Declawed games

[archiver]

Posted by Jon.

Engineer on team #190, Gompei, from Mass Academy of Math and Science and Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

Posted on 1/12/2000 9:27 PM MST


In Reply to: Declawed games posted by Marc DeSchamp on 1/12/2000 11:04 AM MST:




(Kate, please don't hurt me
Well... i kinda agree with the declawing thought... the games have seemed a little weaker. SEEMED. But once in competition, they were SOO much fun!

This game seems weird with the neutral strategy possibilities and all, but i see it as more of an extreme challenge for the mind than a classic NFL style game. This isn't Robot Wars... if you wanted to just blow things up, you could do that or become a Fire Protection Engineer. FIRST is more than that... i think i'm in the gracious professionalism camp... maybe that tweaks my pov.

The idea of bumpers seems totally silly to me, having seen that you can build a robot to take damage without them, but they may be of help to a team's structural plan. The rules have stated that you have to build robust robots because stuff is gonna happen, in my opinion this is just another tool towards that goal. I don't think bumpers will help if you go flying off that bar... but they might
jon abad
Team 190
wpi/mass academy of math and science

[archiver]

Posted by Kevin Sevcik.

Other on team #57, Tigers, from BT Washington and the High School for Engineering Professions and Exxon, Kellog Brown & Root, Powell Electrical.

Posted on 1/13/2000 12:58 AM MST


In Reply to: Declawed games posted by Marc DeSchamp on 1/12/2000 11:04 AM MST:



Well. Far be it from me to beat an issue into the ground, but as long as everyone else is doing it, I thought I'd voice my opinion. :^) First, I think that while the games may be getting 'wussy' they've been developing in other ways. They have been becoming more complex with more scoring options and strategies to consider than just scoring as many times as possible. True, 'additive' scoring may be simpler, but cumulative scoring makes games richer and more varied. They allow for more strategies. While multipliers may have brought some luck into the equation, they also brought in a whole lot more strategy. My team tried to capitalize on this in Ladder Logic when we started sucking opponents multipliers away. When our opponents started knocking balls off the rails, we realized we didn't choose the best strategy in the world.
The new scoring system is the same. Instead of seeing teams being beaten horribly, we'll see many more close games and yes, maybe even teams scoring for each other. We could even see teams lowering their own score if they were feeling particularly malicious. All of this means more strategy. More planning. More thinking.
Yes, FIRST is moving away from a football kind of game and towards something else. But these teams are sponsored by the likes of Compaq, not the New York Jets. Compaq isn't looking for someone who knows how to push other people around and knock them over. They're looking for someone who can look at a problem and come up with an effective strategy to win. In my mind, gracious professionalism doesn't even come into play. It's the simple fact that it's far better to solve a problem with careful planning and thought than with a large mass of brute force.

[archiver]

Posted by Chris.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.

Posted on 1/13/2000 12:16 PM MST


In Reply to: Declawed games posted by Marc DeSchamp on 1/12/2000 11:04 AM MST:



The games getting 'kinder and gentler' is fine by me. What really bothers me is the concept of scoring for the other team. I HATE this. It's feels like I'm point shaving for the Mafia or something. The engineering world is about competition and having the best design / product / service/ etc. win. Where in the world does one company help another out? Never, except for certain synergy type agreements, but never between two companies in direct competition. If we want to teach kids about industry and the real world, intense competition should be one of the lessons.

Going to a competition and losing stinks. I've been there and it's not nearly as much fun as winning. Getting blown out stinks too. But I would rather lose a hockey game 7-2 than have the other team dump a few goals in at the end to make the final score 7-6. It would make me feel bad thinking that the other team thought so lowly of us that they would score for us. That's more emarrassing than getting blown out.

I've read a lot in this thread about the competition not being about winning or losing but about the lessons learned. I still say that winning and losing hold lessons. Winning teaches you how to handle the pressure of everyone shooting for you. It also teaches you that you can be knocked from the top with just a shread of complacency. Losing teaches you how to handle adversity and how to regroup, work hard, and come back.

Without winning and losing, there is no drive to be the best. Without the drive to be the best, most of the good lessons (like hard work and perserverence) get lost through complacency in the teams. Trying to be the best makes people work harder, learn more, get more involved, and be more creative. It is within one's competitive nature that cause this to happen.

