a fast moving machine though and it was reduced to splinters.

I don't agree with the idea that robots have increased in power. Back then you had Bosch drill motors which in themselves were up around the 500W range, CIM @ 300W, FP-0673 @ 290W, combine two or more and you are easily keeping pace with the drivetrain power of today. What has changed however are that FIRST has done away with the impossibly difficult to mount/use drill motors and given us more CIMS. With the availability of products from vendors like AM and VEX, combining three motors in a 2 speed gearbox which was once considered the holy grail of drivetrains is now within everyone's reach.

Furthermore, I distinctly remember when the "kit frame" included 80-20 Bosch extrusion and 2x4x0.125" aluminum box tubing. If anything the kit frames from today are far more flimsy than in the past. This is okay though - the inclusion of bumpers has facilitated this.

I have no problem with the speed and power of today's machines. It's thrilling to see a robot zip from one end of the field to another, deeking their opponents out and pirouetting around them at 18fps. Just don't get in it's way! Don't complain that a robot "hurt" yours when you got in their way and that it's their fault your machine is now broken. The robot who ran into you experienced just as much energy transfer and impact as yours did. Build em strong!

I truly believe the key to mitigating defensive strategies and violence on the field is all in how the game is constructed. Like preventing war between countries, the key to a peaceful civilization is that it has to be unprofitable for parties to fight. The answer here is not through the increased use of penalties. Give every robot a ball to play with and a constructive job to do aside from messing with their opponents and they'll all play nice.

[mathking]

Jason, very nice rant. Joseph I think you hit the nail on the head. So many times I have seen teams not helping their allies get free to shoot. This requires some coordination. After watching a lot of game film, we have come to the conclusion that sometimes the most effective "blocking" is to get the blocking robot to lead the way and get between the defender and the ally with the ball.

This year I have felt what I see as two distinct kinds of frustration over the game. The first is that penalties are too big (and often because the refs are toggling between pad screens too inconsistently called) so that penalties incurred by accident are changing too many matches. I completely understand that frustration. The second is the "We built a really great robot that can score well and this 'box on wheels' just keeps running into us." While I understand that frustration, I think it might well have been intended by the GDC.

Probably more than any other FRC game I have experienced, in Aerial Assist good driving and good strategy trumps a good robot. I really liked the games the last two years, but they were both games in which one really good robot could dominate most alliances. I was describing this year's game to a friend and he said "From what you said it sounds like it is how well you act without the ball that determines whether your alliance wins."

In one of our better matches, we were partnered with 4269. They were acting as the middle robot, picking up from 4306, heading to the white zone and passing to us. When a defender was near us they would give us the ball and then drive the defenders away from the side of the field giving us a clear lane to score. We got three 40 point cycles (after having to spend some time clearing autonomous balls) fairly easily this way. That match made me focus more on thinking about what the robot should be doing when it doesn't have the ball.

[jman4747]

+1 Great paper.

Hard Hits:
This field is very open so both you and whoever you run into are that much more likely to be at your top speed. Personally I'm fine with 6CIM's total being allowed, I feel it gives greater flexibility and increases robot diversity. However if you are concerned with collision speed you would need to limit max fps maybe to 10-12 or so or increase bumper thickness? I really don't know how I feel about that.

Foul Values:
Contact inside the frame perimeter, goal, whatever needs to be conditional. Why can you get a penalty for doing something that doesn't affect game play or safety? Emphasis on dose not affect. The 50pt for pinning may be changed to the current point value of a ball possessed by that robot or 20p if it possesses no ball.

Ball position and does G14 even exist?:
Possession of an opponent's ball rule and the wording of G14 means as long as you can't prove they tried to put the ball in your robot you get the foul no matter how it happened. You could loose coms because your DS crashed and an opposing alliance bot could push the ball into your robot and it would be completely legal so long as they say it was accidental. My test for a fare foul is can you literally do nothing (assuming that doing nothing does not incur a foul by it self like a G25 for example) and get a foul. G14 needs to say that you cannot intentionally or Unintentionally cause another alliance to incur a foul with 20p and 50p for Unintentionally and intentionally respectively. Just see the video in post #46 top of page 4.

Summery:
I think this is a good game with a misguided focus on how and what for foul points are applied and an all too weak G14. Also a lack of any protection for offence bots just makes more defense and interference play which means more broken bots.

[IKE]

Originally Posted by cbale2000

I couldn't agree more. One thing that I've seen in recent years is that many teams no longer build a "robust" robot that's designed to handle the intensity of the game. The robots we all used to build prior to 2007 (the first year bumpers were mandated) make some of the chassis I see these days look like they're made out of tin foil.
Personally I think teams that decide to take extreme weight-reducing measures by compromising the durability of their bots should do so at their own peril.
...snip....

