Buyers' remorse / Pig in a poke

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04

Sounds like some folks need to spend some time relaxing with family and get away from robots for a while.

Not to be flip about it, but i think some of us are explicitly worried about this happening. If we told the refs and volunteers that have been dealing with this game and field that next year is going to be another 6 weeks of marginally operable scoring software and an impossible number of fouls to track, i think a distressing number of them might decide that a relaxing weekend at home is much better idea than volunteering.

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by magnets

The tablets worked just fine in 2011, 2012, and 2013. Why did they have to ruin them this year?

I'm not entirely sure there is that much of a difference in how the tablets work. The difference is how much the refs have to interact with the tablets. I don't recall how fast the panels responded in the past - but we really didn't care. In the past refs only had to enter a foul or maybe a score, but the teams weren't stopped from entering game pieces until after the panel and linked field systems responded.

[Anupam Goli]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

I'm not entirely sure there is that much of a difference in how the tablets work. The difference is how much the refs have to interact with the tablets. I don't recall how fast the panels responded in the past - but we really didn't care. In the past refs only had to enter a foul or maybe a score, but the teams weren't stopped from entering game pieces until after the panel and linked field systems responded.

Perhaps this game is exposing flaws in the tablet system that were never caught during testing or the past couple of years.

[Dale]

There have been a lot of good comments here and I hope the GDC is watching and learning from this year. I know from experience in designing the BunnyBot game each year that game design is a tough, under appreciated, time consuming job.

One thing I would like to add for future games is to keep an eye on safety. What kind or robots are teams likely to build? This year's game is a scary one from the standpoint of the potential energy stored in many of these catapult mechanisms. Sure teams are required to have safety straps and locks but it's all too easy to forget to put them in place when making "one quick fix.". Someone could get seriously hurt this year.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

You're aware that yesterday was April 1st, right?

Oh, right....

[mutantlog]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

Not to be flip about it, but i think some of us are explicitly worried about this happening. If we told the refs and volunteers that have been dealing with this game and field that next year is going to be another 6 weeks of marginally operable scoring software and an impossible number of fouls to track, i think a distressing number of them might decide that a relaxing weekend at home is much better idea than volunteering.

As someone who gets involved with FIRST once a year to referee, I'm happy to identify myself as someone who would stay home. I've already said elsewhere on here that I plan to review the rules before signing up in VIMS next year. I'd like to earn my 10 year service pin next year, but if I look at the rules and get the same feeling in my gut that I did when I read this year's rules, I'd seriously think twice, and I can't imagine that's a desirable outcome for FIRST.

[magnets]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

I'm not entirely sure there is that much of a difference in how the tablets work. The difference is how much the refs have to interact with the tablets. I don't recall how fast the panels responded in the past - but we really didn't care. In the past refs only had to enter a foul or maybe a score, but the teams weren't stopped from entering game pieces until after the panel and linked field systems responded.

To be totally honest, I didn't use a 2012 or 2013 tablet, so I have no idea. I agree with your comment that previous games didn't rely on the responsiveness of the tablet. But I know that the 2011 tablets were about 1 second latency between your touch and the tube changing on the tablet screen.

[mathking]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

I'm not entirely sure there is that much of a difference in how the tablets work. The difference is how much the refs have to interact with the tablets. I don't recall how fast the panels responded in the past - but we really didn't care. In the past refs only had to enter a foul or maybe a score, but the teams weren't stopped from entering game pieces until after the panel and linked field systems responded.

Honestly I think this might have been the most universal frustration with the game. In trying to brainstorm rule changes for our off season competition, one of the things we thought of was placing the onus on teams to get it right. If you put the ball in play before the other one scores its a technical foul. Pedestal issues were certainly the reason for the majority of the replays I have seen. I used the panels in 2011, 2012 and 2014, and the response time was about the same in all three.

[jlindquist74]

Originally Posted by magnets

To be totally honest, I didn't use a 2012 or 2013 tablet, so I have no idea. I agree with your comment that previous games didn't rely on the responsiveness of the tablet. But I know that the 2011 tablets were about 1 second latency between your touch and the tube changing on the tablet screen.

Originally Posted by mathking

I used the panels in 2011, 2012 and 2014, and the response time was about the same in all three.

I know I'm not the only software engineer in the house. That this problem continues to exist... does anyone else find that professionally offensive? Look at the FMS, look at the tablet application, look at the tablet OS. Allen-Bradley HQ is a short drive from the Wisconsin Regional. I would've asked for a couple panel engineers to come out on practice day to observe and investigate if I had indications the OS was the bottleneck. We owe all of our kids (and everyone else's) better than this.

(Software's so wonderful. There's so many ways to Do It Wrong™!)

Originally Posted by Abhishek R

When I play soccer, I don't show up on Saturday and take the pitch with 10 random other people. Tell me one, since you claim "most," legitimate sport in which you have random teammates.

That's no bug. That's a beautiful FIRST feature I point out to others. You have to be ready to collaborate with strangers. Even better, you have to do it when you know you'll play against them in the next game. They'll know your weaknesses and strategies, and you still do it. Being bossy or arrogant will not serve you well here.

