Anybody really dis-like the game?

[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 .

[Moreau]

Meh, I'm an eternal pessimist... but I initially liked this game. Interesting concept of a super low friction course with the only goals being attached to robots.

However, the more I look at it, the more I think I see how it will work out. And, of course, I have a lot of suspicions. First I'll just gripe a bit...

I don't like the idea of the human player being so vital (if you want human involvement, look at the drivers. Yeah, keep looking.), although I did like in rack and roll how a human player technically could score, but it was very difficult and luck based. Here, it looks like human players will get at least 50% of the points in the average games.

I dislike the no expansion rule. Make it so that we can't interfere with our own trailer (blocking points going into it), but please don't prevent us from going outside of the box... Honestly, I can't imagine any effective design that needs to go very far outside of the starting configuration, but even just a foot out of the box allows much more accurate dumping of balls into a trailer. And this game looks like it will need all of the points it can allow to be interesting.

I don't really like the low friction this year all that much. I don't hate it, but it's not really an engineering challenge. It's a limitation... sure, you can do some things to compensate for it, but its not a very interesting challenge in itself. The real challenge is the fact that the robots will all be moving like drunken ice skaters with their arms duct taped to their sides, trying to throw balls into other ice skaters' backpacks while everyone moves around in a big mess. And with a lot less acceleration than ice skaters.

As others have said, this year's robots will be very poor demonstration bots, so keep those 2008 bots together.

Now, game play issues that I foresee:

Wheel scuffing. With the absurdly low friction between the wheels and the floor, the slightest difference in surface of the wheels could provide a huge boost in traction. The rules allow for wheels to have normal wear and tear from running them on floors, but disallow deliberate modification to improve traction. Well, in the whole 10 minutes of dinking around with the wheels on a robot frame that we did, the wheels look like they've been sandpapered and scuffed severely just from running on some slightly (haha) dirty tile. And even a tiny gain in friction can provide a massive increase in power to the ground (a .02 increase in the coefficient of friction is between a 30% and 40% gain in friction), and it will be very noticeable. How is this going to be policed? Must we have pristine wheels to be allowed to compete (and thus never let them touch anything but super clean and smooth competition-like floors?), or will some scuffing be allowed? And if it is, how much is the cut off? Just run the robot over concrete for 10 seconds and you probably doubled your traction on the "regolith."

Anyways, in looking and the time allowed for supercells to be in play and the maximum acceleration of a robot (without a fan), I found that it would be almost impossible to grab a supercell from the far back and run all the way to the other side to find a robot and dunk it within 20 seconds. Instead, you would have to use the carpet along the walls.

I think this game will devolve into carpet scooting, with the "regolith" being a no-go zone for most of the match unless you get pushed out into it. People will vie for position on the carpet and use it to move around, coming off of it to perhaps try and coerce someone else near a friendly human player. Basically, a race track with an ice rink in the middle. You won't want to come off of the carpet unless you want to make a move on someone because you would become an easy target. If you're on the carpet, you're essentially immune to anyone pushing from the ice unless they get to the carpet and gain footing. You would also be able to wiggle your trailer out of the way easily enough if you're on carpet.

Interestingly, a carpet strategy will require a car-style driving system since only one set of wheels can be in contact with the tiny strip of carpet. That is, unless you like sliding along the walls for the entire match until someone bumps you out of your rut.

I do like that the best strategy on the regolith will probably be a coordinated push by one alliance against a straggler of the opposing alliance in the effort to get them into a corner near a human player, and perhaps dump a few balls into the trailer if possible. Two or three robots will always win a pushing contest against one in this game as long as the two push in a similar direction.

Bah, I'm rambling a bit at this point and I've lost any cohesive conclusion that I might have had in mind, but there are some of my thoughts. I think this will be a very defensive game with most robots sticking close to the carpet and their "safe zones" near their alliance human players, since that nearly eliminates any potential loss of control and scoring against you.

