Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke

[Jon Stratis]

Strength of schedule is always an issue, this isn't anything new... and yet so many people are on here whining and complaining about it this year. Tough. Deal with it.

Last year, my team built an awesome robot. Unfortunately, once the game started playing out it was obvious we had chosen a losing strategy. We placed 4th at Lake Superior and were the first pick for the #1 seed, followed a few weeks later (with no changes to the robot, everything worked just as well as it did in Duluth) with 50th at North Star and the second pick of the #7 seed. I challenge anyone to point to results from this year that are any worse than those.

[Aren Siekmeier]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

Strength of schedule is always an issue, this isn't anything new... and yet so many people are on here whining and complaining about it this year. Tough. Deal with it.

Last year, my team built an awesome robot. Unfortunately, once the game started playing out it was obvious we had chosen a losing strategy. We placed 4th at Lake Superior and were the first pick for the #1 seed, followed a few weeks later (with no changes to the robot, everything worked just as well as it did in Duluth) with 50th at North Star and the second pick of the #7 seed. I challenge anyone to point to results from this year that are any worse than those.

Last year, many teams did not have any hanging or consistent frisbee scoring working by the Duluth event, not to mention very few consistent auto modes. Hanging consistently every match was a solid 50 points and no hanging and just a few frisbees made that hard to beat. By Week 5, there were several teams that had cycling more refined and could put up closer to 70 points with frisbees alone (plus auto!). By the end of the season, the more refined cycling strategies proved more capable than a dedicated climbing strategy. Like you said, you chose a strategy that unfortunately did not pan out at higher levels.

However, this year, the dominant strategy is undoubtedly to get at least one assist and consistently truss and score for 10, along side a consistent auto mode. While in Duluth, the rankings reflected this very well, with the best robots all in the top 8, at North Star, the 5 best robots were scattered across the top 30, with the third best machine (by my judgment), 3883, all the way down at 29. This was not because they chose a strategy that lost its effectiveness as the season progressed. This was because they played against literally every other good robot at the event, and never with one of them. 3928 was stuck at 12 and had no choice but to accept the number 2 seed, 4244, a box on wheels that never touched a ball once in their two quarterfinal matches. North Star also had several upsets in elims, while Duluth had none (the blue alliance won a single elimination match). All of this corresponds very neatly with my observation of the reffing and field reset quality at both events, as well as with the strength of schedule of all teams in question. Maybe you could say that the refs made drawing fouls and not having field faults a more competitive strategy at North Star, so the dominant strategy I'm talking about was no longer effective. But I think that would make a lot of people pretty unhappy, and I think that's what this whole conversation is about...

So it's a little rough to tell people to just "Deal with it" when they clearly have been and they clearly should not have to.

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by compwiztobe

Last year, many teams did not have any hanging or consistent frisbee scoring working by the Duluth event, not to mention very few consistent auto modes. Hanging consistently every match was a solid 50 points and no hanging and just a few frisbees made that hard to beat. By Week 5, there were several teams that had cycling more refined and could put up closer to 70 points with frisbees alone (plus auto!). By the end of the season, the more refined cycling strategies proved more capable than a dedicated climbing strategy. Like you said, you chose a strategy that unfortunately did not pan out at higher levels.

However, this year, the dominant strategy is undoubtedly to get at least one assist and consistently truss and score for 10, along side a consistent auto mode. While in Duluth, the rankings reflected this very well, with the best robots all in the top 8, at North Star, the 5 best robots were scattered across the top 30, with the third best machine (by my judgment), 3883, all the way down at 29. This was not because they chose a strategy that lost its effectiveness as the season progressed. This was because they played against literally every other good robot at the event, and never with one of them. 3928 was stuck at 12 and had no choice but to accept the number 2 seed, 4244, a box on wheels that never touched a ball once in their two quarterfinal matches. North Star also had several upsets in elims, while Duluth had none (the blue alliance won a single elimination match). All of this corresponds very neatly with my observation of the reffing and field reset quality at both events, as well as with the strength of schedule of all teams in question. Maybe you could say that the refs made drawing fouls and not having field faults a more competitive strategy at North Star, so the dominant strategy I'm talking about was no longer effective. But I think that would make a lot of people pretty unhappy, and I think that's what this whole conversation is about...