Sports is sports. FRC is FRC. We must be cautious about making either more like the other.

Originally Posted by mathking

At the start of the year (and even more after Crossroads) I have felt that what is needed are dedicated scorekeepers, so that a few more eyes are watching the match and the referees are focusing on fouls and not scoring.

But this is where it's needed. As scorekeeper for football, basketball, and lacrosse, I cannot see everything that happens on the field. The action is too fast, with too many actors over too wide an area. (Just like FRC!) My focus has to stay with the ball. I can't credit points, tackles, or assists properly if I'm looking for holding or fouls off the ball. The stripes don't do my job, and I don't do theirs.

Side note: I bought an iPad to develop scorekeeping software... using other people's software showed me what a bad idea this is. I have to look at the screen to be sure I touch the right spot, which means I'm not watching the action anymore. Give me something tactile, whether it's a keyboard or a button pad, that lets me keep my eye on the ball.


There's been a lot of talk in this thread about the importance of winning, or a desired lack thereof. If you want to de-emphasize it, it has to stop meaning anything. You can't do it in small measures. Stop keeping records, eliminate elimination brackets, and drop all invitations to CMP based on winning matches.

Does anyone else remember Ben Kingsley's line in Searching For Bobby Fischer? "To put a child in a position to care about winning and not to prepare him is wrong."

When you tell any of your kids that winning isn't important, or isn't that important, the flapping sound you hear is your credibility flying away. You say that, and they know you're full of it. They didn't spend six weeks of their lives building a robot to look good, run well, and play nice with others. They built it to win. (By, amongst other things, looking good, running well, and playing nice with others.) Don't pretend they didn't, if you want them to absorb anything else you say.

We've had a couple of bad days. Our robot broke down, or came up short. We rose in the standings but didn't get picked at alliance selection. Our Chairman's presentation got lousy marks. I didn't downplay that. I just told them that the joys and pains of winning and losing would fade over time, and pale next to the memory of the camaraderie of the weekend... the makeovers, the games of Spaceteam in the airport, or Cards Against Humanity in the hotel lobby. The mechanical and cooperative skills they build will carry them through their professional lives.

Winning still matters. And losing still hurts. And some people should be happy I don't have video of them getting hit in the junk by the launch spring during build season. Because man, that was priceless...

[wilsonmw04]

Originally Posted by jlindquist74

When you tell any of your kids that winning isn't important, or isn't that important, the flapping sound you hear is your credibility flying away. You say that, and they know you're full of it.

I must have no credibility at all with my team. Maybe I don't get it. We had an over all losing record this year. When I look at kid's faces, they don't give a rip about that. I see excitement about the next event and talking about improvements for next year. Winning is nice, but that is not the reason I do what I do. Yeah, maybe I just don't get this competition thing.

[scooty199]

Originally Posted by jlindquist74

I know I'm not the only software engineer in the house. That this problem continues to exist... does anyone else find that professionally offensive? Look at the FMS, look at the tablet application, look at the tablet OS. Allen-Bradley HQ is a short drive from the Wisconsin Regional. I would've asked for a couple panel engineers to come out on practice day to observe and investigate if I had indications the OS was the bottleneck. We owe all of our kids (and everyone else's) better than this.

(Software's so wonderful. There's so many ways to Do It Wrong™!)



That's no bug. That's a beautiful FIRST feature I point out to others. You have to be ready to collaborate with strangers. Even better, you have to do it when you know you'll play against them in the next game. They'll know your weaknesses and strategies, and you still do it. Being bossy or arrogant will not serve you well here.

Sports is sports. FRC is FRC. We must be cautious about making either more like the other.



But this is where it's needed. As scorekeeper for football, basketball, and lacrosse, I cannot see everything that happens on the field. The action is too fast, with too many actors over too wide an area. (Just like FRC!) My focus has to stay with the ball. I can't credit points, tackles, or assists properly if I'm looking for holding or fouls off the ball. The stripes don't do my job, and I don't do theirs.

Side note: I bought an iPad to develop scorekeeping software... using other people's software showed me what a bad idea this is. I have to look at the screen to be sure I touch the right spot, which means I'm not watching the action anymore. Give me something tactile, whether it's a keyboard or a button pad, that lets me keep my eye on the ball.


There's been a lot of talk in this thread about the importance of winning, or a desired lack thereof. If you want to de-emphasize it, it has to stop meaning anything. You can't do it in small measures. Stop keeping records, eliminate elimination brackets, and drop all invitations to CMP based on winning matches.

Does anyone else remember Ben Kingsley's line in Searching For Bobby Fischer? "To put a child in a position to care about winning and not to prepare him is wrong."

When you tell any of your kids that winning isn't important, or isn't that important, the flapping sound you hear is your credibility flying away. You say that, and they know you're full of it. They didn't spend six weeks of their lives building a robot to look good, run well, and play nice with others. They built it to win. (By, amongst other things, looking good, running well, and playing nice with others.) Don't pretend they didn't, if you want them to absorb anything else you say.