I don't think you fully understand the role velocity plays in hit energy. Yeah, pre-2007 some of the more thuggish teams built tanks and bashed opponents "back in the good old days", but most teams trying to play the games drove around and got beat on quite a bit. Frames have IMO actually gotten better. the KOP frame has a lot better durability to it than the KOP frames from 2004 onward. In fact, I would say it is nearly equivalent to some of the best from the 2007/2008 timeframe.

Deformation comes from energy. and Kinetic energy is KE=1/2*m*V^2. In 2007, most defenders only traveled at about 7 FPS or less. Now, may are hitting 10 FPS with some teams exceeding 12 or 14 fps even. When comparing the two, a 7 FPS robot has 1/2 the kinetic energy of a 10 FPS robot. 12 FPS robot is at 3X a 7 FPS robot. 14 FPS is at 4X the Kinetic energy.

I help kep a lot of teams running during the weekends, and this year, I am seeing a lot of fallout due to wires getting pulled out during high speed impacts. Its a rough game.

[Joe Ross]

I don't remember 2000 as being a rough year, 1999 was much worse. However, watching the following video from 2000 15 years later and two things jump out. Robots were really slow and even normal play was really rough.

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

[magnets]

Originally Posted by IKE

I don't think you fully understand the role velocity plays in hit energy. Yeah, pre-2007 some of the more thuggish teams built tanks and bashed opponents "back in the good old days", but most teams trying to play the games drove around and got beat on quite a bit. Frames have IMO actually gotten better. the KOP frame has a lot better durability to it than the KOP frames from 2004 onward. In fact, I would say it is nearly equivalent to some of the best from the 2007/2008 timeframe.

Deformation comes from energy. and Kinetic energy is KE=1/2*m*V^2. In 2007, most defenders only traveled at about 7 FPS or less. Now, may are hitting 10 FPS with some teams exceeding 12 or 14 fps even. When comparing the two, a 7 FPS robot has 1/2 the kinetic energy of a 10 FPS robot. 12 FPS robot is at 3X a 7 FPS robot. 14 FPS is at 4X the Kinetic energy.

I help kep a lot of teams running during the weekends, and this year, I am seeing a lot of fallout due to wires getting pulled out during high speed impacts. Its a rough game.

For the most part, I agree with the frame comment. The 1x2 aluminum box frames that are popping up all over the place these days are pretty tough. The ball intakes this year aren't that tough.

I also agree with the speed comment. Now that teams with an average budget can just purchase a frame with a three CIM two speed transmission, there's a ton of teams with wicked fast robots.

As for past robots being slow, I don't think you could call 111's 2003 auto slow. Full speed collisions in auto could be dangerous that year, especially with teams using CIMs and drill motors together. I remember being amazed that a team (??) built a robot that went 14 fps, which isn't that far off from some teams this year.

http://youtu.be/vnwl31zoAPI?t=1m4s

[cbale2000]

Originally Posted by IKE

I don't think you fully understand the role velocity plays in hit energy. Yeah, pre-2007 some of the more thuggish teams built tanks and bashed opponents "back in the good old days", but most teams trying to play the games drove around and got beat on quite a bit. Frames have IMO actually gotten better. the KOP frame has a lot better durability to it than the KOP frames from 2004 onward. In fact, I would say it is nearly equivalent to some of the best from the 2007/2008 timeframe.

Deformation comes from energy. and Kinetic energy is KE=1/2*m*V^2. In 2007, most defenders only traveled at about 7 FPS or less. Now, may are hitting 10 FPS with some teams exceeding 12 or 14 fps even. When comparing the two, a 7 FPS robot has 1/2 the kinetic energy of a 10 FPS robot. 12 FPS robot is at 3X a 7 FPS robot. 14 FPS is at 4X the Kinetic energy.

I help kep a lot of teams running during the weekends, and this year, I am seeing a lot of fallout due to wires getting pulled out during high speed impacts. Its a rough game.

I was actually not speaking of the KOP frame, and you're right that it's considerably better than previous years (though I still thought the older ones were fairly durable if assembled right). I just remember when we used to build our robot frames out of ~0.25" aluminum plates because there were no bumpers (granted, this could have just been our team, but we never had a bent frame).

I will admit my experience is limited to 2005 and later, but still, I don't remember seeing nearly as many of THESE problems back in 2006 and 2007, and as I recall there were some pretty speedy robots in those games, maybe they didn't all have 6 motor drives (though ours did in 2006), but there were definitely robots that could get across the field very quickly.

[dtengineering]

I'll say this write up is a factual summary of rules, but strongly disagree with the bias that FIRST does a poor job of rules and penalties.

I missed the "no penalties" era by a year. I started in 2004 with "Raising the Bar" and in our team's very first match we were complete, moronic, rookies with two Bosch drill motors for our drive system, and a floppy scissors lift with floppy appendages that crossed the plane of the goal so many times that we caused our exceptionally talented partners, team 33, to lose the match.

I'll give team 33 some GP credit for taking that one on the chin, but here's the thing: we analyzed what we did wrong... which started back with not actually considering all the rules when we built our robot, and set forth to take responsibility to never have a match deciding penalty called against us, ever again.

