Disappointment (long)

[Brindza]

I understand where chris27 is coming from. I agree that defense is a big part of the first game and I understand that you need build a robust robot, However some of the defense I saw was a little rediculus. And I am pretty sure that it was not what FIRST had in mind. Our robot was forced up our opponents ramp by two of the opposing alliances robots. Our robot was being pushed striat up the ramp while our robot was at a 45 degree angle to the ramp. Our robot doesnt go up the ramp like that. When we got to our robot after the match the aluminum mount for the caster had been bent so badly that it wasnt touching the ground anymore, by about half an inch.
I agree that there should be defense and robots hitting, but I think that some of it gets out of hand and it is clear when it does.

[Chris27]

Originally Posted by drwalt

I can understand well the highs and the lows of competition, just as you describe them, Chris27. I am the parent mentor of a team. I think all teams go through the process you describe at one time or another. Our team has been through a couple of rough years in transition from one major sponsor to another. Many teams are in the same boat. We played in our one and only compeition this year and we didn't make it to the finals, BUT we were winners. After our major sponsor pulled out on September 23 we had no money. Most of our team quit, but the 3 remaining players worked their buns off fundraising and with the gracious help of other teams and some nice people, we were able to register. 2 weeks into the build season is when we found an engineer and simultaneously got a check that allowed us to buy parts. Our kids worked hard, too. They were there every day after school. There was only 3 or 4 kids and the engineer, but they did it. They built a robot and I am proud to say that our kids did all the work. Our engineer took their design and he did alot of the cutting and machining, but our kids designed the robot and they put it together and tested it. It might not have been the best or the most pleasing to the eye, but they got it done and they competed well. They really came together as a team, supporting each other and they placed in the top 20 of the 63 robots in our regional. The scoring was messed up for the first 14 matches of our regional and that messed everyone up, but the point it that we made it there, we learned a ton, and we overcame adversity through sheer tenacity and by the gracious professionalism of other teams that helped us along the way. I am so proud of our kids and I hope they are, too. That is what FIRST is all about. Disappointment is a part of it, but overcoming that moment of regret and seeing pride in all you've accomplished will help you to look forward to next year with excitement and anticipation. I would encourage you to try another regional. If for no other reason, than to get to meet other teams and people and see a new place. Good Luck!

That is an amazing achievement. After putting so much work into a robot you want to see it go as far as it goes. I would have like to have been beaten by robots that were superior to ours at nationals so that we could have learned so much more about what makes a winning bot and areas that we could improve. (It would be nice to win nationals too but thats hoping for way to much ) My dissapointment comes because our stop was so sudden and the great memories we have had this year had to end with such screwed over feeling

[Cody Carey]

I have read the posts, and have come to the conclusion that we are all basing our posts on "not-so-thought-out" reasons.

By saying "that’s not what FIRST wanted", you are, in essence, putting words

into their mouths. FIRST designed the game so that it has a defensive, an offensive, and a free for all period. There are equal amount of times for defense and offense. If FIRST Hadn't wanted robots that could push other robots sideways, then they wouldn't have made the game like they did.

As was said before, there are Two strategies that a team could take:



The "We score 100 points with our shooter and that beats the other teams 99",





And the "We score 10 points with our ball dumper, and that beats the other teams Zero because we didn't let them score."



Just because teams (Ours included) chose the latter, doesn't mean that they aren't following the spirit of FIRST. They built their robot to play the game how they thought would work best.



The winners at Pitt Had TWO pushers and ONE shooter, meaning that the Pushers' game strategy works just as well as the shooters'. This in itself proves that Both strategies work for the game this year, and because they both work... they are both EXACTLY what FIRST wanted.


P.S. I grouped Dumpers in with pushers... just for this post, I swear

[Chris27]

The "We score 100 points with our shooter and that beats the other teams 99",

This requires a lot more innovation, time, and effort. Anyone can build a pusher, but it requires inovation to score.

Heck you given all the instructions and parts to build a pusher. Where is the fun/skill in that?

[Brindza]

Originally Posted by Cody C

I have read the posts, and have come to the conclusion that we are all basing our posts on "not-so-thought-out" reasons.

By saying "that’s not what FIRST wanted", you are, in essence, putting words

into their mouths. FIRST designed the game so that it has a defensive, an offensive, and a free for all period. There are equal amount of times for defense and offense. If FIRST Hadn't wanted robots that could push other robots sideways, then they wouldn't have made the game like they did.