So it's a little rough to tell people to just "Deal with it" when they clearly have been and they clearly should not have to.

Go watch some videos from 2013 Lake Superior, and then try and tell me the seeding was because the nature of the game changed - there were plenty of matches we won where our robot climbing had absolutely nothing to do with it because we screwed up on getting set up for the climb. We were carried in those matches and ranked much better than we really deserved, based purely on robot performance.

[Aren Siekmeier]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

Go watch some videos from 2013 Lake Superior, and then try and tell me the seeding was because the nature of the game changed - there were plenty of matches we won where our robot climbing had absolutely nothing to do with it because we screwed up on getting set up for the climb. We were carried in those matches and ranked much better than we really deserved, based purely on robot performance.

I must have misunderstood your original post. My apologies.

I do think your climbing helped you more in Duluth than it did at North Star. There is also something to be said for the fact that the 1st seed selected you in Duluth for your climbing ability, but the same climbing ability was not selected until coming back up the serpentine at North Star. But it sounds like this is irrelevant.

You have a good point. There are ranking inconsistencies every year, produced by the schedule. However, some people (myself included) feel that there are more severe inconsistencies introduced by the foul points, the field reset, and the inconsistent and unreliable refereeing.

Originally Posted by Pranit T

Implying that blue alliance should never win because they clearly have the inferior robots. Nicely done.

The point of the ranking system is to predict robot performance in elimination rounds. An inaccurate ranking system is one that fails to do this. In elimination matches, the higher seed alliance (or the one which beated the higher seed) is red, while the other is blue. So blue winning is what is considered an upset, and is generally thought to be correlated with an inaccurate ranking system. It's just statistics, not an absolute.

Originally Posted by Pranit T

You said it "so and so's machine was easily in the top 5 robots" according to your judgement. Why can't it be that they were ranked lower because maybe they DID adopt a strategy that lost its effectiveness as the season progressed. You are now simply undermining the improvements that the opposing teams could have made before or during the event. If you really think that a team can pick one strategy and stick to it from Week 1 of competition all the way thru Week 6 and Champs, I'm afraid you've got it wrong my friend.

From watching their performance both in Duluth and at North Star, 3883 improved their game and consistently demonstrated excellence at the game tasks during qualification matches, more so than many of the 28 teams who outranked them. Yes, anyone's judgment will be flawed and subjective, but I watched many of the teams at North Star play and actually put some thought into this, I hardly think it's just because I "like their robot."

Originally Posted by Pranit T

You really cant rant about you getting the short end of the stick in a randomized draw. Thus, deal with it.

My point is that there are ranking anomalies because of the refereeing. The schedule is a randomized draw every year, but the claim is that something makes the rankings less accurate this year, and I believe I have shown some evidence of that. The refs make an admirable effort to catch everything and do it right. However, we have had the misfortune to interact with some who are not so professional about making mistakes or missing calls, and some even stray from the rules and updates openly. This may be because they already have too much to worry about, but whoever is at fault, if anyone, it's a problem, and I would like the situation to improve. We can argue about this stuff, or we can recognize problems and try to improve.

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by compwiztobe

My point is that there are ranking anomalies because of the refereeing. The schedule is a randomized draw every year, but the claim is that something makes the rankings less accurate this year, and I believe I have shown some evidence of that. The refs make an admirable effort to catch everything and do it right. However, we have had the misfortune to interact with some who are not so professional about making mistakes or missing calls, and some even stray from the rules and updates openly. This may be because they already have too much to worry about, but whoever is at fault, if anyone, it's a problem, and I would like the situation to improve. We can argue about this stuff, or we can recognize problems and try to improve.

Keep bringing it strong. We went from 4th to 10th as a result of one really, really bad tech foul call that cost us a win (which numerous others on here have panned upon seeing the video of the call). I find that drop to be a huge roadblock dropped in our path by a failed system - one that prevented us from having the appropriate chance to pick our alliance and have more control over our elimination round journey - an opportunity that we had EARNED but were denied.