We've had a couple of bad days. Our robot broke down, or came up short. We rose in the standings but didn't get picked at alliance selection. Our Chairman's presentation got lousy marks. I didn't downplay that. I just told them that the joys and pains of winning and losing would fade over time, and pale next to the memory of the camaraderie of the weekend... the makeovers, the games of Spaceteam in the airport, or Cards Against Humanity in the hotel lobby. The mechanical and cooperative skills they build will carry them through their professional lives.

Winning still matters. And losing still hurts. And some people should be happy I don't have video of them getting hit in the junk by the launch spring during build season. Because man, that was priceless...

Agree with this entirely.

I think Herm Edwards agrees as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMk5sMHj58I

[mathking]

Originally Posted by jlindquist74

There's been a lot of talk in this thread about the importance of winning, or a desired lack thereof. If you want to de-emphasize it, it has to stop meaning anything. You can't do it in small measures. Stop keeping records, eliminate elimination brackets, and drop all invitations to CMP based on winning matches.

Does anyone else remember Ben Kingsley's line in Searching For Bobby Fischer? "To put a child in a position to care about winning and not to prepare him is wrong."

When you tell any of your kids that winning isn't important, or isn't that important, the flapping sound you hear is your credibility flying away. You say that, and they know you're full of it. They didn't spend six weeks of their lives building a robot to look good, run well, and play nice with others. They built it to win. (By, amongst other things, looking good, running well, and playing nice with others.) Don't pretend they didn't, if you want them to absorb anything else you say.

Saying that winning is not the goal is not the same things as saying winning doesn't matter. De-emphasizing winning is an expression you used, but saying to de-emphasize winning you have to make in mean nothing is a false dichotomy. The original post of this thread started a discussion about whether people had buyer's remorse for this season. Meaning are you unhappy that you decided to participate? I suspect that there are a great many students unhappy with how the season ended up for there team who are nonetheless very happy they participated.

If we define our goal as winning, then almost every team at every competition is going to fail. When I say winning is not the goal of FIRST I mean just that. The goal is changing the culture. That is a goal at which a lot more teams can succeed. Winning is certainly something to strive for. I would even argue that if you are not trying to win the game on the field then you are going to have a harder time inspiring students. But they way you say "They didn't spend six weeks of their lives building a robot to look good, run well, and play nice with others. They built it to win." brings that dichotomy back.

A decade and a half of FIRST experience, two and a half decades as a coach and my own experience in athletics tells me there are going to be kids on just about every team that are participating for other reasons than winning. Sometimes that is very hard for me as a coach. I am by nature very competitive, but I have to remember that I am there for the kids. They are not there for me to live vicariously through them. We had about 170 kids on our cross country team this past season. Only one of them ever won race, and he only won one race. Our girls team did not win a single meet. But our season was certainly not a failure and the kids did not feel that the season was a failure. I know some coaches who would (and do) consider such seasons as failures. And they are the ones who feel unhappy most of the time. Always chasing the once a while season when you win a lot.

Yes, if you are not sincere, your students are going to read it in an instant. So you need to be sincere. I have missed a top 8 position at the Championships by a half an inch. I have been on what should have been the winning alliance at Buckeye and had our robot KOd by the faulty CAN connections of the Jaguars. I have missed qualifying for the state cross country meet by a single place of a single runner. I have had a dead spot in an arena floor turn running out the final few seconds of a basketball title into a game winning layup by the other team. I have had an athlete run her personal best time at the state meet, lead her team to its best finish in a decade but miss making the top 15 podium by one spot. Its not that those things don't hurt. They do. But part of my job as a coach is to make kids realize not winning is not the same thing as failing.

The point is that if you let these negatives define the experience the kids will also define the experience this way. Sometimes you do your absolute best and you don't win. If winning is the goal then you have failed in the endeavor. If winning is something you strive for in order to achieve the goal of inspiring kids to change the world, then you can succeed even when you don't win.

[mathking]

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04

I must have no credibility at all with my team. Maybe I don't get it. We had an over all losing record this year. When I look at kid's faces, they don't give a rip about that. I see excitement about the next event and talking about improvements for next year. Winning is nice, but that is not the reason I do what I do. Yeah, maybe I just don't get this competition thing.

This. Very nice post.

[FrankJ]

Full disclosure: I am one of the one that doesn't see winning the robot competition as the primary goal of First.

The more the rules shift so that there is parity in the robots the more there is going to be an element of luck in winning. Like it or not parity seems to be a goal of the GDC. This year if you could build a good robot, develop a good drive team, & have good scouting, you have a pretty chance at winning. (Of course the teams that build uber robots tend to have good drive team & scouting)

The biggest issue in not winning is the ticket to worlds. I can see how teams can have losing, and not getting that ticket, hinge on a bad call or poorly thought out rules being very upsetting. Which I think is the major point of this now 8 page thread.

[mathking]

Frank, I think you are probably right. And I don't think it is unfair to ask for a game design which minimizes those kinds of issues. I think there have been other games where the issues about correct scoring were just as serious (such as the minibot towers in 2011, so the automatic scoring last year meaning you couldn't really tell how many points you and your opponent had) but in those games one really good robot could dominate the game, so there were more teams who could overcome the problems so the "better" robot won.