Go to Post Every year, 118 inspires our team to dream for the stars, and land on mars. If 118 wasn't there we wouldn't be off the ground. Think about it every superstar has critics. Keep doing what you do 118. - xSAWxBLADEx [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > FIRST > General Forum
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
Reply
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #31   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 05-01-2009, 18:56
bduddy bduddy is offline
Registered User
FRC #0840 (ART)
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: San Bruno, CA
Posts: 869
bduddy has a reputation beyond reputebduddy has a reputation beyond reputebduddy has a reputation beyond reputebduddy has a reputation beyond reputebduddy has a reputation beyond reputebduddy has a reputation beyond reputebduddy has a reputation beyond reputebduddy has a reputation beyond reputebduddy has a reputation beyond reputebduddy has a reputation beyond reputebduddy has a reputation beyond repute
Re: My case against <G14>

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kims Robot View Post
The way I explained it to my new students is that FIRST wants to see a more evenly matched game, and the *intent* is to discourage defense and encourage offense. There are plenty of valid arguments here and my own personal feelings are that the rank points are enough to try and keep this in check, but FIRST makes the rules. Im sure we will see modifications coming up (ie the 0 issue, and that its based on raw score not penalized score), but again the idea here is to build a robot that can score, not a robot that battlebots the other robots... that's how I explained it at least.

The initial thing that worried me about this rule was mostly that how is a coach to know the score at all times?? What if its 62 to 30... I cant imagine that is easy to judge with a bunch of robots running around and balls that just look like giant tangles. I dont even know how refs/scorekeepers could really accurately tell (although maybe FIRST has some way to keep the real time scoring updated well).

And then my last thought in reading through this thread, sort of spurred on by the discussion of scoring for your opponents... whether its "GP" or not... how do you explain that to a spectator? (same really goes if you are scoring in the terms of getting up your rank points). If Red Alliance is supposed to score in Blue's goals, how do you explain to the 8 year old sitting in the audience why Red is suddenly scoring points FOR Blue?

Whether its for rank points or to keep super cells, I think we will see scoring for the opposing alliances this year.
Huh? How, exactly, does this encourage offense? In my opinion, this will encourage exactly the opposite, as teams stop scoring with 30, 60, or more seconds left once they realize their victory is assured. Or, of course, the quite frankly embarrassing likelihood of teams scoring on themselves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dmlawrence View Post
This rule also provides protection against crack shot Payload Specialists, which is in my opinion a more "fair" purpose.

David
Well, at least someone came up with something. (Sorry for my becoming increasingly sarcastic and confrontational, but this rule really is making me very angry because of how many flaws it has and how little purpose it has. I'm not trying to attack you, dmlawrence, at all.) I don't really understand what you mean, though. Can you explain it a little more?


And I'm a little disappointed that no one so far has responded to what I think was my most important point. FIRST has apparently assumed that blowout games are somehow bad and need to be eliminated. In my opinion, not only can a blowout loss be a valuable learning experience for a team, but an false close loss will certainly be no better.
__________________

Does anyone else remember when TBA signatures actually worked?
Reply With Quote
  #32   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 05-01-2009, 19:24
johnr johnr is offline
Registered User
FRC #0910
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: michigan
Posts: 567
johnr has a reputation beyond reputejohnr has a reputation beyond reputejohnr has a reputation beyond reputejohnr has a reputation beyond reputejohnr has a reputation beyond reputejohnr has a reputation beyond reputejohnr has a reputation beyond reputejohnr has a reputation beyond reputejohnr has a reputation beyond reputejohnr has a reputation beyond reputejohnr has a reputation beyond repute
Re: My case against <G14>

I am starting to see a good lesson to teach the kids. Peaceful,civil disobedience., he says half jokingly. Perhaps a quiet agreement with every team at a comp to play as hard as you can and not care about g-14
Reply With Quote
  #33   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 05-01-2009, 19:26
Alivia's Avatar
Alivia Alivia is offline
Every moment is a Kodak one.
FRC #0071 (Team Hammond)
Team Role: Photography
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Hammond
Posts: 147
Alivia has a reputation beyond reputeAlivia has a reputation beyond reputeAlivia has a reputation beyond reputeAlivia has a reputation beyond reputeAlivia has a reputation beyond reputeAlivia has a reputation beyond reputeAlivia has a reputation beyond reputeAlivia has a reputation beyond reputeAlivia has a reputation beyond reputeAlivia has a reputation beyond reputeAlivia has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Alivia
Re: My case against <G14>

When I first heard about this rule, I was rather confused. Even after reading various threads about it, I'm not sure I have formed an opinion about it.

However, there are a couple of things that concern me.