As was said before, there are Two strategies that a team could take:



The "We score 100 points with our shooter and that beats the other teams 99",





And the "We score 10 points with our ball dumper, and that beats the other teams Zero because we didn't let them score."



Just because teams (Ours included) chose the latter, doesn't mean that they aren't following the spirit of FIRST. They built their robot to play the game how they thought would work best.



The winners at Pitt Had TWO pushers and ONE shooter, meaning that the Pushers' game strategy works just as well as the shooters'. This in itself proves that Both strategies work for the game this year, and because they both work... they are both EXACTLY what FIRST wanted.

actually, the winners at Pitt had one dumper one pusher and one shooter,
and unfortunately our alliance that also had one dumper, one shooter, and one pusher was not given the chance to play them in the finals, due to many questionable cuircumstances.

[jts]

As the mentor and coach of 909, the team that picked 1625 as well as 1451, I can understand the frustration on the part of Chris. There was a definite change in the play of the game during the final three rounds than either of our teams (909/1625) had experienced in the previous day and a half. During these matches our robot sustained more "dings" than during 12 qualifying rounds. I wish I had taken before and after pictures. Much of this was due to the structure of the opposing alliance. They were all short robots that did not shoot particularly well. Their only chance of winning was to harass 909 & 1625 and they did once heck of a job. Previously we had been able to spin off of one defending robot in order to free our robot up for a shot. While we were able to spin off a defender a couple of times we were only met by another. The third match between the two alliances proved this as the strategy was for 1451 to guard the right side and for 909 to guard the left to allow 1625 to get off their shots. It just didn't work. Hopefully in the next few days we will get these matches up on our website. After reviewing them I can't complain about the game play. It was rough, but every hit was consistent with what was being allowed.

1625: You all had an excellent scoring machine and I was very impressed with your robot.
1451: Your drivers did a great job of trying to get 909 & 1625 open.
939: Great defense and nice job of getting free to score points.
1208: Your autonomous scoring never let us play the game we wanted to.
650: You played us the closest of any team there. I'm surprised we won our previous two encounters. Your aggressiveness was hard to overcome and with your alliance partners it was just too much.

[Cody Carey]

Originally Posted by Chris27

This requires a lot more inovation, time, and effort. Anyone can build a pusher, but it requires innovation to score.

Originally Posted by Chris27

Heck you given all the instructions and parts to build a pusher. Where is the fun/skill in that?

You ARE beginning to be borderline offensive... We went to Pittsburgh with a shooter on our robot and a base that pushed any team at the regional sideways. We decided to take the shooter off because defense worked WAY better for us.

There is JUST AS MUCH fun/skill put into my and everybody else’s' robot as there is in yours.

You are not given all the instructions to build an Exceptional base; you are given all the parts/instructions to build an acceptable base. We built an Exceptional base, and we are TRULY PROUD OF IT. Just because other teams accomplished more than yours did (for whatever reason), doesn't mean that you have to be bitter to the point of insult to EVERY other team in FIRST.


Most people on my team have 110+ hours put into our robot, and I believe that we tried just as hard as you did to make a winning one, so don't go saying that nobody tried as hard as you.

[Madison]

Some others thought otherwise, so I'm opening this again as I said I would.

[pwilczynski]

Originally Posted by Chris27

That is an amazing achievement. After putting so much work into a robot you want to see it go as far as it goes. I would have like to have been beaten by robots that were superior to ours at nationals so that we could have learned so much more about what makes a winning bot and areas that we could improve. (It would be nice to win nationals too but thats hoping for way to much ) My dissapointment comes because our stop was so sudden and the great memories we have had this year had to end with such screwed over feeling

Chris, just because your robot lost doesn't mean that it was a bad robot. I haven't seen it play. But as everyone else has said, FIRST did design the game to have defense, a lot of it. They tried to make it so that teams could do multiple things. The winning teams of almost every regional so far were made up of robots with different strategys that shooting coupled with shooters. Furthermore, to me, it sounds as tho your team failed, like many others, to put on bumpers. Bumpers are extremely valuble pieces of hardware. Teams with them are definatly the least prone to damage. Therefore, take this to heart. Your robot was beaten by a team that had recognized your threat and neutralized it. AIM HIGH is a fun, exciting game. However, could you imagine it without robots d-ing eachother up, pushing it around. It wouldn't be too much fun for anyone.