*edit* Oh yes, and I hate how a practice field is out of reach for the vast majority of teams. Over $1000 dollars for a reasonable recreation of the field is ridiculous, so very well financed teams (or teams near very well financed and nice teams) will be the only people coming in with real driving experience. Everyone else is going to be scuffing up their tires practicing on much higher friction surfaces, or getting somewhat closer experiences off of waxed tile. No real drive experience is bad enough, never mind how hard robot on robot scoring is going to be in general due to positioning...

[EROCK]

I don't like how humans can throw balls at the robots to score points. Jeez all you have to do is get the future NBA star at your school to throw and you can stack the game towards you.

Does anyone else see this as a threat?

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by EROCK

I don't like how humans can throw balls at the robots to score points. Jeez all you have to do is get the future NBA star at your school to throw and you can stack the game towards you.

Does anyone else see this as a threat?

Wasn't a problem in 2001,2002 or 2004.

[Boomer]

Me too. I understand trying to have more human involvement during the game, but seriously, it seems that they have cut the actual robots role down to just about nothing. It will be interesting to see what people do to overcome this, but with the human scoring option, it will not have a high priority on teams schedules, and if they really do much it will be something minor right before shipping.

Also, another thing I don't like is the fact they changed some of the rules so much. Especially the expansion rule, and the fix-it window rule. What do they expect us to do, compete with robots that has something seriously wrong with it that does absolutely nothing much anyway?

Well, at least we know why this game this year is called lunacy.

[EROCK]

Maybe I am just crazy but I still think that anybody with a basketball player on their team will get some serious points. This is a robotics competition and when you have a human side by side of a robot trying to score doesn't it kind of defeat the purpose of a robot?

[Adam Y.]

Originally Posted by EROCK

Maybe I am just crazy but I still think that anybody with a basketball player on their team will get some serious points. This is a robotics competition and when you have a human side by side of a robot trying to score doesn't it kind of defeat the purpose of a robot?

This isn't the first game where people could toss objects into goals.

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by Boomer

Me too. I understand trying to have more human involvement during the game, but seriously, it seems that they have cut the actual robots role down to just about nothing.

Well, here's a couple of questions:
1. when was the last time your robot pulled a trailer?
2. when was the last time your robot pulled a trailer on ice?
3. when was the last time your robot pulled a trailer on ice with the other robots also pulling trailers on ice?

I think the robots are going to be a wee busy this year but then again, I might be wrong, I've only pulled a trailer with my truck on the road in slick conditions.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Boomer

Me too. I understand trying to have more human involvement during the game, but seriously, it seems that they have cut the actual robots role down to just about nothing. It will be interesting to see what people do to overcome this, but with the human scoring option, it will not have a high priority on teams schedules, and if they really do much it will be something minor right before shipping.

Also, another thing I don't like is the fact they changed some of the rules so much. Especially the expansion rule, and the fix-it window rule. What do they expect us to do, compete with robots that has something seriously wrong with it that does absolutely nothing much anyway?

Human scoring is nothing new, my rookie year humans did all the scoring with the exception of hanging and a 2x multiplier. I would not agree that the robots won't be doing much, humans can't retrieve the balls themselves. Plus, pulling a trailer on ice is not fun. Heck, driving on ice is not fun trust me, I just had a real fun experience getting out of a friend's driveway 3 hours ago. Adding a trailer on makes life even worse, I think that building a trailer and practicing a TON will make or break teams this year. Driving elegantly will be simply amazing if any team can pull it off.

Fix it windows, I know that when I publish a change to a customer at work and have it break I dont have a week to go back to my code, I have a couple hours while things are broken and I have to fix things with the errors flying in. Eliminating fix it windows is, in my opinion ok. The only exception would be for Michigan teams, recall, we no longer have Thursday as a practice day so most of our matches are real matches. And frankly, if you build a machine that has something seriously wrong with it why should you get to copy the machines that are not wrong? Go play poker by that logic, "Oh, well, I shouldn't have put this much money on my hand because your hand is better, let me deal hands again so I can win."

Expansion, it is limiting, do I like it? No, but I will live with it and design around it. It could be fun to try to design a smaller robot with the larger control system. Think of it as a challenge not a limitation.

Ive said it before, I'll say it again, this game is growing on me. It is going to prove to be an interesting game to say the least.