And that was just at one event. It so happened to be the one in which we were operating at our highest level this season. We've been smacked in the face by so many different types of game management transgressions this year, I've gone numb to it all.

My only hope for any type of recovery from this season of blar is an invite to the Championship off the waitlist, which as I've said before, I am very, very doubtful we will get.

[Pranit T]

Originally Posted by compwiztobe

However, this year, the dominant strategy is undoubtedly to get at least one assist and consistently truss and score for 10, along side a consistent auto mode. While in Duluth, the rankings reflected this very well, with the best robots all in the top 8, at North Star, the 5 best robots were scattered across the top 30, with the third best machine (by my judgment), 3883, all the way down at 29. This was not because they chose a strategy that lost its effectiveness as the season progressed. This was because they played against literally every other good robot at the event, and never with one of them. 3928 was stuck at 12 and had no choice but to accept the number 2 seed, 4244, a box on wheels that never touched a ball once in their two quarterfinal matches. North Star also had several upsets in elims, while Duluth had none (the blue alliance won a single elimination match). All of this corresponds very neatly with my observation of the reffing and field reset quality at both events, as well as with the strength of schedule of all teams in question. Maybe you could say that the refs made drawing fouls and not having field faults a more competitive strategy at North Star, so the dominant strategy I'm talking about was no longer effective. But I think that would make a lot of people pretty unhappy, and I think that's what this whole conversation is about...

So it's a little rough to tell people to just "Deal with it" when they clearly have been and they clearly should not have to.

Implying that blue alliance should never win because they clearly have the inferior robots. Nicely done.

You said it "so and so's machine was easily in the top 5 robots" according to your judgement. Why can't it be that they were ranked lower because maybe they DID adopt a strategy that lost its effectiveness as the season progressed. You are now simply undermining the improvements that the opposing teams could have made before or during the event. If you really think that a team can pick one strategy and stick to it from Week 1 of competition all the way thru Week 6 and Champs, I'm afraid you've got it wrong my friend.

Every team thinks they have built the best robot for the competition and to the best of their abilities, some clearly have. But that does not necessarily give you the right to openly criticize the robots that you may not be a fan of, or the game when the robots you are a fan of, don't do so well.

Now remains the question of the refs and the field reset who you have now called out in two separate posts. A lot has been put on the shoulders of these volunteers, as it usually has, and they are trying to do the best they can to make sure the event and the matches run smoothly and in a fair manner. If you are so concerned with the level at which the calls are being made or how the game pieces are being handled, try putting yourself in their shoes and see how it is from "that" side of the field.

And bringing up another point, think of going to an event with an odd number of teams. There will be teams playing "surrogate" matches, and even these teams are decided at random. So you keep your fingers crossed that the team you're partnered with moves, can pick up a ball, pass it, play defense effectively while they don't have the ball, and do this repeatedly over the duration of a match. Match schedules are designed to maximize the number of teams you face at an event. There is a reason match making is random as it gives each of the teams the same chance to face the others.

You really cant rant about you getting the short end of the stick in a randomized draw. Thus, deal with it.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by compwiztobe

However, this year, the dominant strategy is undoubtedly to get at least one assist and consistently truss and score for 10, along side a consistent auto mode. While in Duluth, the rankings reflected this very well, with the best robots all in the top 8, at North Star, the 5 best robots were scattered across the top 30, with the third best machine (by my judgment), 3883, all the way down at 29. This was not because they chose a strategy that lost its effectiveness as the season progressed. This was because they played against literally every other good robot at the event, and never with one of them. 3928 was stuck at 12 and had no choice but to accept the number 2 seed, 4244, a box on wheels that never touched a ball once in their two quarterfinal matches. North Star also had several upsets in elims, while Duluth had none (the blue alliance won a single elimination match). All of this corresponds very neatly with my observation of the reffing and field reset quality at both events, as well as with the strength of schedule of all teams in question. Maybe you could say that the refs made drawing fouls and not having field faults a more competitive strategy at North Star, so the dominant strategy I'm talking about was no longer effective. But I think that would make a lot of people pretty unhappy, and I think that's what this whole conversation is about...

