Team Update #18 (Let's Try This Again)

[Travis Hoffman]

I know what you're all thinking - *groooooooan*. Oh just hush for a bit. See where this goes. I've been doing some thinking as I've been packing for Toronto. I'd like to alter my standpoint on the Team Update #18 rule changes a bit.

First, the modification of <S01>:

1. I think the most beneficial thing to come out of this Team Update is to see FIRST institute a WHY WE MADE THIS CHANGE section to each rule modification. I think this is a great practice that should be permanently adopted, but it needs to be thorough. When you release the rules each year, for the most controversial/open for interpretation rules in the book, have additional sections which explain why each rule was created. Give examples of what is permitted and what isn't, much like you did with the Loading Zone infraction examples provided in Team Update #4 (by the way, it would have been easier for the head ref at SVR to locate those examples if they had been incorporated into the main body of the Game rules and not left in that separate team update document - something to think about). You've got to explain to these kids and these refs exactly what is right and what is wrong. The talk of having videos which show examples of proper and improper robot behavior is wonderful, because then you can educate the spectators at an event in addition to the teams. I freely offer up any of our old robots for use in such videos - they are lonely and wish to be on TV. Any ideas which encourage more communication and understanding among FIRST, its volunteers, its teams, and the guy on the street are welcome.

2. I agree with Elgin - adding more penalties to an already penalty saturated game increases the complexity of the game for everyone and increases the punitive nature of the game for the drivers. We want to reward, not punish. However, safety is an area where these kids need to follow the rules without question. It is the one area where such penalties are warranted, because human safety is at stake. I have a proposal - if FIRST agrees to get rid of the tacked-on and tacky <G25> 10-point *overaggressiveness* penalty [or better yet, move it out of the preamble so that it can only apply to inappropriate robot actions, where it belongs], I will wholeheartedly welcome this safety penalty with open arms.

3. Regarding robot disablement for safety infractions - The change from "will" to "may" be disabled was necessary to include the examples of "marginally unsafe" actions under the <S01> umbrella. I think it's clear now that FIRST does not want refs to disable robots for barely breaking the plane or for bumping their own partners in their own HP loading zones. The 10-point penalties should be enough to discourage such activities. I hope FIRST is communicating this to all refs before this weekend. Consistency!


Regarding <G18>:

1. It was the worst kept secret in FIRST that the game designers preferred offense over defense this year (and probably beyond). I'm glad they actually came out and said it. However, Steve W is right - this does contradict the 2005 Triple Play animation, as well as the wording of <G25>. And you can tell by the responses you've received so far on Update 18, that not everyone is as pro-offense as you'd think. Many are miffed that FIRST would try to tell them how the game *should* be played. To them, it sounds elitist. I tend to agree. The REALITY is, each year, including this one, some teams just won't have the means or the time to apply a lot of great technology to their robot - they are proud just to build something that drives around and maybe has a rudimentary arm that flips tetras under a goal - 1708 comes to mind). They cannot possibly hope to compete against a veteran alliance filled with relative superpowers. Other teams have intentionally designed their robots around defense as a primary strategy. If we force everyone to play offense in a direct competition, all we're doing is favoring the favorites and maximizing their ranking scores. Yahoo, as if teams like 71 and 111 need any more help! I'm all for the underdog and giving them as many options as possible to succeed against the more established teams. Many times, they will fall short, but they'll feel really great about their performance, and every so often, they'll pull off the upset. And that's a beautiful thing. Employing smart defensive strategies is an important option for many, and FIRST is trying to limit their ability to use that option, if not take it away altogether. I think that is most unfortunate. What is wrong with balance and freedom of choice? Instead of seeking to forcibly eliminate all defense through rule changes and penalties, why not simply focus on the nasty byproducts of overactive defense we've seen permitted sporadically all year, namely, ramming and tipping? Let's get the refs calling those penalties more (not completely - that's impossible) consistently, and see if the offensive teams have a better time of it while still giving the defensive dudes a chance to play the game their own way.

2. To all you offensive ballerinas out there (said with the utmost of respect), why are you afraid of a little additional challenge to spice up your boring I can cap 28 tetras in 2 minutes if no one touches me lives? I've seen robots like 229 fight past a formidable and LEGAL defensive stand and still cap. That impresses me far more than watching someone go la de da all day without any opposition, because that robot is displaying the total, balanced package. Let those defensive teams play, BUT ENFORCE RAMMING AND TIPPING RULES AT ALL COSTS!

