Important Issue!

[archiver]

Posted by Daniel.

Coach on team #483, BORG, from Berkeley High School and NASA Ames & UC Berkeley.

Posted on 1/16/2000 1:13 AM MST



I know I posted this already in the rumor mill but I'm hoping the lack of responce was just because nobody saw it over there. I really do feel this is a big issue.

============================

Okay everybody. Here's an issue I have with the way the competition is run. Below is a Q&A with eric regarding the position on the playing feild of individual robots within an alliance.

Now first off, I think it's almost worth having one less match to remedy this problem. It seems that about 50% of the time you'll be on the wrong side of the playing feild for what you want to do. Now 50% of THOSE times the opponent will be in the same situation but even then, that's too much to leave to chance.

My proposed solution would be to simply have some reversal button in the human player stations that switches the inputs to the digital team number readouts. This would take almost no time. Now I'll push this proposal, but I wouldn't want to do anything rash so I thought I'd ask you folks first. What do you think?

-DL


=====
Question:
=====

Alliance positions

I’d like to propose a situation for you to consider:

(1) Red alliance has one robot designed to grab the bar at the beginning.
(2) Blue alliance has one robot designed to grab the bar at the beginning.
(3) Red’s bar-grabber and blue’s bar-grabber are both VERY fast.
(4) Red’s bar-grabber is about the same speed as blue’s bar-grabber.
(5) Red’s bar-grabber starts in the outside position.
(6) Blue’s bar-grabber starts in the inside position.
(7) Blue gets to the bar first, as it had to travel a shorter distance.

This gives blue a decided advantage. This negates the usefulness of an entire robot on the red alliance. This didn’t give red and blue a level playing field. I think in many cases one robot will want to use the ramp or the bar and the other will want to dive under that bar for the balls on the other side. I feel it is very necessary for teams to be able to pick which side each robot starts on to complements their strategy. This seems vital to me. Will this be allowed?


=====
Answer:
=====

Hi Dan. You analysis of the robot starting positions versus capabilities is probably correct. However, the team positions will be determined by FIRST. The primary reason for this is that we need to maintain a fast throughput of matches during the event in order to allow teams to play a reasonable number of matches. Allowing teams to choose position on the field will slow things down because it requires several extra steps:

1) Teams must pick sides
2) Teams must convey choice to field staff
3) Field staff must convey choice to scoring system operator
4) Scoring system operator must input choice into scoring system, verify that input is correct, and send team numbers to electronic team number displays on the playing field.

That whole process might take as little as 30 seconds. However, that 30 second/match delay could easily add up to 1 less match/team at each event.
When you compete in the qualifying matches, you are randomly (by the computer) paired with your partner, assigned to a spot on the field, and compete in a series of matches. The intent, besides having fun, is to have each team in enough matches that we have a reasonable idea of the teams’ relative level of competitiveness in order to rank them for the elimination matches. There are many factors which can affect the outcome of a match including the quality of all 4 robots, skill of the human players, planning, strategy, field position, and luck. Hopefully it will all come out in the wash after you play several matches, and we drop the lowest scoring match for all teams, so one bad match won’t kill you.
Having said that, I agree with your analysis and we might decide to allow teams to select their starting positions in the Elimination Rounds, when things get extra competitive.

-Eric

[archiver]

Posted by Lora Knepper.

Student on team #69, HYPER (Helping Youth Pursue Engineering & Robotics), from Quincy Public Schools and The Gillette Company.

Posted on 1/16/2000 5:33 AM MST


In Reply to: Important Issue! posted by Daniel on 1/16/2000 1:13 AM MST:



I see what you mean, Daniel. It would definately be a plus in my mind to be able to have the choice of starting positions within the alliance. However, remembering the shortage of time to get everything set up and stratigized last year, I'm not too sure if the loss of time would hurt us more than just dealing with the current system. I may be wrong, however. Any other opinions?

Lora Knepper
Team 69 (HYPER)

[archiver]

Posted by mike aubry.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Engineer on team #47, Chiefs, from Pontiac Central.

Posted on 1/16/2000 5:43 AM MST


In Reply to: Important Issue! posted by Daniel on 1/16/2000 1:13 AM MST:



Well, If you create a robot or strategy that is that dependent on starting position - I think you may have a problem. Although you have identified a possible solution, I think that FIRST would rather this be part of the total planning process. In other words, you really won't be any worse off than anyone else - so why worry about it. You have not considered that fact that your alliance partner may also require the same starting position that you wanted. Inside lane, outside lane, going under the bar, going over the hump - it's all becomes part of the strategic planning at the start of the match. Just like last year, sometimes you get lucky and sometimes you don't. Just my opinion, I don't think it's that big of an issue and it's the same problem for everyone.

[archiver]

Posted by Daniel.

Coach on team #483, BORG, from Berkeley High School and NASA Ames & UC Berkeley.

Posted on 1/16/2000 10:05 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: Important Issue! posted by mike aubry on 1/16/2000 5:43 AM MST:



Of course it's not the best idea to design a robot that's dependent on starting position. However, most all robots have a specialty. A strategy that they tend to follow during matches. Now, I just don't like that your strategy is dictated by the random assignment of alliance location as opposed to who you're playing with and against. Why should we limit the possibilities when we don't have to?

However, I do agree that multiple robots can fit on that bar. Maybe it's not the hugest issue. I just don’t see why robots should be forced to cross paths in what will very surely be a race.

-DL

[archiver]

Posted by Quentin Lewis.

Engineer on team #42, P.A.R.T.S - Prececision Alvirne Robotics Technology Systems, from Alvirne, Hudson NH.

