QUESTION OF THE WEEK!!!

[archiver]

Posted by Raul at 12/26/2000 8:53 AM EST


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


In Reply to: Re: QUESTION OF THE WEEK!!!
Posted by Brian Savitt on 12/24/2000 8:18 PM EST:



I agree with Brian on this - 3x loser score was too harsh on some.

My favorite scoring scheme was the one use this year at CDI: Winner gets their score plus 2x the loser's. Loser get their score plus 1/2 the winner's. This way know one was embarassed by getting zero qualifying points in any match. Also if you tied, both sides got 2x their score - no tie-brakers.

Raul

[archiver]

Posted by bill whitley at 12/26/2000 10:26 AM EST


Student on team #70, Auto City Bandits, from Powers Catholic High School and Kettering University.


In Reply to: Re: QUESTION OF THE WEEK!!!
Posted by Raul on 12/26/2000 8:53 AM EST:



Another vote against the 3x the loser's score. You didn't have to count on only your alliance partner having good robots, but all 4 robots on the field producing points. That makes it very difficult for even an excellent robot to score solid points if the remaining robots on the floor are sub-par.

[archiver]

Posted by Justin Stiltner at 12/26/2000 9:57 PM EST


Student on team #388, Epsilon, from Grundy High School and NASA, American Electric Power, Town of Grundy.


In Reply to: Re: QUESTION OF THE WEEK!!!
Posted by bill whitley on 12/26/2000 10:26 AM EST:



: Another vote against the 3x the loser's score. You didn't have to count on only your alliance partner having good robots, but all 4 robots on the field producing points. That makes it very difficult for even an excellent robot to score solid points if the remaining robots on the floor are sub-par.


How true,
Many matches our team would score for our OPPONATS and our partner would score for us then we would both hang because we knew that the other bots would do nothing.

Justin Stiltner
Team #388
Epsilon
Grundy Va,

[archiver]

Posted by Rich Reynolds at 12/25/2000 2:59 PM EST


Student on team #237, Sie-H20-Bots, from Watertown High School and Eastern Awning, Siemon Co..


In Reply to: QUESTION OF THE WEEK!!!
Posted by Andy Grady on 12/24/2000 12:20 AM EST:



lets see... out of all the great things FIRST comes up with, i think the one thing we could do without would be... the lack of space. If FIRST wants this program to be so large, they really need to rethink how its played, you can only fit so many people and robots into one room... and you can only have so many robots using the same doorways. For instance, At the New England Regional, the ramp up to the playing field at the meadows last year was a joke... It was all angled, and curved, the cart had like 3 wheels on the ground most of the time. Now im not sure how to fix the problem with more space, bigger buildings i guess, but this cant be held in a High School Gym anymore...

[archiver]

Posted by Andy Grady at 12/25/2000 7:08 PM EST


Other on team #126, Gael Force, from Clinton High School and Nypro Inc..


In Reply to: Re: QUESTION OF THE WEEK!!!
Posted by Rich Reynolds on 12/25/2000 2:59 PM EST:



Hi all,
I tend to agree with Rich on this one, those ramps were not very user friendly. Matter of fact, I suffered personal injury goin up them when my teams cart ran over my ankle. Not fun! Though I don't know if there is a way to fix it at the meadows, which just gives more reason to move the competition to a stadium type venue =)

Cya,
Andy =)

[archiver]

Posted by Rich Reynolds at 12/25/2000 7:25 PM EST


Student on team #237, Sie-H20-Bots, from Watertown High School and Eastern Awning, Siemon Co..


In Reply to: Those ramps = big ouch!
Posted by Andy Grady on 12/25/2000 7:08 PM EST:



yeah, i aswell had a nice bruse on my knee from being run over after one match...

[archiver]

Posted by Ken Leung at 12/26/2000 8:37 AM EST


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


In Reply to: Those ramps = big ouch!
Posted by Andy Grady on 12/25/2000 7:08 PM EST:



Last year's field was pretty decend, as it was big enough and well designed for a challenging and exciting game. But it was really hard to move around, not to mention the amount of material to build a similar structure of the ramp + goal. We were trying to move the field to demonstrate the game, and end up bringing one goal and half of the ramp because of transportation problem.
I will have to say the puck and floppies from 1999 was much more effective in showing/telling about the FIRST competition, and still provide a really fun game to play/watch. You have got to love how a small moving platform created the whole exciting atmosphere!

[archiver]

Posted by Jessica Boucher at 12/26/2000 11:41 AM EST


Student on team #237, Sie-H2O-Bots, from Watertown High School and Eastern Awning Systems & The Siemon Company.


In Reply to: Re: Those ramps = big ouch!
Posted by Ken Leung on 12/26/2000 8:37 AM EST:



I will agree on the point that the puck was easy to explain and quite exciting, but floppies were another story altogether. If you did as many demos as I did (especially to little kids, because we did demos at all 4 elementary schools in town plus a middle school & a jr. high), the puck was easy to describe due to the hockey reference (even though we didnt bring it with us to demos), but floppies, though right there when we described them, were a little tougher because of the computer reference (because, yes, in Watertown they still make use of Apple IIes complete with 5 1/4' disks known as floppies).

