Anybody really dis-like the game?

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Katy

Any team that can pour resources onto a machine and have it come out nothing better than a box on wheels worries me! If your machine does the same things as a box on wheels but with precision mill-work and expensive sensors and the whole thing is coated in lexan just for the giggles: congratulations that WAS a waste of resources. You want to talk about entrepreneurship? You want to talk about real-life applications? A check book is not an appropriate brute force tactic in real life, and because of that fact it is reasonable to propose that it probably shouldn't be considered one in FIRST.

This is pretty much about the minimums you design your bot for. A robox is a pretty solid minimum. If you design your robot in the abstract of "how much better does our design do the task at hand than showing up to the match with only a human player" that is a very low minimum. A slightly better minimum is "how much better does our design do at the task at hand than showing up with a robox?" Higher still would be "what will an average team do at the competition and how can we blow that out of the water?" and for the truly ambitious "what will a good team be able to do and how can we top that?" What you shoot for depends a whole lot on what your team feels ready to take on, but if you take on a low minimum threshold for what you consider to be acceptable performance in your design, don't be so shocked when your robot works no better than you designed it to.

You're totally right! A box has a very high performance this game as a minimum. I guess that means it is probably the lowest benchmark you can safely use when designing a good bot because you can already see how many teams are going to try it.

Who said 397 would design a box on wheels? Trust me, I had a mentor on 2337 have to explain the KISS (Keep it simple Schreiber) principle to me earlier today. The answer to that is I will push our students to do more than that.

I am saying that I don't want to see a world where doing the bare minimum is rewarded. If you want to compete w/ less resources FIRST just isn't for you. FIRST is for those teams that partner w/ a corporate sponsor. If a team doesn't have a sponsor why is it FIRST's job to design for them? Remember, FIRST is not about teaching students. FIRST is all about partnering students with industry and making kids realize engineers are a hell of a lot better role models than Paris Hilton. Why should FIRST encourage these teams by saying it is ok to not do what FIRST was designed for?

Now, if a box on wheels could be a competitive robot, I am ok with that, but I have to say it is a pretty poor design when a box on wheels can be a competitive robot.

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

I am saying that I don't want to see a world where doing the bare minimum is rewarded. If you want to compete w/ less resources FIRST just isn't for you. FIRST is for those teams that partner w/ a corporate sponsor. If a team doesn't have a sponsor why is it FIRST's job to design for them? Remember, FIRST is not about teaching students. FIRST is all about partnering students with industry and making kids realize engineers are a hell of a lot better role models than Paris Hilton. Why should FIRST encourage these teams by saying it is ok to not do what FIRST was designed for?

Andrew, I can understand your point of view to a point. I'd love to say that in our area of Texas, we have corporate sponsors coming out of the woodwork. That's not necessarily the case. We have teams in the central Texas area who are working very hard to make that ideology a reality, but it takes a lot of effort and hard work. In the meantime, teams are encouraged to find businesses to work with them, obtaining smaller donations/sponsorships, that help add up and help support the teams. There are areas in the FRC communities, globally, that don't have a lot of technical mentor support. The teams work on that but some struggle with it year after year. There are threads in CD that discuss the struggles. Do teams that struggle for corporate sponsorship, that lose corporate sponsorship, that struggle to obtain and retain technical sponsors, fail to belong in FRC? Who decides that? Inspiration is available to everyone. Teams that compete in regionals/competitions and those who are able to go to the Championship, are exposed to incredible mentors. Many of them are the inspectors that work so hard to help the teams qualify. Many are refs, many are field volunteers, coaches, emcees, announcers, pit admins. The teams that are not flush with resources, still have equal access to the experience... to inspiration. To scholarships. To internship opportunities. That's real, that's not ideology.

As far as boxes on wheels... good things happen with boxes on wheels. Ask anyone who was at some of the regionals around the world in 2008. There was a lot of inspiration occurring, a lot of community development going on, a lot of fun happening in a lot of places. I could write a book about OKC's inaugural regional last year and the transformation of some of the teams from Thursday to Saturday. None of the rookies, who formed the majority of teams at that regional, left the competition or the field empty handed. They walked away having gained experience, confidence, a sense of achievement and wonder. Working with mentors like Andy Baker as your head ref can do that.