1. It seems like FIRST is encouraging you to do well, but not too well. While I understand that losing a match by an obscene amount can feel lousy, it can also bolster one's team to do better in the next match or spark a change in one's strategy. The world is not a fair place--it is more competitive than words can express. Perhaps FIRST is implementing this rule to encourage students to change the view of their peers; that we should be concerned with others and not just ourselves. This is a valid lesson people should learn. However, I'm not sure if this rule is the way to do it. For some reason, I parallel this to school. Do well on a test, but don't do too well, otherwise you'll be penalized on your next test.

2. Perhaps what confuses me the most with this rule is the way it interferes with other teams who were not a part of the high-scoring match. (I.E. Teams A, B, and C are penalized in their next matches, making their future alliance partners also penalized). If the mission of this rule is to show concern for other people, it seems a tad bit hypocritical. Teams D and E of the future alliance now are disadvantaged by something they have no control over. This has been previously discussed in this thread, so I'll try not to repeat much more other than it seems wrong to penalize teams for something beyond their control.

Even though I might not agree with the rule, FIRST has deemed it important and wouldn't institute such a rule change without wanting the best for all teams. Perhaps the purpose of the rule will be more evident once we see some matches played. Maybe it won't. Either way, I'm looking forward to an amazing season.
__________________
2004-2007 AND 2011-PRESENT: Team Hammond #71
2007-2011
Team 1720/PhyXTGears


To accomplish great things, we must not only act, but also dream; not only plan, but also believe. -Anatole France
Reply With Quote
  #34   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 05-01-2009, 19:35
bduddy bduddy is offline
Registered User
FRC #0840 (ART)
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: San Bruno, CA
Posts: 869
bduddy has a reputation beyond reputebduddy has a reputation beyond reputebduddy has a reputation beyond reputebduddy has a reputation beyond reputebduddy has a reputation beyond reputebduddy has a reputation beyond reputebduddy has a reputation beyond reputebduddy has a reputation beyond reputebduddy has a reputation beyond reputebduddy has a reputation beyond reputebduddy has a reputation beyond repute
Re: My case against <G14>

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnr View Post
I am starting to see a good lesson to teach the kids. Peaceful,civil disobedience., he says half jokingly. Perhaps a quiet agreement with every team at a comp to play as hard as you can and not care about g-14
It'd be great if you could, but unfortunately, you can't without compromising your own position in the game. Not unless you can convince everyone to throw away their own cells in response, or the referees to hand you the taken cells behind your back.
__________________

Does anyone else remember when TBA signatures actually worked?
Reply With Quote
  #35   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 05-01-2009, 19:39
Bob Steele's Avatar
Bob Steele Bob Steele is offline
Professional Steamacrit Hunter
AKA: Bob Steele
FRC #1983 (Skunk Works Robotics)
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: Seattle, Washington
Posts: 1,541
Bob Steele has a reputation beyond reputeBob Steele has a reputation beyond reputeBob Steele has a reputation beyond reputeBob Steele has a reputation beyond reputeBob Steele has a reputation beyond reputeBob Steele has a reputation beyond reputeBob Steele has a reputation beyond reputeBob Steele has a reputation beyond reputeBob Steele has a reputation beyond reputeBob Steele has a reputation beyond reputeBob Steele has a reputation beyond repute
Re: My case against <G14>

i, also, must disagree with this rule.
For several years the qualifying rules have make the opponents score the tie breaking element after wins/losses/ties. This has made many teams more aware of not trying to blow out other teams. In reality, I think that this qualifying rule is more to reward close, big score, wins as being an indication of a better teams and NOT to stop blowouts..but in practice it was thought of as a NO BLOW OUT rule..

Aside from the very relevant question of why blowing out other teams is a bad thing...we have to question the very realistic issue that in many regionals we may have 3 rookie teams on the same alliance. Having helped many rookie teams build kitbots over the weekend, I can tell you that the kitbot, even with a four wheel drive refit, will NOT be able to handle this surface very well.

It could be a very long, and frustrating season for rookie teams that use the kitbot drive system. Our team is going to try and develop some limited slip software that we will share with everyone to help alleviate this, but nonetheless, the kit bot drive system, which in year's past allowed rookie teams to at least be a box on wheels and play defense and have fun, will not be as useful this year...


The result of this is the very real chance that alliances will not be able to score...a match like this could consist of a single veteran robot with better control pushing a rookie robot in a corner... and dropping a ball into their hopper for the win... the rest of the time... no one moves much...and the veteran team is afraid of scoring so they hang around...

This will not be pretty to watch...

I also think we must get clarification of what a zero score means...

If one team scores 1 and one 0... is that an infinite difference?
2x? 3X?
Zero needs to be clarified.

The rule should be changed to reflect some reasonable minimum score... like 10 points or so... that can be scored with no penalty for the alliance team members in the next match.

Example...with this approach...

If Blue Alliance Scores less than 10 points... then there would be no penalty on Red Alliance teams unless they scored more than 20... or more than 30

OR even better...

