QUESTION OF THE WEEK!!!

[archiver]

Posted by Andy Grady.

Other on team in limbo from in limbo sponsored by in limbo.

Posted on 10/1/2000 8:26 PM MST



Hi all, time again for the question of the week...

Question 10/1/00: What do you think about the idea of 6 teams on the field at once, either in tri alliances or 3 alliances of 2?

[archiver]

Posted by Nick .

Student on team #240, Mach V, from Jefferson Monroe High School and Visteon.

Posted on 10/1/2000 9:16 PM MST


In Reply to: QUESTION OF THE WEEK!!! posted by Andy Grady on 10/1/2000 8:26 PM MST:



Sounds like it's worth exploring!!

[archiver]

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


Other on team #1, The Juggernauts, from OTC-NE and 3-Dimensional Services.

Posted on 10/1/2000 9:49 PM MST


In Reply to: QUESTION OF THE WEEK!!! posted by Andy Grady on 10/1/2000 8:26 PM MST:



tri alliances- yes, ok.. a bit cluttered.... dont think it will happen...

3 alliances of two- then that thing that happened to chief delphi in 98 will happen again- it will be 4 bots teaming up just to beat up on 2 bots. and it would be extra difficult if your alliance couldnt show.

i dunno. just wanted to give an answer.
-erin

[archiver]

Posted by Ken.

Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M. Gunn Senior High School.

Posted on 10/1/2000 9:53 PM MST


In Reply to: QUESTION OF THE WEEK!!! posted by Andy Grady on 10/1/2000 8:26 PM MST:



: Hi all, time again for the question of the week...

: Question 10/1/00: What do you think about the idea of 6 teams on the field at once, either in tri alliances or 3 alliances of 2?

woo....

Sounds like we will need a lot bigger playing field.

And the structure of the elimination rounds will need some changes, such as: only 12 alliances can enter the elimination round, 3 alliance fight and only 1 win...

And there will always be unfair balance where two alliance team up to fight the 3rd because of all sort of reasons...

[archiver]

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


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

Posted on 10/2/2000 6:10 AM MST


In Reply to: QUESTION OF THE WEEK!!! posted by Andy Grady on 10/1/2000 8:26 PM MST:



I'm sure that FIRST has considered this. 6 teams on the field is a natural progression as we keep growing unless we limit nationals in some way.

3-on-3 will work well as long as the field is at least as large as it was last year. 2-on-2-on-2 is not likely to happen because there are too many negative aspects to it such as: ganging up on a team; the field would have to go back to being hexagonal or triangular; etc.

Raul

[archiver]

Posted by Nick .

Student on team #240, Mach V, from Jefferson Monroe High School and Visteon.

Posted on 10/2/2000 8:55 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: QUESTION OF THE WEEK!!! posted by Raul on 10/2/2000 6:10 AM MST:



What if the game was designed to gang up on one alliance, such as in cutthroat? Everything could be randomized as to who would defend against two alliances. Or perhaps that is all the single alliance does. Scoring could be as follows:

Offense- 2 alliances of two (or one of four) scores x number of points out of y possible points
Defense- one alliance of two recieves y possible minus x points scored by offense

Also as for the playing field being hexagonal or triangular, I think that we could leave it square leaving the one side without drivers open for the crowd to see. Then we could place the defenders on the opposite side of the open wall. Offense would then of course go on either side of the defense

[archiver]

Posted by Brad Breedlove.

Student on team #45, Technokats, from Kokomo High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 10/2/2000 6:40 AM MST


In Reply to: QUESTION OF THE WEEK!!! posted by Andy Grady on 10/1/2000 8:26 PM MST:



6 teams on the feild at once would be worth seeing!! It would probably be difficult to keep track of the matches, and would make scouting even more interesting. Having 6 teams on the feild, with either 2 teams of 3 or 3 teams of 2, would make the game a whole lot more complicated.

[archiver]

Posted by Matt Leese.

Other on team #73 from Rochester Institute of Technology and None.

Posted on 10/2/2000 9:07 AM MST


In Reply to: QUESTION OF THE WEEK!!! posted by Andy Grady on 10/1/2000 8:26 PM MST:



Well, the main thing with putting more teams on the field is that I don't really see any advantages. When alliances were first instituted (hehe...I made a pun), there was the advantage that teams then had to be able to work together. There isn't that striking advantage with making alliances of three or putting three alliances on the field. The only advantage of three teams to an alliance is that it's a bit less detremental if one member is not able to play in a match (3 on 2 is better than 2 on 1). I don't think that's enough of an advantage to outweigh the disadvantages of it (larger playing field, more complex to come up with strategy, etc.). Then again I'm the person who thought alliances were a bad idea when he first heard them.

Matt

[archiver]

Posted by Justin.

Other on team Blue Lightning Alumni Association from RWU sponsored by FIRST-A-holics Anonymous.

Posted on 10/2/2000 3:51 PM MST


In Reply to: QUESTION OF THE WEEK!!! posted by Andy Grady on 10/1/2000 8:26 PM MST:



Hello Everyone,

As I was pondering this idea of adding three more teams...I was thinking. It has been my opinion (please don't flame me 2 badly for it) that ever since the introduction of the human players that FIRST has been less about building a robot and more about building a strategy. (not that I am against a good strategy or needing one but hear me out.) In some of the recent games u might not have even needed your robot to play the game...I'm not a huge fan of that idea. I got into FIRST to design a robot. So it is with this preface that I make my proposal.

