2015 Lessons Learned: The Positive

[Sunnykx]

I personally liked the averaged-ranking system for qualifications. It required teams at the Championship level to be excellent every single time in order to advance. I also think the rankings more accurately reflect robot ability than the win-loss system does. In the win-loss system, a robot that wins two matches 50-25 has the same ranking as the robot who wins two matches 150-25. Throughout this season, I felt that the top 8 seeded robots lining up as captains in eliminations looked far more deserving of being there than in past years when I would scratch my head at some of the teams who were represented there after looking past the first three or four seeds.


Perhaps it is more frustrating for teams who go to a single regional or two who don't have the time or the events to incrementally improve their robot and correct problems so that it is consistently performing at a high level. The District model lends itself well particularly well to fielding excellent robots at Championship. Our team competed in three smaller PNW District events before going to the District Championship. Each event taught us where we needed to improve if we wanted to be in contention to go to Worlds. It did not allow for sloppy play and it required us to perform well match after match after match. I think it reflects more the real engineering world as well. I would much rather fly in an airplane or drive a car that is consistently excellent than one that crashes 1 out of 3 times.

I was personally surprised at some of the inconsistent play at Worlds by some of the top robots who are in the Regional rather than the District model. They had become used to dazzling 2 out of 3 times at their regional competitions, potentially falling apart the other time and still being able to make it to Championship.

Our team (3663) made it to Finals in Curie because we consistently performed at a high level and chose partners who also reliably did so. We passed over teams who could amaze at times but imploded at others. We were at an advantage when those teams followed their same up and down pattern of variability in eliminations. We eventually lost to the better alliance, 148 and 1114. The best alliance in our division still made it to Einstein in this year's system.

If they go back to a win-loss model in 2016, we may change our strategy and go more for a high risk-high rewards type of alliance. It makes sense to adjust alliance-picking strategy to the one that helps us advance the furthest. I, for one, however, appreciated a competition that required us to hone our skills to perform well every single time.

[AutodeskGeek]

My first reaction when the game was released without defense was "boring...", as defense is one of the aspects of driving I enjoy the most.

As the season progressed though, the game grew on me. I've come to appreciate the change as it lets teams focus on being creative instead of trying to build their robot more robust and sacrificing weight that can be used for something else.

My biggest bone to pick with the game this year is just how much the rules changed. The teams that thought outside the box (kudos to them) and built tethered ramps really had an advantage over newer/less experienced teams that are not as confident in stretching the rules that far. I realize there are other options such as pass-through robots and such, but I hope you see my point.

This led to the teams seeing other teams with ramps and instead copying them by adding a string and a cardboard ramp to the robot. Something about that doesn't sit right with me. I would have liked to see a little more detail or explanation about the changes in rules early on that either says "Yes you can have a string to another section and still call it part of your robot" or "No, that's not the intention of the change in the rules."

Whether it was intended by FIRST or not, it really doesn't matter to me. I just feel like some teams didn't think they could stretch the rules very much, and were at a possible disadvantage because of it.

[Rachel Lim]

- Seeing the amazing designs that came out of the relaxed rules. I will never forget my awe that night when I first saw 148 reveal of Batman and Robin, or the days that we watched webcasts of GTRC and saw 1114, or seeing the matches that 254 played at SVR. I'm not sure if it came from this being my first year really paying attention to the game, or if the gap truly was larger this year, but I loved seeing what some teams came up with.

- Getting proof that drivetrains really are about implementation, not specific type. (And that WCD can win any game.) We did mecanum this year, and although it was interesting, it's not one I'm particularly interested in repeating...

- Less confusing fouls. They still happened, and there were still some I don't understand (like yellow totes falling over the step), but overall it was an improvement from last year.

- The removal of bumper rules. Numbering wasn't always great, but it was usually easier to read than looking at bumpers last year. Plus then we didn't have to find someone willing to make them.

- New wildcard rules.

