2014 Lessons Learned: The Negative

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by Allison K

Specifically what I would like to see is the withholding allowance move away from definitions using the words "fabricated" vs. "COTS" and instead use a system of "identical spares" vs. "upgrades". I think "identical spares" should be unlimited in quantity and weight. This includes COTS or custom gearboxes, motors and motor controllers with modified wires, assemblies that may be prone to damage, etc. - anything that is inside the bag on stop build day. Identical spares should be defined as the same material serving the same function fabricated in the same way and identical in form, weight, material, and use. Secondly, the "upgrades" should be limited similar to withholding, though perhaps a lesser limit (15-20 lbs), as the "identical spares" can be unlimited. Upgrades include anything that is kept out of the bag on stop build day, and anything that is fabricated after stop build day - anything that will be added to the robot to upgrade it after it is unbagged. Raw material is still separate from either definition and allowed in unlimited quantities.

I very much agree with this.

[Orion.DeYoe]

Originally Posted by dcarr

In 2014, getting a quality webcast is apparently a hard thing to do.

Except it's not. Please fix this. Baseline HD stream requirements for all events. Include equipment/connectivity/staffing in budget or find a team/volunteers who can handle it.

Multi-cam setups are ideal for the big screens at the events, but for online, a single full-field view is optimal. Perhaps offer both?

THIS!!! A thousand times: THIS!!!
I don't want to watch blue alliance's ball roll up against the alliance wall unattended while 254 is shooting in the high goal under heavy defense on the other side of the field (out of frame). Full field view is the way to go.

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by Allison K

I would really like to see some clarification and/or modification of the rules regarding withholding allowance and the definition of COTS parts. Currently, as best as I can tell, a motor with terminals on the wires is considered a fabricated component when it comes to withholding allowance, but the same motor is a COTS component when used at the beginning of the season (because otherwise reusing a motor from a previous year would be illegal, as it was fabricated outside of the build season).

Specifically what I would like to see is the withholding allowance move away from definitions using the words "fabricated" vs. "COTS" and instead use a system of "identical spares" vs. "upgrades". I think "identical spares" should be unlimited in quantity and weight. This includes COTS or custom gearboxes, motors and motor controllers with modified wires, assemblies that may be prone to damage, etc. - anything that is inside the bag on stop build day. Identical spares should be defined as the same material serving the same function fabricated in the same way and identical in form, weight, material, and use. Secondly, the "upgrades" should be limited similar to withholding, though perhaps a lesser limit (15-20 lbs), as the "identical spares" can be unlimited. Upgrades include anything that is kept out of the bag on stop build day, and anything that is fabricated after stop build day - anything that will be added to the robot to upgrade it after it is unbagged. Raw material is still separate from either definition and allowed in unlimited quantities.

The benefits I see to this system include...
1) Stronger teams are significantly less limited in their ability to bring in popular spares that will enable them to help all teams be competitive
2) Unlimited identical spares helps ensure all teams will be competitive as they can have replacements ready to go.
3) Eliminates fuzziness about withholding weight of spares that were fabricated during the six weeks vs spares that were fabricated after the six weeks, and in general is somewhat more enforceable.
3) The definitions don't conflict with those that are used to define what parts can be reused from one season to the next.
4) The definitions better convey what the purpose of the withholding allowance is for (if indeed it is for upgrades, i.e. assemblies that were withheld).

One situation that would need to be addressed in this system is how to address instances of teams bringing in entire assemblies that can be added to partners to make them a more useful member of an alliance. Overall I think this would clarify a lot of the withholding confusion and be more in line with the spirit of a six week build season.

To me that sounds more confusing and more subject to abuse. Currently anything you stick in the bag is fine even if it is extra fabricate parts or assemblies that are either for spares, or something that you weren't able to fully assemble onto the robot.

Items like motors that have had terminals installed on the wires are quickly returned to COTS state with a snip of some wire cutters and don't take long to prepare to install on the robot. On the other hand there are items that do take significant assembly time like transmissions but again those can be returned to a COTS state and if you believe that you might need them you can have someone prepare them in the pits or during your 6hr unbag time (and put them in the bag) so they are ready to go if the need arises. If you don't need them and are attending another event then you can go ahead and put them in the bag.