What if instead of changing the # of machines, or the playing field design....Let's subtract about 30 pounds from that weight limit (same kit), or let's shrink that box by a I dunno say 5 inches. By now you have probably all clicked the back button but I know there are teams out there who have gotten very used to thinking in terms of that same standard box. Let's be honest how many of us start working in the summer because we take it for granted FIRST wouldn't do anything as drastic as lowering the weight limit, heck some of us pray they'll increase it. But by doing this are we really engaging in a true engineering exercise requiring us to think outside of the box or have we become very accustom to thinking in terms of that very comfortable 36x36x48 box and that 130lbs limit??

Food for thought,

Justin

[archiver]

Posted by Andy Baker.

Engineer on team #45, TechnoKats, from Kokomo High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 10/2/2000 11:27 PM MST


In Reply to: Design Constraints - Outside the box? posted by Justin on 10/2/2000 3:51 PM MST:



Justin,

I'm with you on this one. Instead of coming up with different alliance schemes and game layouts, I think that FIRST will do something that makes us drastically change our robot designs this year.

They could cut the weight by 30 pounds, or they could do something more drastic... like disallow wheels, or make us climb walls. Remember that this is the 10th year, and FIRST may try to do something drastic.

We'll see,
Andy B.

[archiver]

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


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

Posted on 10/3/2000 6:35 AM MST


In Reply to: I'm with ya... Design changes are comin' posted by Andy Baker on 10/2/2000 11:27 PM MST:



Andy, my good friend,

Eliminate wheels - are you nuts? Think of all the teams that had problems just getting a working robot working when it was fashionable, as Mr. B put it, to just have a 'Box on wheels'. Imagine how many teams will have robots that cannot move if wheels are not allowed? Remember, we only get 6 weeks!

The folks at FIRST like to challenge us, but they would not want to embarrass us. They always want to have rules that allow a very simple design to be viable.

Raul

[archiver]

Posted by Ken.

Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M. Gunn Senior High School.

Posted on 10/3/2000 8:47 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: I'm with ya... Design changes are comin' posted by Raul on 10/3/2000 6:35 AM MST:



Every year there will be old team retiring and new team participating. If we keep on increasing the difficulty of the competition, it will make it harder for new team to do well.

So when FIRST make some big changes on the competition, it should be toward a different game dynamic or style, yet similar level of difficulty.

[archiver]

Posted by Andy Grady.

Other on team in limbo from in limbo sponsored by in limbo.

Posted on 10/3/2000 11:37 AM MST


In Reply to: big changes doesn't mean making it harder posted by Ken on 10/3/2000 8:47 AM MST:



I agree with Ken for the most part, with the exception of one thing, i believe the equation is more like this...For every 1 vet that leaves, 20 rookies enter. Now the way this is going, its almost like they are gonna have to lighten up the games a bit. As for the idea of focusing more on the robot rather than strategy, I am not necessarily in favor of that. I think that the game is close to just right sizewise and stuff, in order to keep the excitement level up all they need to do is make the game a well strategy oriented game. Just look at the past two years, haven't they been 2 of the most exciting years ever when it comes to matches. First would want to keep it this way if they want to get the intrest of a non First related audience. Personally im huge on strategy, i think it makes it an even playing ground.
Finally, as far as tri-alliances go, im actually very happy with the current alliance situation. I also like the 3 teams in the finals to switch off, because it allows you to get teams to adapt to strategy. Tri alliances out on the field at once almost seems too cluttered to me.
my 2 cents,
Andy Grady

[archiver]

Posted by Brandon Heller.

Student on team #449, Blair Blazers, from Montgomery Blair High School and NASA Goddard, Sigma Space.

Posted on 10/5/2000 10:17 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: I'm with ya... Design changes are comin' posted by Raul on 10/3/2000 6:35 AM MST:



: Eliminate wheels - are you nuts? Think of all the teams that had problems just getting a working robot working when it was fashionable, as Mr. B put it, to just have a 'Box on wheels'. Imagine how many teams will have robots that cannot move if wheels are not allowed? Remember, we only get 6 weeks!

I SERIOUSLY doubt that FIRST would disallow wheels. The difficult is just too high. However, I think they should implement a BattleBots-style divided weight system. I think it would work best like this:
-For standard wheeled bots, a weight limit of 110-130 would be put into effect.
-For legged locomotion bots, a weight limit of 160 could be put in, plus they could be allowed an additional two drill motors/globe motors/pistons or something like that. This way, any team could try a new and different movement system, and have the extra weight allowance and motors needed to make its construction accessible to them. Who wouldn't want to see legged bots on the field? The teams that would go legged would get much better visibility, too.

: The folks at FIRST like to challenge us, but they would not want to embarrass us. They always want to have rules that allow a very simple design to be viable.

I say that they can do this, but still put in provisions for those teams that are risk-takers. Maybe only 10% of teams would do this, but it would still be worthwhile. Are you listening, FIRST? How does this idea sound?

Brandon

P.S. I can see it now- alliances of mini-mechadons playing the game ;-).

[archiver]

Posted by Michael Martus.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Coach on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central H.S. and Delphi Automotives Systems.

Posted on 10/2/2000 8:10 PM MST


In Reply to: QUESTION OF THE WEEK!!! posted by Andy Grady on 10/1/2000 8:26 PM MST:



We did that last year at the Chief Delphi Invitational.

Thruput of teams playing was good. More matches.
A weak team was offset by the other two teams.

3 on 3 was good for us, no problems at all.
Most liked the format. We showed FIRST it could be done.

Plenty of room for robots to move.