In summary, go ahead and take away the tipping and the banging. But please keep the games so that the best team wins and that we are all motivated to try to be the best. All of the truly good lessons of this project are attained, directly or indirectly, through the pursuit to be the best.

[archiver]

Posted by Daniel.

Coach on team BORG (Berkeley Operational Robotics Group) from Berkeley High School sponsored by (working on the sponsor, too).

Posted on 1/13/2000 1:41 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Declawed games posted by Chris on 1/13/2000 12:16 PM MST:



The NUMMI Analogy
= = = = = = = = =

You say that companies never team up with their direct competitors? Think again.

GM, a company we all know well (if only from FIRST), realized that their factories had a skill. GM really knew how to run a business with workers. They had people as workers and hence great quality control. Let's call this a 'defensive' strategy.

Now lets travel around the world to Toyota. Toyota realized that their factories had a skill: robotics. The Japanese were way ahead of GM in this department, with some of the most advanced machines of any car manufacturer. They had no union ensuring that human workers kept their jobs. Let's call this an 'offensive' strategy.

These two competitors got together, had a little handshake, and built a plant (NUMMI) over in the San Francisco Bay Area. Together, they were unbeatable. Perfect offense merged with perfect defense had created the most successful plant either of the companies had ever known. Bonus for teamwork!

So. You may be offense, you may be defense, or you may already be NUMMI...but working together is the only way to be the BEST. Think about it.

-DL

PS - if you want another example I'll find you another. there are millions.

[archiver]

Posted by Austin Martus.

Other on team #47 from son of pchs coach.

Posted on 1/13/2000 2:24 PM MST


In Reply to: Are you so sure?? posted by Daniel on 1/13/2000 1:41 PM MST:



good point but if you remember doing group projects in school and you end up having one person do all the work for some reason.

austin

[archiver]

Posted by Daniel.

Coach on team BORG (Berkeley Operational Robotics Group) from Berkeley High School sponsored by (working on the sponsor, too).

Posted on 1/13/2000 2:37 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Are you so sure?? posted by Austin Martus on 1/13/2000 2:24 PM MST:



It's a certain type of person that ends up doing all the work. The kind of person who doesn't think anyone else is up to par. Now I'm not saying anything about you, personally... =)

The alliance process is supposed to teach us how to do just the opposit of what you're suggesting. And it's a good thing to know how to do, because life is all about teamwork.

Besides, if your robot is capable of doing all the work, then you did everything right. #1 seed right there. Thoughts bring me back to Baxter...

-DL

[archiver]

Posted by Chris.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.

Posted on 1/14/2000 6:31 AM MST


In Reply to: Are you so sure?? posted by Daniel on 1/13/2000 1:41 PM MST:



You don't need to tell me about NUMMI - I work with them (I do crash sensors for Toyota vehicles). However, that is one of those synergy type agreements that I mentioned. They happen in industry but it's a small percentage. The general rule is that you need to keep ahead of your competition.

Also, your point seems to imply that I don't like alliances. That's not exactly true. I'm all for two teams teaming up to go against two other teams (in which a defensive team pairs up with an offensive team in your analogy). What I don't like is to have to doctor the other team's score to help my own. The only situation that I can think of that this occurs (outside of FIRST) is in gambling scandels where one team tries to win close so they can win gambling money by betting on the other team.

The other thing this game reminds me of is the classic story of the group of people looking for some buried treasure. Every person is needed in the team to find the treasure. Without any part of the team, the whole team loses. Then when they finally find the treasure, everyone starts stabbing each other in the back until only one is left with the whole treasure. That is what I think of this game. The alliances help each other to score, then start stabbing each other in the back in the last 10 seconds. Doesn't that seem kind of goofy to anyone?

I love the game during the elimination matches. I would love the game if we used the qualification system from last year or the years before that. I am really opposed to doctoring the score. Sure it adds a different dimension to the game - I just think it's a bad dimension.