3. Regarding pushing and descoring, my opinion continues to be that if an offensive bot is trying to cap but knocks over a tetra stack while a defensive bot employs legal pushing means to stop him, then that lil ol' pushing bot should not be penalized for the inability of offensive bot to maintain the integrity of the stack and ward off that perfectly legal maneuver. Some may call this a roadblock to progress. I call it keeping the technology-laden teams honest. If you want to show off your ability to stack 3 miles high without interruption, that's why you go to those Cub Scout robot demos in the summer. Maybe Andy, Chris, and the boys can hold a tetra capping contest at IRI, who knows? We've been defended this way many times this year while trying to cap, and you know what? I agree, it's ANNOYING! But HEY, it's LEGAL, so we keep fighting, and usually succeed in capping. We respect the little guy trying to keep us from achieving our objective, and our drivers feel a little greater sense of accomplishment in being able to persevere under those conditions.

One final point - one I've shared with a certain popular mentor on this forum who may have the time to run with this once the season ends. Most of the commonly shared knowledge on these forums, especially the stuff the "Gods of FIRST" hand down to the common masses, deals with DRIVETRAINS. Frames. Shifting Transmissions. Torque-speed curves. MORE POWER!!!!!!! If our overriding goal is offense, why is the bulk of the shared technology focused on things commonly associated with defense? JVN's strong kitbot frame. Paul Copioli's rugged transmissions. AndyMark's light and sturdy shifters. NBD (yes I know you can use those on an arm - that should stand for "Nothing but Defense", btw). What happens if defense goes away? Are we going to see people stop incorporating these designs into their robot? Why put a shifting transmission in if there's no need for it? Will the educational benefits these technologies bring be reduced if defense is permitted to die? Will our drivetrains start to become wussy and overly simplified because we're all too busy playing offense to care? I'm not sure.

I know FIRST is delivering these common frame and drivetrain components to teams, hoping they'll all create the same base frame and drivetrain in a short amount of time, leaving them to focus more on complex manipulator designs. This is a commendable undertaking on their part. Is FIRST succeeding in that task? I'm not sure. But it seems to me that if we truly want to elevate the technology level of all teams, we shouldn't just assume that they're all going to do it by themselves once they have their stock frame and drivetrain. Shouldn't we also be gathering some of the best arm designs - four-bars, extensions, articulated, etc. from around the FIRST community and sharing those publicly as well? It would be great if such an arm design library and perhaps the programming that goes along with them would be built up to the same level that we see our drivetrain designs shared. Only then, when we all truly do our part to directly elevate the rookies and other teams to utilizing solid arm technologies, maybe FIRST can truly justify reducing the amount of defense they allow in a game. Notice I said reduce, not eliminate!

Well, gee, that wasn't so bad, was it? I feel pretty good about that one. Again, thank you to FIRST for LISTENING and TRYING to change. Good luck, and let's hopefully see some real progress this weekend.

[Jack Jones]

As to the change to <S01>:
I believe this is an example of, “Be careful what you wish, it may come true.” A very proficient scoring machine will do an average of six tetras per match. (The powerhouse, Beatty #71 told me at MWR their average was 5.8) It’s usually the case that a score between 30 and 40 points will win a match. On average then, each infraction will end up costing the team about ½ of their points, or ¼ to 1/3 of the alliance’s score. Case in point would be when the red alliance at MWR finished the match with all three robots disabled for breaking the plane and yet won the match. I wonder whether they’d have won with 30 points deducted. Worse yet is, in knowing that they’ll live to finish the match, teams may become even more reckless than they already are. So, get ready for many more matches decided on penalty points.

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

Worse yet is, in knowing that they’ll live to finish the match, teams may become even more reckless than they already are. So, get ready for many more matches decided on penalty points.

Jack:

I think the 10-point penalty is only meant for marginal offenses. If a team blatantly crosses the threshold such that the tetra is in real danger of falling and striking someone, in addition to the 10-points for noticeably breaking the plane in the first place, a disablement (either of the immediate or "get your arm back across the plane so I can disable you" variety) is still warranted.

[Jack Jones]

It does not mention breaking the plane. It mentions:
A robot that allows a tetra to hang momentarily and partially over the driver’s
station.

