paper: The Penalties will continue until Morale Improves

[artdutra04]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

Dan, how did you forget minibots? Those sensors worked flawlessly too.

I love your "Do I look like an idiot?" rule.

Minibots would have been much more interesting if you could deploy them onto the tower at any point in a match but if they hit the top trigger before the last ten seconds the tower is disabled.

Bam, no more refs and drivers needing microsecond judgement accuracy for determining if a deployment was legal or not. It also would have been interesting since you wouldn't necessarily need to use a 1 second screamer to do well.

[BJC]

Originally Posted by DampRobot

Jim, if you were to design this years game with "chaotic good rules" rather than "lawful mean rules," what kinds of rules would you make?

I'm not Jim but I have thought about this enough that I can give a non-comprehensive answer.



1. It shouldn't matter what zone a robot is in for an assist to count.

- When a robot first acquires a ball that is currently considered a 0 point assist. This should simply be nothing. As such only 2 assists would be possible per cycle.

-For simplicity, each assist should be the same (10 or 15) number of points.

-For simplicity, each assist should be scored when it happens.

--This new assisting method is much more intuitive for teams, spectators, and refs. Trying to control where the assists happen via field lines is dumb and a non-obvious thing to be looking out for. Did the ball go between those two robot? Now its an assist, no questions asked.

2. Increase catching points to 20-25 points.

--Catching is one of the most exciting things to watch in this game, however, it is undercosted versus it difficulty to execute.

3. Eliminate hot goals in auto, but allow assists.

--Aside from not relying on software to properly display lights, taking the idea of assists in teleop and reusing it for auto rather than introducing new scoring methods (hot goal) keeps the scoring simpler to understand and keep track of. Plus, seeing all three robots pass their balls around to each other twice before scoring would be awesome.

4. Human players should be allowed to hold balls near the side of the field rather than waiting by the pedestal.

-Human players would use their eyes and common sense to watch when a cycle ends and determine if they can start a new one.

-A foul would be called for entering a third ball into play and repeatedly doing so would be a red card.

--This will decrease the amount of time robots spend waiting for balls.

5. Two balls should be allowed on the field at a time.

--Currently only one robot can play offense at a time. Two balls should allow at least two of an alliance's robots to stay occupied attempting to score points. This, in turn, will decrease the amount of defense played and make everything faster paced more enjoyable to watch.

6. Move human player areas further from the field or make use of a polycarboate wall.

-Their should be no foul for a robot extending 20" (legal amount) outside the field.

--Safety related penalties can be completely avoided through good game design. Almost all collecting designs force robots to extend outside their bumper zone. If we don't want robots to be able to touch humans then no humans should be allowed within 2ft of the field, simple as that. Especially when considering that the field is 3ft narrower than usual this year this should not be difficult to implement.

7. A robot with a ball cannot be given a robot interaction penalty while attempting to score.

--Teams should never be given penalties for attempting to complete the game challenge.


I think my most controversial change would be adding a second ball to gameplay which could make keeping track of assists and such tricky. However, allowing more than one robot to be playing offense at a time is absolutely critical to having a successful game and naturally mitigates defense without additional rules. If necessary, I would sacrifice other aspects of the game in order to achieve this.

Again, not comprehensive.
Cheers, Bryan

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by artdutra04

Minibots would have been much more interesting if you could deploy them onto the tower at any point in a match but if they hit the top trigger before the last ten seconds the tower is disabled.

Bam, no more refs and drivers needing microsecond judgement accuracy for determining if a deployment was legal or not. It also would have been interesting since you wouldn't necessarily need to use a 1 second screamer to do well.

Best improvement I've read with regards to 2011. Electronics nerds would go nuts!

[F Elliott]

Interesting reads, this paper and the original "Spanking the Children".

This year I was a rookie FTC coach with a rookie team. FIRST FTC is a tremendously valuable and important STEM opportunity for my students. There is nothing to compare. I am an "all in" FIRST Evangelist. I was a bit overwhelmed by the FTC rules and procedures but we worked our way through them.

My administration is encouraging me to "think big" and not rule out an FRC team in the future. Last month I spent a day observing and walking the pits at the Dallas FRC Regionals. Very exciting. Had no clue what was going on.

My biggest reluctance to dive into FRC has stemmed from the funding and infrastructure hurdle I sense exists. Having now read these two papers only confirms my reluctance to get into FRC. Rookie teams can easily get chewed up and spit out by this entire process. What would my students learn from that?

Rookie teams have few resources, spares, or fabrication capability. Every part, every component is precious to us and the kids. To see their robots destroyed or broken on the field of play is a harsh lesson to learn for a kid trying to nurture their dream to become a STEM professional. "Get tough" is schoolyard bullying. "Losing makes you stronger" is bad Little League. As educators, we are better than this.

Struggling with a online encyclopedia of build and games rules --- written by a collection of professional engineers and lawyers --- creates a confused thicket of confusion and substitute logic in the minds of a student. In response, they come up with and do all kinds of stuff no "sensible" adult ever imagines. If you want designs and game play to make sense, write them for the kids, not the adults.

Just a rookie outsider's thoughts. As I said, I'm "all in" with FIRST.

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by F Elliott

Struggling with a online encyclopedia of build and games rules --- written by a collection of professional engineers and lawyers --- creates a confused thicket of confusion and substitute logic in the minds of a student. In response, they come up with and do all kinds of stuff no "sensible" adult ever imagines. If you want designs and game play to make sense, write them for the kids, not the adults.

Generally I agree that the rules are tough to interpret the first time through. However, with more students and more mentors it is very easy to get the hang of it. You will want to scale up on all fronts, including mentors, fundraising, and as many students as you and your mentors can handle. Seeking help from local teams to bounce ideas off of their heads is a really great idea. As for the robot holding up - the kitbot this year is pretty beasty. The only oversight I see with a lot of young teams (in my region at least) is lack of full-perimeter bumpers. Full bumpers isn't a necessity every year, but this year the game is very rough without them.

When you do get ready to dive in, watch this. It's a great guide for not stretching your team's resources too thin during an FRC season while having wild success.