[cbale2000]

To me Autonomous seems way overpowered this year compared to most. In past years when you would try to score an auto-specific gamepiece, if your autonomous failed, the gamepiece would be discarded on the field and basically considered debris. Other years without auto-specific game pieces you could score the same game pieces like any other in teleop but without the auto bonus.

This year was the first year that failure in autonomous could decide the entire match, not by being outscored by the bonus, but by the inability to score for half the match or more because you have to chase down and score the auto balls (and at lower point values, since no assists or trusses counted).

FIRST needed to implement a rule that allowed auto balls to be removed from play by simply getting them off the field, and not forcing teams to waste huge portions of their matches trying to score them.


Now, on the topic of LiveStreams...

Originally Posted by luckof13

Maybe just the MC'c mics then? So that people watching know what is going on.

Originally Posted by luckof13

Just stream the MC microphones.
Any decent audio mixer should have multiple outputs in addition to the main mix. Send a feed with just the MC mics to the steaming equipment, and the full audio to the main mix.

Originally Posted by runneals

Work with youtube? They've only muted like 3-4 of my 100+ videos I uploaded from the KC regional this year.

The issue with this is that YouTubes content detection is hyper-sensitive and zero-tolerance with livestreams (It's much more forgiving with uploaded videos). Our livestream for the GLBR District only pulled audio from the announcers mics, but small bits of ambient music would get picked up and flagged by YouTube, forcing the stream down. Furthermore, we were unable to get any feedback from FIRST HQ as to if the have any sort of licensing arrangements with music companies to even legally be able to stream the music, or for that matter, if they have ANY policy regarding streams.

Originally Posted by Brandon_L

Its difficult to 'make it loud' with the webcasts we have running the way the are right now. If I tell some potential sponsor, friend, or even my grandma about this insane competition I'm a part of where robots shoot frisbees or pass balls and score, then I show them a webcast, its not exactly exciting. Michigan probably has the best example of what should be considered the norm. The state of the current webcasts are a turn-off for anyone other then mentors/students that already know whats going on.

I completely agree that the Michigan State Championship has one of the best webcasts available, the problem for applying this to other events is that they bring in the local PBS station to manage the entire thing and bring about $50k+ worth of equipment to run it. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see this at other events, but it doesn't seem like something that's scalable, beyond State and World championships.

[Justin Montois]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

To add on to this, I think if FIRST is going through the trouble of adding in more opportunities for judging of awards, we need to be getting better feedback everywhere. I was very disappointed and had a confused look on my face when I took the awards lead down to pit admin to collect the nonexistent feedback, but going back over the feedback sheets we did get at Alamo and Virginia, I wish we got better feedback.

I am often frustrated by this as while. However, my most recent inquiry in the matter resulted in the judge advisor at the time, not sure who it was, but I was told "There are no feedback forms at Championship because winning Regional / District Champs Chairman's means technically you are doing enough to win at the World Champs.

I would like to add that I would definitely be in favor of getting a feedback form at World Champs.

[Bochek]

Originally Posted by dcarr

In 2014, getting a quality webcast is apparently a hard thing to do.

Except it's not. Please fix this. Baseline HD stream requirements for all events. Include equipment/connectivity/staffing in budget or find a team/volunteers who can handle it.

It is not hard to do, but the hard part is getting a good stable internet connection that is fast enough to handle the constant upload speeds required to broadcast a HD stream.

Originally Posted by dcarr

Multi-cam setups are ideal for the big screens at the events, but for online, a single full-field view is optimal. Perhaps offer both?

At the begining of this season I would have agreed with you, but after broadcasting both a "multi-cam" broadcast and a "Full-Field" broadcast at 3 events this year, The viewership was almost double on the "Full-Field" streams.

You see, FIRSTers want the full-field view, they know the game and are entertained by the teams playing it and how it is played. But parents, grandparents and non-FIRSTers quickly get bored of a static camera angle.

