FIRST Frenzy Opinion Thread

[White Wolf]

First reaction – spooked.

That is a good thing, for as Jimmy says, “If winning was easy, then everybody would be doing it. It's the hard that makes it great!”

This is our second year; we are old rookies. For the new rookies sake, I am grateful they can shoot hoops and herd balls. It makes it conceivable for them to compete. Heck, I am grateful our team has the possibility of shooting hoops and herding balls.

I believe experienced teams have advantage because they are, well, experienced. From my perspective as team coach, it is unfortunate that so many tough tasks are repeats from preceding years. However, it is an opportunity for our team to reach out to more experienced teams and ask for guidance, war stories, and encouragement.

I extend a challenge and a request to a knowledgeable someone. There is a wealth of experience on little balls, big balls, bars and more. Could someone create a document organizing best of breed solutions from previous competitions where similar problems were posed? Having lots of white papers and discussion groups, a la Delphi, is truly great. However, it is hard to absorb and assess it all. An informed overview would be a wonderful touchstone for old and new rookies. Note: I am prepared to have my ignorance pointed out to me that such a thread already exists; where many someones have already posted their newbie overviews. Being a teacher, I am quite comfortable with my ignorance.

First response – excited.

I like the breadth of both undiscovered strategy and engineering opportunity. As Miguel says, "Only he who attempts the absurd is capable of achieving the impossible."

[Don Wright]

I had a neat idea with the hanging bar. Wouldn't it have been cool if at the beginning of the match the bar was at 1 foot off the platform or something and as the game progressed, it got higher and higher...so that if you went for the bar early, you wouldn't have to have as long of a arm or whatever. I thought that is what they were going to do when I saw that the bar moved...

I'm liking this game more and more because I can't find a clear single strategy to win.

[Joe Matt]

Likes:
-Very strategy intesive
-Stationary & moving goals
-Stairs
-Hanging bar

Dislikes:
-No robot de-scoring
-Not enough scoring possabilities for robots
-BALLS. Too many balls....

[dradius]

frankly, i think its a great idea to put all the more challenging aspects from the previous games in. though it seem a bit repetitive, its something we, in entirety, havent quite worked with. my only problem might be that there is so much emphasis on previoud experience to get you through this game.

[Paul Copioli]

FACT:

1. The win, loss, tie way of qualifying was an idea taken from this forum last year (the one where everyone's opinions were asked).

OPINIONS:

1. This game is way more complex than we think. There are many, many ways to win.

2. We (the CD community) had some complaints the last few years about the human player not having any real impact. That has changed. By the way, I will take a soccer player over a basketball player. Did you see how the goals reacted? The trajectory looks more like a throw in than a shot into a basket.

3. There are many defensive strategies, but there are just as many offensive strategies. This means more diversity.

4. The win-loss-tie method is the best way to do qualifying. Don't get too wrapped up in the tie breaker. I'll explain. In football a win is a win and the fans can understand that. But what happens when there is a tie for the last playoff spot? The tie breakers are confusing for the average fan, but that is O.K. Most of the time if you win, you are in. The spectators can now understand the game during qualifying. If they see a team win every time the team is on the field, they know the team will be on top (research how many teams actually go undefeated at regionals). The wins and losses are just like hockey: 2 points for a win, 1 point for a tie, and 0 for a loss. FIRST will never let go of the coopertition idea and having everyone get the loser's score for a tie breaker seems to accomplish that. There will be very few teams that actually get hurt by the tie breaker.

5. The elimination rounds are going to be awesome! A tie is a tie and we replay. If each team has one win and they tie in the third round, then they get to play again. The rules cap it at 4 games total, but I think 2 ties in a row is very unlikely. This will bring great excitement to the eliminations.

6. I think the game is great. I think the people who are unsure of this game will like it when the first regionals start.

Originally Posted by Ryan Foley

I just thought that it's better when winners get their score in QP and loosers get theirs. 1) its easy, 2) if someone does really well in a match, it helps them a lot, instead of just becoming another 2QPs. The 2004 Qualification Rounds system seems a bit too confusing.

I like that idea too, but that goes against what FIRST believes. Over the last 5 years that I have been involved, I've noticed and have been told that FIRST officials HATE seeing total blowouts and watching teams that have put their blood and sweat into their machine only to go out and get their butts kicked time after time. It really lowers their self esteem and increases frustration and all together, could ruin them ever wanting to come back and compete in the future. Yeah I know they shouldn't give up, but it has happened. FIRST wants to level the competition enough so that some kind of rookie team with no expierence can hang or come close to teams like 68, 60, 71, 47, etc.

Trust me on this one, its better this way.

[KenWittlief]

dont jump to the conclusion that winning all your matches is the only important thing

the worse case seneario with that approach would be if half the teams won all their matches, and half the teams lost all their matches

with 50 teams at a regional, that would put 25 teams in the top tier, who would then be ranked by the losing scores.

even if you average it out, then roughtly 10 teams in a regional will win all their matches - that still doenst put you in the top 8.

and if you lose once for any reason (beyond your control) then you might fall to the bottom of the second tier, 20th place!

I agree that the playoffs will be more aggressive - winning is everything there - points are not as important -but even then, if you trash the field and win your first round, but something goes wrong and you loose the second big time - then you are in a shaky position for the 3rd match.

[Enslaved]

Hmmm.....I personally feel it is an interesting game, and many of you hold the same opinion

Although, I find it hard to imagine how a robot could do just everything!
Too little time, too many things to do!