I will never be convinced that FRC is for an elitist group of mentors or students with deep pockets in the resources area.
--
As for judging this game so early regarding robot design and strategy - I have a feeling that this game, like the others, is layered with possibilities, and teams who think carefully and consider many options, will come up with lots of surprises and innovative ideas. And, regarding labeling the positions with the appropriate titles given - it is going to make it so easy to help explain the game to fans, guests, and viewers. I think it is great.

[mrnoble]

Andrew, I think you're making a grave error in your assessment of the purpose and structure of FIRST. FRC is broad enough to encompass the well-sponsored and highly organized as well as the rookie team made up of a couple kids and a Literature teacher who got a scholarship from NASA. We should celebrate the achievements of both extremes, and the progress made by those who are moving more towards the model you put forth. For nearly all FIRST teams, it takes (many) years to achieve steady corporate sponsorship and consistent mentoring. As far as I'm concerned, this game, and the way it was presented by Kamen et al, is an acknowledgment and affirmation of this aspect of FRC, and I like it.

[The Pre]

at first i disliked the game but i believe it will bring an even playing field upon the regionals. like many have stated the "custom" or "special" wheels that teams with money have and their "universal drivetrains" will be of no use this year and it will be a total rebuild from the ground up (which is how i believe FRC should be played)

then again i come from a team where we have 1 engineer manager and 1 electrical guy from UL and they don't do much besides answer our questions. all is done by the students. looking at some of the other robots i've seen i really wonder how much is designed, manufactured, or assembled by the students.

i left my home team 1652 in Kenosha and when i came to school at UW-Platteville i noticed they had a team 171 but it seemed alot of the engineers (students and faculty) from the campus were involved with it and the university even payed for it. that doesn't seem like highschool stuff to me but then again i never went to any of their meetings so its all my speculation.

this year will be a big toss up taking away the advantages (wheels) that some (elite) teams had before and put everyone on an even (slick) playing surface which should definitely test who builds the strongest most durable robot which always seems to be a problem. i see lots of creativity coming out of this constraint filled competition

~jp

[Zach Purser]

I won't know if I like or dislike this game until the first round of regionals is over.

My first impression is that this years game will be won or lost by the programmers. The constantly moving goals means that dead reckoning will only be useful as a defensive strategy for automode. And you better start moving when the auto mode begins or you're going to get scored on. Consistently scoring on the opponents goals will be extremely difficult for the drivers without some help from sensors and good programmers.

I like the low friction floor, it's a great distraction. I think the bigger challenge is deciding how to pull a 40 pound trailer efficiently. The ability to drive sideways would be nearly useless when you're attached to a trailer that can't move sideways with you.

After last year I'm thrilled that there will be far fewer penalties. It was so frustrating trying to figure out your last second strategy when you didn't know if you were ahead or behind.

<G14> socialist? You have to outscore the opposing team by 2x before you have to worry about this. This rule just prevents teams from destroying their opponents. If you're worried about your score being more than 2x your opponents, then pull your robot over to your human player and start scoring for the other team, you can both have high scores then, but you still get to win.

A box on wheels? Maybe, but it's what's in the box that matters. Most of the Aim High robots could be described as a box on wheels, but some designs were clearly better than others.

[ChuckDickerson]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

I am saying that I don't want to see a world where doing the bare minimum is rewarded.

Your bare minimum may just be some other team's best effort. Everyone deserves to be rewarded when they work hard and do the best they can don't they?

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

If you want to compete w/ less resources FIRST just isn't for you.

Really? That sounds pretty elitist to me. I feel the opposite. FIRST is for everyone. You do the best you can with what you have and hopefully everyone leaves with more than they came with.

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

FIRST is for those teams that partner w/ a corporate sponsor.

Easy for a Michigan team to say I suppose. Anytime you want to come on down to a small Mississippi town and bring some big corporate sponsors with deep pockets with you we would be happy to have you. We are known as the Hospitality State.