It almost worked... I think we did get one a couple years later.

When the rules were announced, we would read the rules and design a robot that could play the game within the rules. We would also plan a strategy to play the game within the rules. We would quiz the drive team on the rules and emphasize the goal to play a clean game.

I know we didn't quite meet our goal of having a perfect record of rule compliance, and I can remember more than one time when I privately disagreed with a referee's call, but never... ever... in all the games that Jim references have I felt that I could have done a better job of writing the rules or making the calls.

Nope, the rules aren't perfect. The refs aren't perfect. But they are a heck of a lot better than I could do, and as part of buying in to FRC, I'm buying in to the rule book, too.

Perhaps my approach comes from playing a variety of sports. Basketball, hockey... none of them have perfect rule books or perfect refs. Just ask the American women's ice hockey team. Or the Canadian women's soccer team. (Do those two, match-deciding, calls in Olympic finals and semi-finals balance each other out?) Compared to other sports FRC is pretty darn good. If you think explaining an FRC game is complex, try explaining football or baseball to someone who has never seen the game before.

So I completely reject the thesis that the rules are "bad". The GDC is made up of some pretty brilliant people who do a fantastic job of coming up with a creative game each and every year. While it is easy to complain about aspects of the game, I'd have to be pretty arrogant to suggest that I could do better... and I'd be the cliche of the armchair quarterback to suggest that I could do a better job of enforcing the rules than the refs do!

Okay... maybe this turned into a bit of a rant. Everyone is welcome to have their opinion on the rules, the refs, and is more than welcome to suggest improvements. And I have no problem with people having "favorite" games, or suggesting that they enjoyed one game more than another (Aim High was my favorite). I'll even agree with the fact that there are many match-deciding penalties. But that happens in sports. Really. It does... and that's okay.

But please take into account that each year, the GDC has to come up with a rule book that will spend the next three months being picked apart by 40,000 of the brightest, most creative minds on the planet. I think they do an outstanding job of it.

Jason

[wilsonmw04]

Originally Posted by dtengineering

I
Okay... maybe this turned into a bit of a rant.

Jason

Jason, I just had a similar rant with my team. Rant on, Brother. Rant on.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to dtengineering again.

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by dtengineering

I'll say this write up is a factual summary of rules, but strongly disagree with the bias that FIRST does a poor job of rules and penalties.

I missed the "no penalties" era by a year. I started in 2004 with "Raising the Bar" and in our team's very first match we were complete, moronic, rookies with two Bosch drill motors for our drive system, and a floppy scissors lift with floppy appendages that crossed the plane of the goal so many times that we caused our exceptionally talented partners, team 33, to lose the match.

I'll give team 33 some GP credit for taking that one on the chin, but here's the thing: we analyzed what we did wrong... which started back with not actually considering all the rules when we built our robot, and set forth to take responsibility to never have a match deciding penalty called against us, ever again.

It almost worked... I think we did get one a couple years later.

When the rules were announced, we would read the rules and design a robot that could play the game within the rules. We would also plan a strategy to play the game within the rules. We would quiz the drive team on the rules and emphasize the goal to play a clean game.

I know we didn't quite meet our goal of having a perfect record of rule compliance, and I can remember more than one time when I privately disagreed with a referee's call, but never... ever... in all the games that Jim references have I felt that I could have done a better job of writing the rules or making the calls.

Nope, the rules aren't perfect. The refs aren't perfect. But they are a heck of a lot better than I could do, and as part of buying in to FRC, I'm buying in to the rule book, too.

Perhaps my approach comes from playing a variety of sports. Basketball, hockey... none of them have perfect rule books or perfect refs. Just ask the American women's ice hockey team. Or the Canadian women's soccer team. (Do those two, match-deciding, calls in Olympic finals and semi-finals balance each other out?) Compared to other sports FRC is pretty darn good. If you think explaining an FRC game is complex, try explaining football or baseball to someone who has never seen the game before.

So I completely reject the thesis that the rules are "bad". The GDC is made up of some pretty brilliant people who do a fantastic job of coming up with a creative game each and every year. While it is easy to complain about aspects of the game, I'd have to be pretty arrogant to suggest that I could do better... and I'd be the cliche of the armchair quarterback to suggest that I could do a better job of enforcing the rules than the refs do!

Okay... maybe this turned into a bit of a rant. Everyone is welcome to have their opinion on the rules, the refs, and is more than welcome to suggest improvements. And I have no problem with people having "favorite" games, or suggesting that they enjoyed one game more than another (Aim High was my favorite). I'll even agree with the fact that there are many match-deciding penalties. But that happens in sports. Really. It does... and that's okay.

But please take into account that each year, the GDC has to come up with a rule book that will spend the next three months being picked apart by 40,000 of the brightest, most creative minds on the planet. I think they do an outstanding job of it.

Jason

Well put Jason and thanks for sticking around and helping with the tear down in Mt Vernon as well as being a Judge.