There is a just a lot to do around the field!
I mean what is the use of that 2x ball, if you cannot get any smaller balls in!And And what is the use of the mobile basket, when you cannot get the 2x ball off it!

As far as hanging on the bar is concerned, I think it should be a priority!

Well, it is quite an exciting game, and I like the fact that the human players and the robots have to work together
Oh well...All the best everyone!!!

[Pteryxx]

Originally Posted by D.J. Fluck

I like that idea too, but that goes against what FIRST believes. Over the last 5 years that I have been involved, I've noticed and have been told that FIRST officials HATE seeing total blowouts and watching teams that have put their blood and sweat into their machine only to go out and get their butts kicked time after time. ....

I agree completely, blowouts are ugly in pretty much any sport. Just think how many completely lame and boring Super Bowls we have had in the last decade ; ) I would much rather see a close finish, particularly in a sport like FIRST where there are no farm teams or semi-pro divisions, and every team regardless of experience or professional help can potentially play any other.

Blowouts are only for point spreads and contract negotiations - ya know, stuff that has to do with money ; ) -Piece, Pteryxx

[Yan Wang]

Ever notice how Dean always seems to reference Michael Jordan and the NBA? Perhaps the emphasize on human player skill this year is a plot of Dean's to bring more basketball players to FIRST. Personally, I like this aspect of the game.

As for autonomous, I think more could've been done with that. I think rookie teams would be at much more of a disadvantage with hanging from bars and climbing steps than to write autonomous programs using sensors like they did in middle school with Mindstorms, etc.

[Aignam]

This game is terrible for teams that normally use defensive strategies.

[Mercutio]

Originally Posted by 2000vfr800

Wouldn't it have been cool if at the beginning of the match the bar was at 1 foot off the platform or something and as the game progressed, it got higher and higher...

That's what I thought it would be when they showed the bar rising... it would've made things *very* interesting...

~Aaron

[Joe Matt]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

That's what I thought it would be when they showed the bar rising... it would've made things *very* interesting...

~Aaron

I can just see Dave, Dean, and Woody sitting around beating themselves for not thinking of that first!

[MichalSkiba]

A Quasi-Veteran's opinion:

1. Too much human player interaction and too many 'almost pre assembled' pieces in the kit: Well, there are 225 rookie teams. At the Science Center (site of the Canadian Regional Kick-Off) nearly half of the 78 teams identified themselves as rookies. If FIRST oriantates there game towards vets, then the game will be very interesting but too difficult for rookies and membership will not grow (as rapidly as it has, which means less money to bargain for in the end, but thats a totly different thread).

2. I have found it very unfortunatey that teams in previous years didn't 'raise the bar' [of there engineering challange] to build a more complex, more addaptive robot. Many, even in Houston, where just stack knockers and monsters [Chief Delphi thats you!] that folded out and took up space, other then that acted as deadweights.

As a result of the games complexity [and we want to perform 7 functions VERY well] and the size and wieght restrictions, we are forced to employ higher design and craftsmanship standards. We will be experimenting with everything, mostly because 4 of our functions call for designs which I've NEVER seen incorperated into previous bots.

Thumbs up to that blob, lots of learning head!

3. I don't like the idea of not being about to de-score. The platform and bar will act as a physical and phycological wall during game play. Throwing extra balls in or placing a 2x muliplier will be totally dependent on the other side's performance. Last year's open concept [with a slight bottle neck, the ramp] would otherwise allow a team to directly influance the other team's score during game play. This year I think that many teams will sit and wait.

4. I'm worried about a game like that of 2002's. Many teams will simply try to hurd as many balls as possible and let thier human player/basketball scholarship recipiant rack up points. However, FIRST has allowed for very quick and easy drivetrain assembly, hoping perhaps to see more teams focus on building a 2x multipier manipulator or bar grabber. However, experiance has shown that many teams nevertheless will opt for the simpler solution.

My predictions:

1. Many light and quick bulldozers accompanied by some school basketball stars.

2. Many teams will have enough technical skill to persue a secondary function (2x manipulator or bar grabber). Few will go for the bar grabber because of latching complexity, weight and stair-climbing difficulty. This will result in KOTH (more like KOT Platform) situation where ball manip. robots will be blocking bar grabbers [bar grabbers -> consider being able to latch to the bar while not on the platfrom ].

3. Ball grabbing teams will have fewer balls to throw into there bins then grabber since grabbers will not need to spend lots of time manipulating, securing and placing thier target; thiers is stationary.

4. Successful teams will make extensive use of sensors and other 'new' parts in the kit [cough cough].

5. Teams will be more preoccupied with winning, then keeping thier opponents score close. Whether they will go for the 2x mult. or bar will depend upon what they feel thier ball scoring consistancy will be.

6. Bar grabbers will not focus on autonomus mode as much as ball grabbers. They will get 50 points regardless of how long they wait to get thier balls.

7. Expect some VERY unique drivesystems from veteran teams.

8. Most of the processor's power will be used towards manipulating sensor data and formulation a respondse, rather then the [hmm, one?] autonomous mode.

Food for thought: Could this game be a learning springboard for next year's uber insanity?

Thats my $0.02 PLN. [expect some ingenuity and a hot presentation at the Canadian Regional]

[Gene F]

I agree with MichalSkiba. This years game has so many facets. I don't think that the winning aliances will all look alike as much as they have in the past. With so many strategy options teams are going to be looking for their perfect partner.