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

If a team doesn't have a sponsor why is it FIRST's job to design for them?

Because every student deserves the opportunity to experiance FIRST, not just the students that live in areas flush with big corporate sponsors.

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Remember, FIRST is not about teaching students.

You are kidding right? FIRST is all about teaching! Professional mentors teaching students how to solve a problem to the best of their collective ability given the tools available and within the constraints placed on the solution. It is not about who can build the shiniest, fanciest, most sophisticated robot using the most expensive CNC equipment they can find. If you have that resource great, if not that's fine as well. FIRST should be for everyone. I could have sworn that I had seen one or two of the hundreds of thousands of FIRST students over the last (almost) two decades learning something useful. I'm sorry you fell you weren't one of them. I suspect your corporate sponsors would be sorry to hear the money they invested in you must have been wasted as well because I'm pretty sure the whole reason corporations invest in FIRST is because they fell it better prepares their future work force by TEACHING students real world lessons.

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

FIRST is all about partnering students with industry and making kids realize engineers are a hell of a lot better role models than Paris Hilton.

Agreed but that is just one of many things that FIRST "is all about".

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Why should FIRST encourage these teams by saying it is ok to not do what FIRST was designed for?

FIRST = For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology. Inspiration and Recognition comes in many forms and on many levels. If a team (rookie or vet) can only build a box on wheels but they learned even a little something along the way why is that a bad thing? At least they built SOMETHING. I have run across many people that couldn't figure out how to get themselves out of a hole in the ground if you gave them a pile of 2x4s, handsaw, hammer, and a box of nails.

As far as the main thread topic, I love the game and thank the GDC for leveling the playing field in such a elegant way. I also love the Moon theme and the tribute to the 40th anniversary of the FIRST lunar landing!

[Alex.Norton]

My vote is still really far out on this game. I like games that level the playing field so that rookies and lower budget teams can really easily compete with the big name teams. Also regardless of my opinion of the game at the start I seem to always warm up to it in the end. Although I have noticed that my opinion at the end is usually the opposite of that at the beginning (I didn't like 07's game at the start and love it now, and I really liked 06 at the start and its perhaps my least favorite now).

I really like the idea of low traction. I have never been a fan of defense, especially playing it in a very pushy way. I love seeing a team stretch to be something amazing and felt that this strategy caused teams to play it too safe and not reach for the stars. This year even if a team is playing defense they're going to have to be really creative. Plus I'm a little gratified that FIRST has been discouraging this type of defense the last couple of years.

The main reason that I dislike the game however is currently winning in my mind. one of the things that I love about FIRST is getting to run around the pits and look at all the solutions that teams have provided for the game. All the different solutions to building the drive train and the manipulator. How the machines expand and work and do everything that they do. This year with the rule limiting the use of different wheels and the rules limiting the size of the robot during the entire game I'm worried about the diversity of the machines.

I'm confident and hoping that my concerns won't be realized but that's why they call them worries isn't it...

[Nawaid Ladak]

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

I don't like it right now.

But games grow on you. I didn't like rack n roll at all at first, but some plays were kinda fun.

07 was great, the end game was so much better than 08, 06, or 05, robots lifting each other up, a spoiler going up at the last second, 2007 was my second favorite game for as long as i've been in FIRST (04 tops the list, you can't beat bots hanging from a bar.... or 61 trying to block bots hanging while hanging themselves...)

Originally Posted by DeepWater

Your bare minimum may just be some other team's best effort. Everyone deserves to be rewarded when they work hard and do the best they can don't they?



Really? That sounds pretty elitist to me. I feel the opposite. FIRST is for everyone. You do the best you can with what you have and hopefully everyone leaves with more than they came with.



Easy for a Michigan team to say I suppose. Anytime you want to come on down to a small Mississippi town and bring some big corporate sponsors with deep pockets with you we would be happy to have you. We are known as the Hospitality State.



Because every student deserves the opportunity to experiance FIRST, not just the students that live in areas flush with big corporate sponsors.