Just my $0.02


- Bochek

[wilsonmw04]

Originally Posted by Justin Montois

... Regional / District Champs Chairman's means technically you are doing enough to win at the World Champs.

I would like to add that I would definitely be in favor of getting a feedback form at World Champs.

Even if this were true, which I do not believe for a moment, I still want feedback from judges who have never seen my team before. The problem with going to the same regional is that the pool of judges is pretty static. I would love to have a different perspective. That does not happen without feedback forms. Heck I would even take the judges coming to find the teams and having a 5 minute debriefing.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04

Even if this were true, which I do not believe for a moment, I still want feedback from judges who have never seen my team before. The problem with going to the same regional is that the pool of judges is pretty static. I would love to have a different perspective. That does not happen without feedback forms. Heck I would even take the judges coming to find the teams and having a 5 minute debriefing.

I would second the need for more feedback to teams. I'd also like to see more time with the teams.

But I can give you some advice: The award criteria given to you is the exact criteria the judges should be working off of. If you want to win a particular award, focus in on it and understand what the criteria are. Sell based on that.

[wilsonmw04]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

If you want to win a particular award, focus in on it and understand what the criteria are. Sell based on that.

What I would like is comparative feedback. I know the areas FIRST wants us to focus in outreach. I want to know how we stack up against the rest of the competition. For Example: "Your work on X is really good. Look to improve in areas of FRC mentor-ship and world wide outreach."

That would give us a point of reference to work with.

On a side note: The only feedback given to teams is from the Chairman's judges. This needs to change. All the teams should be able to be get feedback if they want it.

[rsisk]

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04

What I would like is comparative feedback. I know the areas FIRST wants us to focus in outreach. I want to know how we stack up against the rest of the competition. For Example: "Your work on X is really good. Look to improve in areas of FRC mentor-ship and world wide outreach."

That would give us a point of reference to work with.

On a side note: The only feedback given to teams is from the Chairman's judges. This needs to change. All the teams should be able to be get feedback if they want it.

That would be awesome, but how to implement feedback for all teams is beyond me. The best way, and this is happening in some today, is peer review of Chairman's Submissions and sharing of judging tips.

[Nate Laverdure]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

That's extreme.
My policy is to try to get full matches.
I too think the schedules need to go. They cause more trouble than it's worth.

At CMP, the practice day schedule had regularly-scheduled matches first, then "filler line" matches later. This is exactly the reverse of what it should be. Filler matches should be scheduled first, then regularly-scheduled matches should follow.

For teams struggling to get inspected early on Wednesday, this change will provide a greater opportunity for them to get a practice match without having to deal with the filler line.

For teams who breeze through inspections, this change shouldn't really have an adverse effect.

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by Nate Laverdure

At CMP, the practice day schedule had regularly-scheduled matches first, then "filler line" matches later. This is exactly the reverse of what it should be. Filler matches should be scheduled first, then regularly-scheduled matches should follow.

For teams struggling to get inspected early on Wednesday, this change will provide a greater opportunity for them to get a practice match without having to deal with the filler line.

We were lucky to squeeze in to one of the last filler matches as we were never told when our practice match was.

[wilsonmw04]

Originally Posted by BrendanB

We were lucky to squeeze in to one of the last filler matches as we were never told when our practice match was.

It was in your packet. Admin also had copies if you needed extras.

[Gregor]

Don't do away with practice matches. They can be the lifeline to uninspected* teams that still need valuable field time.

If there's still a provision for uninspected teams to play on Thursday, I'm game.

*like us at North Bay, long story

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by rsisk

That would be awesome, but how to implement feedback for all teams is beyond me. The best way, and this is happening in some today, is peer review of Chairman's Submissions and sharing of judging tips.

I'm going to come out and say that it is impossible without drastic changes to the process. It's doable in FLL due to the nature of their judging process. For those who don't know the FLL process is a rubric based score sheet with a section for general comments. (Much like the Chairman's Award) it means that teams know how well they did and can iterate from there.

Now, do I think FRC Judging should go to a rubric system and provide it as feedback to teams? I'm not sure. There are benefits and drawbacks to a rubric system.