- The emphasis on practice. Consistency of stacking, manipulation of the chute door, dealing with noodles (both driving over and throwing), and other things made driver practice really, really important (not saying it usually isn't, but consistency this year was really key). It's a lesson I hope we learned.

---

These are the things I'm either still divided over, or unsure whether they're really "positive" experiences, but I wanted to mention:

- Less dependence on alliance partners to seed high or do well in general. Perhaps way too little.

- QA ranking. On the one hand, I did find it more fair and a better way to identify the top teams than WLT. On the other, it made me feel like we were constantly competing against everyone, and that if others messed up it was a chance for us to seed higher.

- 8 divisions at champs. It was really cool, and we were able to watch two fields at once, but it also made it seems like which division teams ended up in played an even larger role. Anything is better than split champs though.

- Having it to compare to Aerial Assist. I started FRC in 2014, and even though I've read of the other ones, these are the two I know well. It'll be interesting to see what I think next year after having these two extreme games.

[Jardanium]

I really liked the idea of the "engineering challenge" that Recycle Rush created. Totes and Recycling Containers were difficult to manipulate, (as our team soon found out) and seeing the creative solutions people came up with at the Week 1 event I attended was great.

[ThePaulitician]

For the past two years, my team had some rough times. We lost our main mentor and faculty adviser along with some big sponsorships all in one summer. Since, we have been recovering. This year was my third year but I never took such an active role. I was in a frustrated position for the past two years as a rookie and 1-year veteran; I was stuck in spirit and scouting at competitions whereas I wanted to be working on the robot or just helping in some way with our pits and build crew. This year, my sports experience showed how good of a human player I was, loading totes so fast and throwing litter like Tom Brady. At the heart of it all, I really stepped up my game. I think previously in my first two years, I sort of was not so much there for my team. I went to all our meetings in and out of build season but I never understood the amount of work my main mentors and lead teammates put in. Thus, I put in as much effort and realized how fun it was. Apart from learning to just get involved, I realized that our team should have spent so much more time planning on strategy and tether design and other ways to exploit the game methods. In the past, we have been worrying so much about getting parts on time when in fact we want our design to do best. Thank you to 1114 (Simbotics), 2826 (Wave Robotics), and 148 (RoboWranglers) for being inspirations to me!!!

[Hjelstrom]

In the final analysis, maybe I'm in the minority, but I really liked this game a lot.

- Loved the engineering challenge, we literally had to brainstorm for 2-3 times as long as we normally do before we started prototyping.
- We had so many functions to build into our robot that many different groups of students designed their own mechanisms that were integrated into the robot.
- The split field meant very few difficult judgment calls for the refs.
- I like no defense because it means we can try out cool new drivetrains! Now we've had a 3-wheel kiwi drive on Einstein!
- I think the game designers balanced the can race vs the auto points and stack values very well. Even on Einstein, it wasn't *just* the fastest can grabbers that won, they had to put up big points too. We had a 250+ in match with only four cans for example.
- 8 teams on Einstein was really cool
- Average match score was excellent for ranking
- Excellent implementation of co-opertition!
- On Einstein we got to watch the matches without long speeches in between!

[Wayne TenBrink]

Tote stacking was a fresh and challenging engineering challenge.

I actually enjoyed the canburglar arms race - both as an engineer and a season-long spectator. I wasn't such a big fan of the role they played in the game - too much of the game was decided in the opening fraction of a second.

Qualification Average seeding was an interesting departure, with pro's and con's. I hope to see it again from time to time, but not every year.

The lack of direct interaction between the opposing alliances allowed for some cool machine features. I wouldn't mind seeing it again, but definitely not every year.

I really like having 8 divisions at Championship. I liked how the qualification rounds were completed by Friday evening so we knew the final rankings prior to our scouting meeting. I also liked having division playoffs in the morning and Einstein in the afternoon.

[EricH]

I liked the general concept of the game.
I liked the freedom with the robots. Just to feel old, the LAST time unlimited expansion was legal was back when I was a sophomore in high school... Ten seasons ago.