You are kidding right? FIRST is all about teaching! Professional mentors teaching students how to solve a problem to the best of their collective ability given the tools available and within the constraints placed on the solution. It is not about who can build the shiniest, fanciest, most sophisticated robot using the most expensive CNC equipment they can find. If you have that resource great, if not that's fine as well. FIRST should be for everyone. I could have sworn that I had seen one or two of the hundreds of thousands of FIRST students over the last (almost) two decades learning something useful. I'm sorry you fell you weren't one of them. I suspect your corporate sponsors would be sorry to hear the money they invested in you must have been wasted as well because I'm pretty sure the whole reason corporations invest in FIRST is because they fell it better prepares their future work force by TEACHING students real world lessons.



Agreed but that is just one of many things that FIRST "is all about".



FIRST = For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology. Inspiration and Recognition comes in many forms and on many levels. If a team (rookie or vet) can only build a box on wheels but they learned even a little something along the way why is that a bad thing? At least they built SOMETHING. I have run across many people that couldn't figure out how to get themselves out of a hole in the ground if you gave them a pile of 2x4s, handsaw, hammer, and a box of nails.

As far as the main thread topic, I love the game and thank the GDC for leveling the playing field in such a elegant way. I also love the Moon theme and the tribute to the 40th anniversary of the FIRST lunar landing!

excelent points

im not sure how i feel about the game, im teamless right now (well, semi-945ish but thats a 2-hr bus ride for me ) I think i'll have to wait until week one of the regionals to decide if truly do like this game (scrimmages are on valentines day if im correct and i might be busy that day...)

P.S. DeepWater, what are these "deep pockets" you speak of, last time i checked, some companies from MI were in DC asking for some $$$ ?

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by DeepWater

Your bare minimum may just be some other team's best effort. Everyone deserves to be rewarded when they work hard and do the best they can don't they?

Really? That sounds pretty elitist to me. I feel the opposite. FIRST is for everyone. You do the best you can with what you have and hopefully everyone leaves with more than they came with.

Easy for a Michigan team to say I suppose. Anytime you want to come on down to a small Mississippi town and bring some big corporate sponsors with deep pockets with you we would be happy to have you. We are known as the Hospitality State.

Because every student deserves the opportunity to experiance FIRST, not just the students that live in areas flush with big corporate sponsors.

You are kidding right? FIRST is all about teaching! Professional mentors teaching students how to solve a problem to the best of their collective ability given the tools available and within the constraints placed on the solution. It is not about who can build the shiniest, fanciest, most sophisticated robot using the most expensive CNC equipment they can find. If you have that resource great, if not that's fine as well. FIRST should be for everyone. I could have sworn that I had seen one or two of the hundreds of thousands of FIRST students over the last (almost) two decades learning something useful. I'm sorry you fell you weren't one of them. I suspect your corporate sponsors would be sorry to hear the money they invested in you must have been wasted as well because I'm pretty sure the whole reason corporations invest in FIRST is because they fell it better prepares their future work force by TEACHING students real world lessons.

Agreed but that is just one of many things that FIRST "is all about".

FIRST = For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology. Inspiration and Recognition comes in many forms and on many levels. If a team (rookie or vet) can only build a box on wheels but they learned even a little something along the way why is that a bad thing? At least they built SOMETHING. I have run across many people that couldn't figure out how to get themselves out of a hole in the ground if you gave them a pile of 2x4s, handsaw, hammer, and a box of nails.

Sigh, I really stirred up a hornet nest with my comments. Oh well, open discussion is always a good thing. I apologize to the person who started this thread for thread jacking.

First off, I suggest reading http://www.huskiebrigade.com/DEKA1998.html which is a speech from Dean himself. Thank you to the Huskie Brigade for making that available. If the goals of FIRST have changed in that time then so be it but I feel he very adequately describes them there.

If a team does their best that is great, teams should always do their best and not get discouraged when they lose.

I admit my comment about FIRST not being the right place for some teams does sound elitist but frankly I don't feel that FIRST is for everyone. There are other competitions out there for groups with fewer technical resources. Vex is an excellent example of one. If a person decides FIRST is for them, then they bring what they can to the table and hopefully get something out. Im not saying that we should raise the price of FIRST so that small teams die out, in fact FIRST in Michigan is about trying to lower the costs so that teams without major monetary sponsors can compete. I believe and support FiM but feel that the teams complaining about the "elite" teams need to stop, these teams started as rookies just like everyone else.

