Bringing Rules Back

[David Kelly]

Originally Posted by NateBot16

Just get rid of the "double your opponets score" and I will be happy. A team that totally controled the match last year and cleared their opponets score zone, could get a lower score then a team that didn't move but had a few boxes in their score zone. I know it adds strategy, but it seems kinda stupid.

I think this is a great aspect of the game. Not only does it help to promote "Gratious Professionalism" it also gives you a little taste of the real world. In the real world you may have to partner with a company or team that you may not necessarely always like, or have the opportunity to be with one of the best teams.

This adds a great aspect to the game because you aren't going to have nearly as many of those boring blowouts that get really old...

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Meli W.

I think that your QP should only be the points your teams earn. Losers of a match get no QP. But that might be against the message FIRST is trying to send.

What happens when a team gets stuck with teams who have non-functioning robots? You could have the best robot ever and have zero points for the entire competition just because of your partners.

The 2x your opponent score does make it tougher to strategize, but I think in the end it is a good thing. Even with a not so good robot, you could totally destroy the opponent last year just by plowing all the boxes into the neutral zone. The opponent could do the same. Then all you're left with is a really low scoring, boring match, basically like the second match of an elimination round. Things like this arent good for viewers more than complexity of the game, imho.

Cory

[EStokely]

I want a lighter robot.

When did FIRST go to 130 pounds?

I would like to see....a 90 pound limit. I started in 1999. Coopertition, so we were already at 130.

Things I have really liked in past games

4 v 0
time multipliers
autonomous
3 foot balls

Things I have disliked in past games
1 v 1 v 1 (technically before my time but I have seen video)
balls that don't stay round
tape measures in the game ('nuff said)
Any game where floor balls are not as important as balls behind the glass

It seems odd to go back to teaching *before* kick off....

[Cory]

Originally Posted by EStokely

Things I have disliked in past games
tape measures in the game ('nuff said)

I dont think tape measures were the problem, necessarily, but rather the fact that FIRST specifically said NO tape measures in the beginning of the season, then when they saw them on robots, they started allowing them. I didnt like this because we spent weeks trying to come up with a non entangling tether, and ended up going through three mechanisms, then we show up at regionals and there are tape measures everywhere. Kinda makes you wonder why you even spent the time when people slapped tape measures on in an hour or two.

$.02

[Joe Matt]

Originally Posted by Cory

I dont think tape measures were the problem, necessarily, but rather the fact that FIRST specifically said NO tape measures in the beginning of the season, then when they saw them on robots, they started allowing them. I didnt like this because we spent weeks trying to come up with a non entangling tether, and ended up going through three mechanisms, then we show up at regionals and there are tape measures everywhere. Kinda makes you wonder why you even spent the time when people slapped tape measures on in an hour or two.

$.02

Well, that's mostly due to them clarifying the rules by a few at one regional, aka VCU. There they set a standard for what they were looking for, and then the rest followed. A few chose the rules. We also designed ours not to be entangling, I mean it's 2 inches as a cube, but we were disqualified because people used the "no goals on teather" rule to disqualify people in the last few seconds.

[Joe Ross]

Originally Posted by Warren Boudreau

While I have rarely found the need to disagree with Dr. Joe, on this point I disagree. Think of it this way. If your mother had never seen a football game before, would she understand it?

On the other hand, say that she did take the time to understand it. She'd figure out the main points over the course of the game. Over the course of a season, she'd begin to figure out the penalties and some of the strategy.

Then, she watches again the next season, and it's exactly the same game.

That's the biggest difference between FIRST and any other sport. And because of that, FIRST games need to be simpler because there is no continuity. In fact, some people would argue that the game isn't the same even from regional to regional (compare 2002 pre-VCU and post VCU).

[Matt Leese]

Originally Posted by EStokely

I want a lighter robot.

When did FIRST go to 130 pounds?

I would like to see....a 90 pound limit. I started in 1999. Coopertition, so we were already at 130.

FIRST switched to a 130 lbs weight limit in 1998. In 1997 the weight limit was 120 lbs. The switch to 130 lbs was because of the switch to the 12 volt motorcycle battery which weighed just over 10 lbs.

Matt

[Joe Johnson]

To be honest, I think that FIRST could easily scale the field and the robots by 70-80% (in size). Since weight scales like the length cubed and keeping in mind that that pumps, batteries, Victors, etc. do not scale at all, I think it would be reasonable to then reduce the weight of the robots to something like 50-70% of the current value (65-90lbs).

I don't think that much would be lost. In fact, if we keep the same motors, batteries, and electronics, it could be even more exciting because the power to weight ratio has gone up which could mean more energetic matches.

Joe J.

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by NateBot16

Just get rid of the "double your opponets score" and I will be happy. A team that totally controled the match last year and cleared their opponets score zone, could get a lower score then a team that didn't move but had a few boxes in their score zone. I know it adds strategy, but it seems kinda stupid.

Because of this rule, the casual spectator can be totally confused by what's going on.

[Example]Why is the red alliance putting bins in the blue zone? I thought that scored points for the blue alliance? Did I misunderstand the scoring rules?[/Example]

They've gone from:
Winner's QP = 3x (Loser's score)

to:

Winner's QP = 2x (Loser's score) + Winner's score

Hopefully they will at least go to:
Winner's QP = Loser's score + Winner's score

this year.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Andrew

Because of this rule, the casual spectator can be totally confused by what's going on.

[Example]Why is the red alliance putting bins in the blue zone? I thought that scored points for the blue alliance? Did I misunderstand the scoring rules?[/Example]

They've gone from:
Winner's QP = 3x (Loser's score)

to:

Winner's QP = 2x (Loser's score) + Winner's score

Hopefully they will at least go to:
Winner's QP = Loser's score + Winner's score

this year.

If they do that, there is no incentive to keep the score close. The better alliance will blowout the other one and score just as many points as if they gave themselves half+1 and the other team half-1. There needs to be a 2x, 3x, 4x, whatever multiplier if you want to keep teams from destroying each other, unless there are enough points for both alliances to score well.