Originally Posted by Chris27

we never be able to test it out in the conditions it was designed for

Originally Posted by Chris27

Our eyes were set for Atlanta when we entered the finals

To respond to these comments, I must say that you are bordering on crossing the line. To say that you were never able to test it in the conditions it was designed for and that you were focused on Atlanta before winning shows disrespect for the other teams at your regional, all of whom spent the same amout of time that you did. Your robot was designed for AIM HIGH. Your robot played AIM HIGH. Therefore, the conditions it was designed for were validated.

[Jeremiah Johnson]

I hate to take anything away from any of the teams that attend the StL regional, but it is generally one of the weaker regionals. Founded on rookie teams in 2002. Generally dominated by the Baxter Bomb Squad (16). A rookie team has a really good chance at winning that regional. I don't know where this post is going... so I should probably end it right now. I didn't read this entire thread either. I have a short attention span.

[chaoticprout]

Originally Posted by Budda648

I hate to take anything away from any of the teams that attend the StL regional, but it is generally one of the weaker regionals. Founded on rookie teams in 2002. Generally dominated by the Baxter Bomb Squad (16). A rookie team has a really good chance at winning that regional. I don't know where this post is going... so I should probably end it right now. I didn't read this entire thread either. I have a short attention span.

Hopefully this is a joke post....otherwise...wow.

[jarowe]

After reading these posts I noticed that everyone is saying what they think FIRST is. So I started thinking-- what is FIRST? Then I thought, well, it's all of these things. It's about innovation, hard work, inspiration, teaching, learning, experimenting, strategy, competition, meeting new people, being inspired, aiming high and changing paradigms. Then I realized, for some people it's more than that. For others, it's simpler. Really, FIRST is what you make of it.

If you want to finish a competition and say, "We were shafted," then do it. Because if you really were the victim of unfairness, you did built an awesome robot. In building that machine, you learned something, and hopefully you were inspired along the way. However, I really hope you don't, for your sake. If you leave a competition and didn't go as far as you had hoped, it's because there was a team who was able to play the game to their advantage a little bit better than the other teams. So rather, say to yourself, "Next year, we're going to build a better drive train." "This summer, let's work on making that camera work for us, so we can win auto." I hope that you'll say, "That was one of the best experiences of my life," and you'll realize that 6 weeks of hard work paid off and you're robot went out and won a match or two.

I would idealistically like to believe that every team out there is playing fair and is playing to win. I work on strategy for our team, and I personally love it when teams play good defense, because I get to do more work and figure out how to avoid them.

I would like to point out though, that it's unfair to say that one team worked less hard than another simply because they didn't built a shooter. I honestly believe that every team wants to win and builds the best they can. A good pushing and defensive robot, that can push balls into corner goals and climb the ramp has a very good shot of doing well.

Also, keep in mind, the rules are designed for safety and for fair play. These are the top priorities of organization and the referees. You have to remember though, that they wanted defense, there is a reason that there is a period of the game referred to as such. There is a reason that the bumpers were added this year. If the referees see something unfair and against the rules, trust them to call it.

I'm so very proud of FIRST because they strive for success, and every time, teams deliver. This game has been played well. Teams have worked and continue to work hard. I personally can't wait for the Wisconsin Regional and the Championship to see what others have done with such a complex task.

[Jeremiah Johnson]

Originally Posted by chaoticprout

Hopefully this is a joke post....otherwise...wow.

Yeah... it wasn't my finest hour... I read the first post in the topic and had my mind made up. I do that a lot. Sorry.

[BuddyB309]

Originally Posted by Chris27

If I can get a hold on some of the video we took I will post it. It should reveal more about the intentions of the opposing team. And btw you can tip over any robot no matter how well it is designed.

I have the entire match on video at a fixed angle that views the entire field. I shall post it on youtube.com thursday afternoon since i will be unable to get to my video equipment. I will set up a new post with a poll and we can vote if it was unsportsmanlike or not.

I dont want to sound mean or anything I just feel that people dont see the unsportsmanlike conduct that went on in this match. If all three robots tip over in a match and not by their own accord, you know there is a problem.

[sanddrag]

I'm tired and I can't take the time to read this whole thread but I will reply to the very first post (and the starter of the thread).

Your team is better off than so many more out there.

Last year, we had 26 pounds of 3 motor (each) 2 speed gearboxes and never had to engage in one pushing match because of the way penalties were being handed out.

This year we are in our 6th year. We own no machining tools. We don't even have a bandsaw. We build our robot in a computer lab. We didn't get picked for finals in Arizona. We have 50 pounds of a mechanism that has scored a grand total of 3 points. We lost more matches than we won. We have never been to the Championship event.

You are doing just fine. There are so many others right around you who have many more problems than your team.