About Michigan being "flush with big corporate sponsors" I apologize but if we are so flush with corporate sponsors why is our unemployment rate so high? In fact Michigan posted the highest jobless rate in the nation in November. I still stand by my statement that FIRST is about partnering with industry to inspire kids though.

Your argument about how every kid deserves FIRST makes sense, honestly it does, but there is one problem. Every student deserves an education too. Does that mean that teachers have to start testing so that even the worst students can pass? In a class room if I get 28% on a test and you get 90% what do you want the teacher to do, adjust my score so that is a 90% too? Because, you know, every student deserves to graduate. And you know what, while we are at it, everyone deserves a Mercedes Benz, and paid vacation, and a million dollar home right? You know why people can buy those things? You know why teams pay Michael Jordan millions of dollars to throw a ball in a hoop? Because he worked his butt off. If you want to score that 90% on the test you better study. If you want to build that winning robot you better be willing to put in the time it takes. 217 can build a stellar robot every year, you know why? Because they have dedicated students and mentors. I would be willing to bet you that if you told 217 that they could only spend $800 on a robot this year they would STILL put out a stunning machine. How do I know that? I know the team, I know that their quality doesn't come from money, it comes from their passion for FIRST, their desire to win. How do you think RUSH won its Regional Chairman's award? Do you think they bribed the judges? Do you think that the judges thought, "Oh hey, this is RUSH they deserve to win because they have a long history"? No, they won out of sheer determination, they won because students and mentors on that team dedicated 6 solid weeks of their lives to that presentation, they won because a decade of people like me dedicated ourselves. The teams that win don't win because they build complex robots or because they spend thousands of dollars, they win because they have dedicated people involved.

And no, I am not kidding about FIRST not being about teaching students. FIRST is often compared to the Super Bowl, does the Super Bowl teach you how to play football? No, it is a high profile event that gets kids hooked. FIRST is the same way, it is not our job to teach the students how to program some advanced algorithms or to use a 5-axis cnc mill. We are here to say, "Look, you have other options other than working at Pop's used car dealership for the rest of your life." You said it yourself, For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology. Nowhere is the word education mentioned. We are here to inspire these kids, make them recognize that Science and Technology are options for them, we need to show them their lives can be better than, "Would you like fries with that"

In response to the impression that I learned nothing in FIRST, well, actually, I'm not sure how to reply to that. FIRST gave me everything I am today, it is the reason I am at the college I am at. It is the reason I am majoring in Computer Science. It is the reason I actively mentor a team in inner city Flint. No, FIRST is a wonderful program but it isn't what taught me about engineering, it taught me about following my passions. It showed me a path I may not have considered. Why else would I give the time I do trying to give other kids the same chances I had? And about 397, we are by no means an elite team. We build out of our shop in our school, we have between 6 and 15 students, most of whom have never touched a mill in their life prior to FRC. We have a handful of college mentors and some Delphi engineers. We receive very little money from Delphi and community fundraising is hard because we are based in Flint, MI.

If I come across as elitist or a jerk I apologize, that is not my intent. I merely have a problem with some very specific rules that I believe are punishing "elite" teams for doing well.

Sorry for the somewhat disjointed post, I was trying to respond point by point as best as I could. I also apologize for the novel I just wrote.

[Doug G]

I agree that for the most part, a lot of robots this year will just be mediocre '06 robots. True the powerhouse teams will have some amazing bots, but for the most part, it will be disappointing to watch compared to games of the past (a pure spectator point of view). For my team, I think this is the year we try some amazing new techniques, because in the end, it may not give you a big advantage or disadvantage on the field but more importantly shoot for some of the other awards offered by judges.

[Adam Y.]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

If I come across as elitist or a jerk I apologize, that is not my intent. I merely have a problem with some very specific rules that I believe are punishing "elite" teams for doing well.

