Human Player: Past, Present and Future

[Daniel Brim]

I like this year's balance. In 2003, the Human Player had almost no importance, because what they did could be destroyed in a few seconds, and they were only involved for 10 seconds. In 2004, I felt that there was too much Human Player dependence. I could see where Dean was coming from in his reasoning, but I thought that there was an unequal weight (like us at SoCal - we had an outstanding Human Player, but almost no robot, and yet we made it to 20th seed when we probably should have been towards the bottom).

This year, the Human Players may or may not be used. Is there a safety issue? A little bit. Can other robots avoid this safety issue and be Graciously Proffesional? Yes. Could FIRST have included more safety features on their playing field? Probably, but hindsight is 20/20. The only issue I have is that a Human Player isn't used on some teams. I hope that in future years, the Human Player balance is improved by keeping the same importance, but having all Human Players doing the same task.

-Daniel

[Jeff Rodriguez]

I'll just had some more history to the thread:

2001 - Coopertition.
Human Players scored small balls (similar to 2004) by shooting them over the player station into tall movable goals.

2000 - Don't remember the name
Human Players scored balls (similar to 2004) by shooting them over the player station into stationary goals located in the middle of the field.

1999 - I'm not good with names
Human players loaded robots with 'floppies' in the 'robot interaction zone' (similar to the loading zone of 2005)

[Pat234]

I liked the relationship created in the 2004 game between human and robot. The robot couldn't score balls but the HP was not effective without a robot pushing more balls to shoot. This created a unique relationship between HP and robot to score points simulating a much similar role robots play in real world applications then a robot completely seperate from human interaction.

Pat

[Chris Hibner]

I agree with DanielBCR. I thought last year's game had too much HP involvement (this was the main feedback I got from casual game observers regarding last year's game). This year has a good balance.

[C.Roberts 1089]

I'm Human Player for my team this year, so forgive me if i'm a bit biased =p. I think this year's involvement was at the right level. The HP is kept pretty active (as long as your team uses the manual loading station), but wasn't the only scoring source like last year. I agree with the fact that the robot should be the one scoring points, not the human player, because this lowers the standard of the quality of the bot needed to succeed in the game. As for this year, the "safety issues" are not really issues as long as you know what you're doing. The responsibility of the HP is to know the rules and know how to get their job done, safely. It really isn't very hard to do. If being human player is causing you problems with safety, maybe you should analyze how you're playing the game and come up with something new.

[dmurdz]

This is my first full year in FIRST and I think that the human player's role is perfect in the game. They AIDE their robot to score, but they are not essential to winning the game. Many robots are great at using the auto-loading zone.

Their is a safety issue and FIRST has dealt with this, the 30-point penalty will prevent a team that wants to win from interferring with the robot while it is in the loading zone.

The only thing I dislike about this year's human player is the pressure pad, they may have some issues from time to time.

[Billfred]

I think that this year really does have the right level of HP involvement. The issue then becomes safety, but I think that can be resolved with some trick game design. (Suppose this year, instead of the LZ triangles, there were 3.5' square corridors that only one robot at a time can enter to receive objects from the HP. You have the involvement, but it's also out of the way at the same time.)

[dubious elise]

Originally Posted by Billfred

I think that this year really does have the right level of HP involvement. The issue then becomes safety, but I think that can be resolved with some trick game design. (Suppose this year, instead of the LZ triangles, there were 3.5' square corridors that only one robot at a time can enter to receive objects from the HP. You have the involvement, but it's also out of the way at the same time.)

I'll second that one. The involvement level is great this year, but it really is too risky. I personally almost had my eyes forked out by our arm when our robot was hit straight-on, towards me, at MWR (thank heavens for tennis reflexes and safety glasses from the Technokats!). The idea of an isolated loading station, like Billfred said, would be much appreciated!

[DarMagi]

I think that the role of the HP should be expanded. Although with the direction of technology and robotics going mroe and more autonomous, this is still a competition and a chance to have some fun and show off what you did in just six weeks. I think by having the 15 second auton mode and a HP that stands at a safe distance and scores for the alliance would b a good challenge. The role of the robot could be to position the goals or scoring zones into an acceptable distance for the HP to score. By incorporating a HP you are giving more people a chance to interact with technology as in the future, humans will have to interact with robots in order to acomplish tasks, and fix broken 'bots, well a HP could work WITH the bot to score and accomplish certain tasks, as well as additional tasks set by the HP and by the 'bot, like by saying, a certain position would be a certain number of points by the HP and a task as in hanging from the chin up bar to be assigned by the robot task, just try to keep the HP a part of the game as it adds an element to the game that is just fun and reliable.

[Barry Bonzack]

My two cents

I like more human involvement to the degree of 2004, but would happily compromise with 2002.

[Ian Curtis]

2004. Both the robot and the human player can (in different ways) score, and more importantly what the robot does CAN counteract what the human does. Some people have said that the 50 point bonus was too much, but when the time came for Einstein, it was no longer too much. You HAD to score balls to win and you HAD to hang to win. It's like football. Two players working on different things, working to achieve the common goal of winning.

BTW, should this be moved to the FRC Game Design forum?