Define "hang" Define "momentarily" Define "partially over"

Now define "breaking the plane"

They've muddied the swamp!

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

It does not mention breaking the plane. It mentions:
A robot that allows a tetra to hang momentarily and partially over the driver’s
station.

Define "hang" Define "momentarily" Define "partially over"

Now define "breaking the plane"

They've muddied the swamp!

Hopefully, FIRST has taken steps to do all that "defining" for their refs this weekend.

[mathking]

To me, it seems pretty obvious that FIRST is looking at the 10 point penalty and not being disabled as a lesser infraction, allowing the refs, at their discretion, to say "This was not a really bad infraction" and allow the robot to continue play. So I don't think this will in any way encourage even more dangerous play by teams. I think it is meant to be more fair and not disable a team who might spin around too fast and "break the plane" briefly and inadvertantly.

As for the other rule change, I do think that it is unfair to penalize the stacking team if another robot pushes them and causes the stack to tumble over. But it is also unfair that legal defense can cost you a penalty. So there may be no perfect rule. It would not bother me to have the refs decide whether one alliance was at fault and penalize them for descoring tetras.

It might be good for the refs to also be able to say "Both sides were at fault so the tetras are simply descored without penalties." I have seen several matches with two teams trying to score at the same time and jointly causing the tetras to fall. I have also seen an offensive team try to shove past a defender, get off balance and descore a stack. Should the defender be punished there? In most of the cases of descoring tetras I have watched, it was pretty obvious who was at fault. So why not penalize in such cases and have no penalties otherwise?

The main thing needed is consistency. And this only comes with experiences on the part of the refs and clear rules from FIRST. Teams should at least know going in to a match what is likely to get them penalized. Particularly if perfectly legal actions can lead to big penalties due to circumstances.

It was interesting to me to see how much more consistent the refs were at Buckeye than at Pittsburgh. I don't think this is because the refs were bad in Pittsburgh, just that there had been a couple of weeks of additional competition so more experience and more clarification of the rules. So I am quite optimistic about the Championships.

If there are consistent calls, defense can and will still be a very important part of the game. In both Pittsburgh and Cleveland, skillful defense in the final altered the outcome of matches. Rather than shoving a good stacker away from a goal the defenders simply prevented the stacker from getting to a goal in the first place. (By the way, kudos to 279 for the nifty shift in strategy in finals round #2 at Buckeye. After being stifled in round #1 they made a little change and were off and stacking before the defenders knew it.)

A quick side (but important) note: I also want to praise the number of teams I have seen who had legitimate gripes about calls made in the game who shrugged off the gripes and showed sportsmanship. In particular 365, 808 and our Pittsburgh alliance partners in 47. The sportsmanship demonstrates that gracious professionalism is alive and well on your teams.

[Josh Hambright]

I think that people are coming up with some great ideas and refinements to the rules. I would point out though, that it may be more beneficial to everyone if you gave these directly to FIRST. Try emailing frcteams@usfirst.org, it might not be the email address thats perfect for this, but i'm sure they will point you in the direction of the right people to contact. Most of the people at FIRST do not read these forums, and may miss these discussions, so i encourage people like Travis, to take your ideas directly to the source, who knows maybe you'll see your ideas implemented.

[Paul Copioli]

All,

I have kept silent even though I have some pretty strong opinions about the way the game was called in week 4. There was definitely a major change in interpretation of G25 from week 3 to week 4. All I will say about it is this: G25 is clear as written (that is why this update didn't address it, I'm sure), but the interpretation changed from week 3 to week 4. I have been at an event each week either working as MC or announcer or competing and week 4 was different (at least at MidWest). The biggest difference was the "over aggressiveness" call. Notice that G25 never says anything about over aggressiveness. During week 4, over aggressiveness was being inferred from G25, but I do not know why. I have since read the rule many, many times and each time I read it it is very clear and concise. Good defense is a great part of this game and should not be discouraged. I agree with Travis that the tipping and pulling high rules and the ramming rules are good, but we should not over apply the rules.