Let's be honest with ourselves here. The FIRST competition was never an accurate representation of real life engineering. It always placed emphasis on the mechanical aspect. Without some fancy doodad mechanical widget you were really never going to score a lot of points.The problem is that in real life engineering designs are always more rounded. The fancy mechanical widget might receive less emphasis than the programing, electronics, or even the control system. I like it because I always thought that it was odd that the fancy mechanical widget was getting so much emphasis when in actuality there are five other engineering disciplines that should be introduced to kids.

This is one of my main complaints too. Obviously it's not a huge deal, but this game seems to have more of an FLL-style theme than past games. Now there's nothing wrong with FLL for its age group, but I would like to think FRC is a little more mature.

Ooo for crying out loud. This is FIRST. My fondest memory was asking questions about Spirit and Opportunity to a NASA scientist while dressed up in a lion suit.

[Mike Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Adam Y.

Ooo for crying out loud. This is FIRST. My fondest memory was asking questions about Spirit and Opportunity to a NASA scientist while dressed up in a lion suit.

But you must also consider that while you enjoy dressing up in a lion suit it is still viewed as informal and unprofessional. My problem with the theme of the game is that it comes off as a child's game when presenting to companies or describing it to any one and the names of the game pieces are somewhat difficult to associate with the objects. Which would you rather say to a CEO of a company who is considering donating money? Which is he more likely to understand. "The payload specialist throws the moon rocks into the crater" or "The human player throws the orbit balls onto the field?"

[Adam Y.]

Originally Posted by ICanCountTo19

But you must also consider that while you enjoy dressing up in a lion suit it is still viewed as informal and unprofessional.

I don't know about you but unless things really changed in five years you can count 95% of the people who participate in first as "informal and unprofessional".

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

I fail to see why everyone being like rookies is a good thing. Eric I noticed you are a teacher, I will assume you have a decade of experience teaching (could be more or less either way). If I were to apply the same idea to your pay as you are applying to the veteran teams you would be paid the same as a new teacher, is that fair? These teams started somewhere didn't they? They had to start as rookies too. This groaning about successful teams has to stop. I could care less if Dave Lavery, Dean Kamen, and Woodie Flowers all approve of it. If we are not rewarded for doing great, if everyone gets the exact same, why would anyone ever push the envelope?

Uhhhhhh.... It's happened to two of my professors who have their PHDs in electrical engineering. They've both admitted that they have been positions where they were complete novices in some regard. My one professor had to figure out how to keep embryos alive. My other had to teach himself about system modeling after he discovered that an image tracking system affects the dynamics of a robot he was working. Consider this a harsh facet of engineering. There is a good chance that the same scenario that happened to these teams will happen to you.

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by Adam Y.

I don't know about you but unless things really changed in five years you can count 95% of the people who participate in first as "informal and unprofessional".

Here's an interesting thought:
I've sat in on different judges' panels during the off-season, in different parts of the US, in different years, and judges who are not members of FRC teams but rather, guests, often representing sponsors of the competition, start talking about a participating team, FRC 1902, Exploding Bacon. The name, the cheer - could be perceived as informal and unprofessional. Not a chance. The name is always seen as fresh, exciting, eye-catching. The cheer - fun, enthusiastic, infectious. The team - professional.

I've sat in the stands at many events and talked with VIPs - potential sponsors, politicians, school board members. Their eyes are focused on the competition and the attitudes of the partnerships between the students/mentors, the alliances, the teams working with/listening to the refs. For the most part, the teams represent themselves and the FRC program well at the event they are competing it - having a great time and showing respect for the game. The respect shown is the key towards reflecting professionalism.

--
I'm not so sure that this game makes everyone a rookie. It poses a challenge and it is different in many ways but it does not detract from the experience of the veteran teams. As for the rookie teams in 2009 - unless the same materials are used in 2010, does this mean they will be repeat rookies? Or does it mean that in 2010, they will have had a year's worth of experience in FRC and that will help them adjust/adapt to the 2010 game challenge?

[Drwurm]

I don't get why everybody says all teams are rookie teams this year. The great teams of past years will still be great. The rookie teams will still be.... well, rookie teams .