Posted on 1/16/2000 9:04 AM MST


In Reply to: Important Issue! posted by Daniel on 1/16/2000 1:13 AM MST:




> : Now first off, I think it's almost worth having one less match to remedy this problem. It seems that about > 50% of the time you'll be on the wrong side of the playing feild for what you want to do. Now 50% of > THOSE times the opponent will be in the same situation but even then, that's too much to leave to > chance.

This might be able to be handled if teams registered with FIRST a 'prefered lane assignment' like you do when you fly. If the lane is open and uncontested, then you get it. If both you and your partner prefer opposite lanes, you are BOTH made happy.....if both of you want the same lane, then FIRST flips a coin and assigns you....either way, it is all done by FIRST at the speed of a computer program. (Which seems to be what they want)

Now, it is true that you and your partner do not get that choice.....but at least you get to choose your strategy knowing where you are.

NOTE: This 'prefered lane' would NOT be used by FIRST to choose partners. (although you might use it in the finals to choose partners I suppose)

-Quentin

[archiver]

Posted by Jon.

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

Posted on 1/16/2000 10:59 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: Important Issue! (Prefered Seat Assignments on airplane) posted by Quentin Lewis on 1/16/2000 9:04 AM MST:



I like this Preferred Lane assignment idea... easily the best solution i've heard so far, but it is a problem everyone has to deal with in their strategic planning...
from my understanding of why we cannot have our picks on a match-to-match basis, this idea would deal with that...

[archiver]

Posted by Matt.

Student on team #69, HYPER, from North Quincy High School and Gillette.

Posted on 1/16/2000 9:20 AM MST


In Reply to: Important Issue! posted by Daniel on 1/16/2000 1:13 AM MST:



: I know I posted this already in the rumor mill but I'm hoping the lack of responce was just because nobody saw it over there. I really do feel this is a big issue.

: ============================

: Okay everybody. Here's an issue I have with the way the competition is run. Below is a Q&A with eric regarding the position on the playing feild of individual robots within an alliance.
:
: Now first off, I think it's almost worth having one less match to remedy this problem. It seems that about 50% of the time you'll be on the wrong side of the playing feild for what you want to do. Now 50% of THOSE times the opponent will be in the same situation but even then, that's too much to leave to chance.

: My proposed solution would be to simply have some reversal button in the human player stations that switches the inputs to the digital team number readouts. This would take almost no time. Now I'll push this proposal, but I wouldn't want to do anything rash so I thought I'd ask you folks first. What do you think?

: -DL

:
: =====
: Question:
: =====

: Alliance positions

: I’d like to propose a situation for you to consider:

: (1) Red alliance has one robot designed to grab the bar at the beginning.
: (2) Blue alliance has one robot designed to grab the bar at the beginning.
: (3) Red’s bar-grabber and blue’s bar-grabber are both VERY fast.
: (4) Red’s bar-grabber is about the same speed as blue’s bar-grabber.
: (5) Red’s bar-grabber starts in the outside position.
: (6) Blue’s bar-grabber starts in the inside position.
: (7) Blue gets to the bar first, as it had to travel a shorter distance.

: This gives blue a decided advantage. This negates the usefulness of an entire robot on the red alliance. This didn’t give red and blue a level playing field. I think in many cases one robot will want to use the ramp or the bar and the other will want to dive under that bar for the balls on the other side. I feel it is very necessary for teams to be able to pick which side each robot starts on to complements their strategy. This seems vital to me. Will this be allowed?

:
: =====
: Answer:
: =====

: Hi Dan. You analysis of the robot starting positions versus capabilities is probably correct. However, the team positions will be determined by FIRST. The primary reason for this is that we need to maintain a fast throughput of matches during the event in order to allow teams to play a reasonable number of matches. Allowing teams to choose position on the field will slow things down because it requires several extra steps:

: 1) Teams must pick sides
: 2) Teams must convey choice to field staff
: 3) Field staff must convey choice to scoring system operator
: 4) Scoring system operator must input choice into scoring system, verify that input is correct, and send team numbers to electronic team number displays on the playing field.

: That whole process might take as little as 30 seconds. However, that 30 second/match delay could easily add up to 1 less match/team at each event.
: When you compete in the qualifying matches, you are randomly (by the computer) paired with your partner, assigned to a spot on the field, and compete in a series of matches. The intent, besides having fun, is to have each team in enough matches that we have a reasonable idea of the teams’ relative level of competitiveness in order to rank them for the elimination matches. There are many factors which can affect the outcome of a match including the quality of all 4 robots, skill of the human players, planning, strategy, field position, and luck. Hopefully it will all come out in the wash after you play several matches, and we drop the lowest scoring match for all teams, so one bad match won’t kill you.
: Having said that, I agree with your analysis and we might decide to allow teams to select their starting positions in the Elimination Rounds, when things get extra competitive.

: -Eric

I agree, it is too much to leave to chance. That gives you a 50-50 chance of getting to the bar first. But, you may not want to push this proposal just yet. The yellow and black striped bar has enough space for three robots to hang on it. So it really doesn't give you or your opponent a decided advantage

[archiver]

Posted by Raul.

Engineer on team #111, Wildstang, from Rolling Meadows & Wheeling HS and Motorola.

Posted on 1/16/2000 7:19 PM MST


In Reply to: Important Issue! posted by Daniel on 1/16/2000 1:13 AM MST:



I agree with you. I wish you all the luck in getting this rule changed.

We had a similar problem last year because we wanted to have the puck poll facing us when our strategy was to grab the pole immediately. We had no choice then and it may have cost us a few matches when the pole was farther away and we had to go farther and/or through a floppy to get to it.

If it cannot be changed we will have to deal with more luck factors as usual.

Raul