Travis,

Regarding the data sharing and drive train emphasis: We needed drive train emphasis! How many competitions did you go to last year or in 2003 where a robot was not even driving? Or a robot was driving in circles? Or a robot was tripping breakers every 10 seconds? The main focus was "get everyone driving a soon as possible with a robust system." Mission accomplished. Teams had more time to spend on arms, etc and everyone I saw was driving around on week 1! You said in your post:

I know FIRST is delivering these common frame and drivetrain components to teams, hoping they'll all create the same base frame and drivetrain in a short amount of time, leaving them to focus more on complex manipulator designs. This is a commendable undertaking on their part. Is FIRST succeeding in that task? I'm not sure. But it seems to me that if we truly want to elevate the technology level of all teams, we shouldn't just assume that they're all going to do it by themselves once they have their stock frame and drivetrain.

Is FIRST succeeding? Absolutely! Did you see Finger Lakes during week 1? Rookies had amazing arms. Teams that normally do not have manipulators had great manipulators. Four rookies were in the top 8 and that was at a regional with teams like 494, 639, 191, 237, 229, 1126, 340, and a few other crafty veterans. Can we add more to the knowledge base for manipulators? Sure, but this was an amazing start. Here are some facts about the kit transmissions that you may or may not have known:

1. There were 4 CIMS in the kit (O.K. You knew that)
2. You could use more than two transmissions on your robot.
3. There was a configuration of the kit transmission that you could combine two transmissions and use it for arms almost out of the box.
4. Many veteran and rookie teams used the arm configuration, including the mighty arm of 45.
5. Many other teams used one kit transmission with a F.P., a globe, or a van door motor for an arm configuration.

While I agree the community could step up more to share arm ideas, we have taken great strides this year to accomplish those means.

-Paul

[petek]

Originally Posted by T. Hoffman

If our overriding goal is offense, why is the bulk of the shared technology focused on things commonly associated with defense? JVN's strong kitbot frame. Paul Copioli's rugged transmissions. AndyMark's light and sturdy shifters.

I would maintain that good overall performance is equally applicable to offense (scoring) as to defense. For example, Swamp Thing, 103's X-Factor and others have a wide speed range to allow good manuverability and finess when loading and capping, and high speed for capping the opponent's end. Strong frames help ensure good handling, and so on.

Powerful, fast robots don't knock over other robots, drivers do that (intentionally, or unintentionally).

[Swampdude]

I don't see arms as a handicap. It seems to always just depend on the designer. This years rookies have held as much capability as the veterans. 1592 and 1649 for example at our regional had it goin on. I don't see the teams age as a factor when the kit is of this quality. I could have replicated our bots abilities straight out of the kit with a few lost features but performance would have been basically the same.

I also don't see how this rule changes much. Other than don't bump robots that are "in the process of" capping a goal with multiple tetras already on it. Or if you think you can do it without causing them to knock off the already scored tetras. Now the inverse of this that adds to the offense capability is to intentionally descore a goal while getting hit. So you can manually penalize a team that's willing to take the risk of hitting you while you cap. It's interesting.

But if a robot is scoring a goal that hasn't been capped yet, you can hit them all you want because there's nothing to descore, right?

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by Swampdude

Now the inverse of this that adds to the offense capability is to intentionally descore a goal while getting hit. So you can manually penalize a team that's willing to take the risk of hitting you while you cap. It's interesting.

Aye, there's the rub. I was waiting for someone to bring this up. If any maneuver ever fell into the cheap, petty, un-GP category, it's this one. It's like taking a dive in boxing.

To teams who would consider this ploy, please don't wuss out like this. Besides, it completely contradicts FIRST's new Rah Rah Let's Go Offense mentality. To all offensive-lovin' teams, please don't be hypocrites and support this "strategy".

[Goldeye]

I get the feeling some people are going a bit too far on the offense rather than defense idea. The game designers certainly wanted defense as a part of the game. They provided examples: the legality of keeping bots away from a specific goal (as is shown in the animation.) An example of great game play was an instance I saw of all 3 robots crowding their corner goal near the end of a match to prevent it from being taken and creating a row for the other team.
What they are avoiding is aggressive defense - uses of force rather than finesse. The designers intended for a defense filled with finesse: moving inbetween the bot and the goal; putting your arm in the way of the tetra so it will not fall on, and the like. Examples of bad, aggressive defense are pushing an opposing bot across the field or pinning it to the wall, or pushing them against a tetra until they fall.

Getting in the way of the other robot is how defense is meant to be played, not getting them out of the way.

I get the feeling I'll be repeating that a bit over the next few days