Unexpected bonus from the ranking system: You know that you know that you know exactly where you finished. Either you're X seed, or your alliance finished in Y place. Can't just call yourself a quarterfinalist or semifinalist anymore, you're #Y.

As a ref, I REALLY like that I don't have to call as many penalties, and I actually have a chance of training the HP out of them quickly. Most teams figured out that "no advantage gained" is a pretty good reason not to do something.

The ranking system... eh, it is what it is. Put defense in there again and you won't be able to use it as the primary system, but I do think having it in there is a good idea. Maybe 1st tiebreaker.

Are there items I don't like? Yeah. Not the thread for those, though.

[Gdeaver]

All the positive threads and the negative threads, Not 1 mention of the most pervasive change this year ---- The new roborio and control system.

[Chris is me]

The new control system seems to actually work the first time, straight out of the box. That's a huge accomplishment that should be recognized. Compare this to 2009, where less than six robots moving in a match was a regular occurrence and driver stations were being fried repeatedly by static discharge.

Ignoring every part of the actual game design itself (i.e. point values for objects, what you did on the field, etc), the game pieces and robot build rules made for a creative, incredible build season. The sheer creativity and out of the box thinking FRC teams were allowed to do in a no-bumpers game without the constraints of a frame perimeter or expansion limits was amazing. This was one of the most fun games to design and build for in years as a result. The game pieces were a new, interesting challenge.

The ranking system was almost as good as the 2010 ranking system at sorting teams.

[rsisk]

Southern California Regionals adopted the handheld inspection tablets using GMS software. Significantly improved the efficiency of inspections.


GMS Overview
http://gms.pejaver.com/

[AcesPease]

Originally Posted by Hjelstrom

In the final analysis, maybe I'm in the minority, but I really liked this game a lot.


- Average match score was excellent for ranking
- Excellent implementation of co-opertition!

I also liked the ranking system, and especially enjoyed the opportunities for robot cooperation. If the cooperative ways to score in auto had been more valuable we might have seen some very amazing things. At our district event We were getting 12 points in auto by getting all three robots to move a can (one from the step), it was a pretty cool thing to watch. Cooler, I think than seeing one robot grab all the objects. If there were extra points for having multiple robots involved we might have seen some amazing combinations of robots getting three cans and three totes in auto at champs. Something for the game designers to think about.

[Taylor]

This game provided the best autonomous modes ever. 2826 and 4613 were awe-inspiring. StepWars were exciting.

RR struck a nice balance between teams that could dominate a game with the need for good alliance partners, strategy, and communication.

RR was a great game for the district model. Our robot logged nearly 60 matches - three times that of most other years - and still is going strong into the offseason.

The Innovation Faire was really cool, especially for families.

[The_ShamWOW88]

Originally Posted by EricH

I liked the general concept of the game.
I liked the freedom with the robots. Just to feel old, the LAST time unlimited expansion was legal was back when I was a sophomore in high school... Ten seasons ago.

I feel you there!

[ASmith1675]

1. Because of the open sizing rules and lack of robot-to-robot interaction it opened up a massive space for unique and very different robot designs. Tether bots (not the ramps -- the electrical kind), conveyor bots, and robots that were basically stack manufacturing facilities all stretched the limits of design. Which was very nice to see.

2. 8 division Einstein. This was awesome to see, even without being at the event. Being able to see all the robots that would normally have been in the division finals on the big stage was really great, and gave a lot of team some exposure that they may not have normally had.

3. QA ranking system (for qualifying rounds only). I'm going to list this as a positive because I believe it worked very well in this game. (Though I am not convinced it would work well for all games). The rankings at the end of qualifications felt more or less correct for a given event.

4. New control system and components. Our team had what felt like a very smooth transition from the cRIO to the RoboRIO, and had FAR fewer problems with the new system. In addition, the new motor controllers were a welcome upgrade. We used the Victor SPs and (as far as I know) did not have a failure all year.