So it's a little rough to tell people to just "Deal with it" when they clearly have been and they clearly should not have to.

Your own anecdote shows that there are plenty more factors in play than simply game design and reffing. The scheduling algorithm can carry certain teams or doom others to mediocre qualification records, regardless of game. The not-so-random algorithm in 2007 skewed rankings towards functional younger teams. Similarly, this isn't the only year a "box on wheels" has ranked in the top 8, and having them rank in the top 8 is proof that the disadvantages presented by lower quality partners is not a dominant factor in the ranking system.

[Mastonevich]

Originally Posted by Pat Fairbank

This is certainly possible at events this year, but in many cases, that involves taking away their auto balls, pulling the circuit breakers that control their catapults/shooters, zip-tying some protruding appendages into place, zip-tying their human players' hands behind their backs, and telling them to drive to the inbound station and sit there the whole match with their intake constantly spinning in reverse.

Is that more inspiring to those teams than a game where they could simply do what their robot was designed to do without the risk of dragging down their partners?

I believe it would be more inspiring for more teams to work with other teams during build to make them capable partners in a game where it was clear on day 1 that viable partners were a necessity. I know that is probably a pipe dream given the constraints of a six week build and the limited resources of even "successful" teams.

Originally Posted by compwiztobe

So it's a little rough to tell people to just "Deal with it" when they clearly have been and they clearly should not have to.

Playing devils advocate, why should you "clearly not have to" deal with it. Most adults have had to "deal with it" hundreds of times in thier lives. Why should this be any different?

My answer would be for the amount of money spent going to these competitions, one has a reasonable expectation that the competition is played out fairly to all.


Going back to the original question of buyer's remorse, I feel that the game still accomplishes the goal of "For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology". That is what I signed up for. It is a proven means to inspiring the students on my team for sure.

[stuart2054]

[quote=Mastonevich;1368054]I believe it would be more inspiring for more teams to work with other teams during build to make them capable partners in a game where it was clear on day 1 that viable partners were a necessity. I know that is probably a pipe dream given the constraints of a six week build and the limited resources of even "successful" teams.

I agree with helping other teams but obviously the 6 week build schedule makes it difficult. I would like to see rookies and perhaps 2nd year teams have an extra week of build season after bag night for veterans so that veteran teams would have more opportunity to help without loss of their own build time.

[Mastonevich]

Originally Posted by stuart2054

I would like to see rookies and perhaps 2nd year teams have an extra week of build season after bag night for veterans so that veteran teams would have more opportunity to help without loss of their own build time.

Personally I really like that idea. It would be one solution to the problem for sure. I can only imagine the discussion if it were to be implemented however.

[Christopher149]

Originally Posted by Mastonevich

Personally I really like that idea. It would be one solution to the problem for sure. I can only imagine the discussion if it were to be implemented however.

Something like: 4967 (who won Gull Lake as #2 seed) clearly doesn't need more time, why should we give them more time?

[stuart2054]

Originally Posted by Christopher149

Something like: 4967 (who won Gull Lake as #2 seed) clearly doesn't need more time, why should we give them more time?

I am well aware of 4967 since we played with them and they are very good but I also think they are more the exception than the rule. Most rookie teams would benifit from some help from verteran teams and I would submit the veteran teams that helped out would also benifit by seeing new ideas that might be able to be implimented or gain a strategy they had not thought of.

[RunawayEngineer]

This isn't the first year that CD has gone wild over how much they dislike the game and it won't be the last.
Remember that: No game will please everyone. Also, the forum's "consensus" could very well be a vocal minority.
Every year there are people who don't do as well as they would like, so they come here pointing out "flaws" with the game. What people seem to forget is that every single competition on the planet will have similar issues. If they aren't apparent, it's because they have gone through a long process of correction or because we've grown up with them.
Also, the secrecy of the game challenge is one of the things that defines FIRST. There are other robotics competitions that are the same every year. It is inevitable when trying to come up with something unique and interesting that there will be side effects.
I agree that there are problems with this game's design and implementation that might have been prevented, but let's not overreact as if this is a problem that we wouldn't face doing anything else competitive and exciting.