I can also see how my comments about winning and losing may not have gotten my meaning across very well. I should have put that in another post. I never meant that this game doesn't have winners and losers. What I meant is that every time someone complains about the game, someone else always has to come back with, 'well it isn't about winning and losing, it's about the lessons. Therefore, the game itself doesn't matter.' It also seems that there is a push within FIRST to eliminate winning and losing. I just wanted to make a case that winning and losing is important and that we shouldn't go away from that since part of the inspiration will be lost.


: The NUMMI Analogy
: = = = = = = = = =

: You say that companies never team up with their direct competitors? Think again.

: GM, a company we all know well (if only from FIRST), realized that their factories had a skill. GM really knew how to run a business with workers. They had people as workers and hence great quality control. Let's call this a 'defensive' strategy.

: Now lets travel around the world to Toyota. Toyota realized that their factories had a skill: robotics. The Japanese were way ahead of GM in this department, with some of the most advanced machines of any car manufacturer. They had no union ensuring that human workers kept their jobs. Let's call this an 'offensive' strategy.

: These two competitors got together, had a little handshake, and built a plant (NUMMI) over in the San Francisco Bay Area. Together, they were unbeatable. Perfect offense merged with perfect defense had created the most successful plant either of the companies had ever known. Bonus for teamwork!

: So. You may be offense, you may be defense, or you may already be NUMMI...but working together is the only way to be the BEST. Think about it.

: -DL

: PS - if you want another example I'll find you another. there are millions.

[archiver]

Posted by Daniel.

Coach on team BORG (Berkeley Operational Robotics Group) from Berkeley High School sponsored by (working on the sponsor, too).

Posted on 1/14/2000 9:39 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: Are you so sure?? posted by Chris on 1/14/2000 6:31 AM MST:



The FIRST robotics competition is based on the fact that kids get excited about winning and losing. Without winning and losing, how could this be that exciting sports-like game that everyone's supposed to be inspired by? I try hard to never use that pseudo-argument; so if I ever do, gimme a slap on the wrist. I agree, that's merely a way out of giving a good reason.

Now, as for the alliances. The one thing I loved immensely about the alliance process is that it makes everything so much harder to predict. Strategically, it makes the game a giant puzzle. Depending on the shape of the pieces, you need to figure out how they fit in to the game. Now you seem to like that part of this year's game so I'm sure you agree with me so far.

Here's where you'll probably disagree, but bear with me. I think this year's game is a game of control. What adds a twist, is you not only have to control your own score, but you need to control the other side as well. In fact, if you're not in perfect control, you end up getting stabbed in the back. You can protect yourself against this though, through your robot design and strategy.

I take all the things FIRST throws at me as a challenge. In particular: the greater the challenge, the more fun it is to solve. This is the greatest challenge yet. We need to build robots that control the ENTIRE game. We need to build robots that become the chess player among the three pawns it’s playing with. How can you control the match that well? Maybe I already know, or maybe I'll find out in Florida. In any case, I’m excited.

Good luck!!
-DL

[archiver]

Posted by Daniel.

Coach on team BORG (Berkeley Operational Robotics Group) from Berkeley High School sponsored by (working on the sponsor, too).

Posted on 1/14/2000 10:27 AM MST


In Reply to: of course it's about winning or losing. posted by Daniel on 1/14/2000 9:39 AM MST:



By the way, I just wanted to let you know that I read your original message again. I must have been tired when I read it first, cuz I totally missed your point. Hopefully I did a better job this time... ;-)

-DL

PS - does everything need a real-world example? in the end, all it matters is that the game is fun to play. I think this year's gonna be one of the most exciting yet!

[archiver]

Posted by Paul Donovan.

Coach on team #296, Northern Knights, from Loyola High School and Arial Systems and Nortel Networks.

Posted on 1/13/2000 6:21 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Declawed games posted by Chris on 1/13/2000 12:16 PM MST:



Hmm., that assumes that the object is to gather as many points as possible. Consider that the object of the game is to be in control, and it's a different story. There are still winners and losers - the losers are those who A) Can't control BOTH side or B) Think they can control the other side better than they really can. You aren't really scoring for the other team, you aren't helping them, you're trying to win which puts you in a very dangerous position. I think that's pretty 'real world.' If you bite off more than you can chew, you might choke - I like it!