So, if I had the coice, I would stick with the puck and do away with the floppies. Furthermore, there was way too much guesswork in making them (a way to resolve this would be to sell pre-cut parts and pre-measured bags of material for the inside, ours were way too thin)

Plus, kids liked the use of playground balls and really grasped the concept that they never bounce the same way twice.

-Jessica B, #237

: I will have to say the puck and floppies from 1999 was much more effective in showing/telling about the FIRST competition, and still provide a really fun game to play/watch. You have got to love how a small moving platform created the whole exciting atmosphere!

[archiver]

Posted by Raul at 12/25/2000 7:26 PM EST


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


In Reply to: Re: QUESTION OF THE WEEK!!!
Posted by Rich Reynolds on 12/25/2000 2:59 PM EST:



Rich,

I agree that sometimes the regional (and even the national) venue is a little too small for the number of teams involved. However I am also concerned about the regionals getting too big and goint to coliseum type venues. I think we should have more regionals and keep them smaller.

When I first heard the Midwest regional was being held at the same time as the Great Lakes, I knew there would not be anywhere near as many teams as last year. At first I was sad because so many good teams from Michigan would not come. But the silver lining was that it would be smaller and would give us an opportunity to spend time getting to know the newer teams.

So, my suggetion to your problem is to just have more smaller regionals. But at the same time, I believe that FIRST should make them less expensive to attend so every team can go to more than one. The ideal situation would be to have at least one regional within a short driving distance of every team.

Raul

: lets see... out of all the great things FIRST comes up with, i think the one thing we could do without would be... the lack of space. If FIRST wants this program to be so large, they really need to rethink how its played, you can only fit so many people and robots into one room... and you can only have so many robots using the same doorways. For instance, At the New England Regional, the ramp up to the playing field at the meadows last year was a joke... It was all angled, and curved, the cart had like 3 wheels on the ground most of the time. Now im not sure how to fix the problem with more space, bigger buildings i guess, but this cant be held in a High School Gym anymore...

[archiver]

Posted by Ken Leung at 12/26/2000 8:42 AM EST


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


In Reply to: QUESTION OF THE WEEK!!!
Posted by Andy Grady on 12/24/2000 12:20 AM EST:



Not sure everyone will agree on this, but I think the whole idea of adding bumpers on the robot wasn't such a good idea. It kind of created confusion about what to use, and the bumper still end up not really effective. I say take away the bumpers to force teams to build a robust structure that can withstand crashing.

[archiver]

Posted by Rich Reynolds at 12/26/2000 11:55 PM EST


Student on team #237, Sie-H20-Bots, from Watertown High School and Eastern Awning, Siemon Co..


In Reply to: Bumpers!!!
Posted by Ken Leung on 12/26/2000 8:42 AM EST:



i would ahve to agree. the bumpers werent a great idea, not sure of the reason FIRST added those but.... Another thing is that bumpers would just be another part that might be damaged, if a bumper was hanging off, it could be the deciding factor between getting 10 pts, and 5 pts on the bar. Our team did decide against the bumpers, and went with a 'tank' of a robot! I think i worked better than any bumper.

[archiver]

Posted by Justin Stiltner at 12/27/2000 8:15 PM EST


Student on team #388, Epsilon, from Grundy High School and NASA, American Electric Power, Town of Grundy.


In Reply to: Re: Bumpers!!!
Posted by Rich Reynolds on 12/26/2000 11:55 PM EST:



: i would ahve to agree. the bumpers werent a great idea, not sure of the reason FIRST added those but.... Another thing is that bumpers would just be another part that might be damaged, if a bumper was hanging off, it could be the deciding factor between getting 10 pts, and 5 pts on the bar. Our team did decide against the bumpers, and went with a 'tank' of a robot! I think i worked better than any bumper.


Yea they werent a very good idea and the fact that you oculdent put them on a moving part of the bot killed their aplication for us. We needed to but them on our arm if I rember correctly.

Justin Stiltner
Team #388
Epsilon
Grundy Va,

[archiver]

Posted by Bill Beatty at 12/26/2000 11:02 AM EST


Other on team #71, Team Hammond, from Team Hammond.


In Reply to: QUESTION OF THE WEEK!!!
Posted by Andy Grady on 12/24/2000 12:20 AM EST:



I would like to see the final four on one field. It would not take that much longer, because you would fill up the dead cool down time with the other bracket. Now it is impossible to watch both semis.

[archiver]

Posted by Andy Grady at 12/26/2000 2:18 PM EST


Other on team #126, Gael Force, from Clinton High School and Nypro Inc..


In Reply to: Final Four On Main Field
Posted by Bill Beatty on 12/26/2000 11:02 AM EST:



Bill is 100% right here. It would be nice if teams could watch who they are potentially going to play before they actually do. Its unfair to the teams competing to have to send people to the other field to scout and miss their own semifinal matches. So yes, the semis and the finals should be played on one field.

cya,
Andy =)