If Blue Alliance Scores less than 10 points... then there would be no penalty on Red Alliance teams no matter what they score.

With this modification, teams could go ahead and score and have fun even though they were playing a really poor-scoring alliance and not have to worry about creating a penalty situation unless it got WAY out of hand..

I really do not like the idea of making teams score on themselves in order to go out and have fun scoring in a game.
__________________
Raisbeck Aviation High School TEAM 1983 - Seattle, Washington
Las Vegas 07 WINNER w/ 1425/254...Seattle 08 WINNER w/ 2046/949.. Oregon 09 WINNER w/1318/2635..SEA 10 RCA ..Spokane 12 WINNER w/2122/4082 and RCA...Central Wa 13 WINNER w/1425/753..Seattle 13 WINNER w/948/492 & RCA ..Spokane 13 WINNER w/2471/4125.. Spokane 14 - DCA --Auburn 14 - WINNER w/1318/4960..District CMP 14 WINNER w/1318/2907, District CMA.. CMP 14 Newton Finalist w 971/341/3147 ... Auburn Mountainview 15 WINNER w/1318/3049 - Mt Vernon 15 WINNER w/1318/4654 - Philomath 15 WINNER w/955/847 -District CMP 15 WINNER w/955/2930 & District CMA -CMP Newton -Industrial Design Award


Last edited by Bob Steele : 05-01-2009 at 19:42.
Reply With Quote
  #36   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 05-01-2009, 19:59
Pat Fairbank's Avatar
Pat Fairbank Pat Fairbank is offline
Circuit Breaker
FRC #0254 (The Cheesy Poofs)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 2,132
Pat Fairbank has a reputation beyond reputePat Fairbank has a reputation beyond reputePat Fairbank has a reputation beyond reputePat Fairbank has a reputation beyond reputePat Fairbank has a reputation beyond reputePat Fairbank has a reputation beyond reputePat Fairbank has a reputation beyond reputePat Fairbank has a reputation beyond reputePat Fairbank has a reputation beyond reputePat Fairbank has a reputation beyond reputePat Fairbank has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via MSN to Pat Fairbank
Re: My case against <G14>

The thing that bothers me the most about G14 is that there is no language indicating that it doesn't apply to elimination matches as well. Consider this scenario:

Your alliance is up against an alliance of similar or better strength in the elimination rounds. You narrowly win the first match. During the second match, it becomes apparent that your alliance is losing, so you throw a couple of super cells in before the 20-second mark, causing 40 points in penalties and dropping your score down to zero. Now you have an advantage in the third match, since the other alliance can't score two of their super cells.
__________________
Patrick Fairbank
Team 254 | Mentor (2012-)
Team 1503 | Mentor (2007-2011)
Team 296 | Alumnus (2001-2004) | Mentor (2005-2006)

patfairbank.com
Reply With Quote
  #37   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 05-01-2009, 20:21
dmlawrence dmlawrence is offline
MIT '14
FRC #1751 (Warriors)
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Long Island
Posts: 63
dmlawrence is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: My case against <G14>

Quote:
Originally Posted by bduddy View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmlawrence
This rule also provides protection against crack shot Payload Specialists, which is in my opinion a more "fair" purpose.
Well, at least someone came up with something. (Sorry for my becoming increasingly sarcastic and confrontational, but this rule really is making me very angry because of how many flaws it has and how little purpose it has. I'm not trying to attack you, dmlawrence, at all.) I don't really understand what you mean, though. Can you explain it a little more?
FIRST may feel that most scoring in a match will be accomplished by humans, rather than by robots. In this case, G14 would serve primarily to limit the human factor in a match between robots. By reducing the power of high-scoring humans, the focus of the match will be kept on the robots. This is an admirable goal, even if its implementation is horrendous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bduddy View Post
And I'm a little disappointed that no one so far has responded to what I think was my most important point. FIRST has apparently assumed that blowout games are somehow bad and need to be eliminated. In my opinion, not only can a blowout loss be a valuable learning experience for a team, but an false close loss will certainly be no better.
What about a blowout match that was a blowout because the winning team had three amazing Payload Specialists, even if the losing team had superior robots?

Last edited by dmlawrence : 05-01-2009 at 20:25. Reason: Added an additional comment
Reply With Quote
  #38   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 05-01-2009, 20:41
kirtar kirtar is offline
Alumnus
FRC #0461 (Westside Boiler Invasion)
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Rookie Year: 2007
Location: West Lafayette, IN
Posts: 169
kirtar will become famous soon enough
Re: My case against <G14>

I don't like the rule partially it will make seeding inaccurate (well, in some cases, it already is, but this could potentially make it worse). In essence what this is doing is giving a handicap to a future opponent if you outscore an opponent by given multiples. This makes little sense in a seeding standpoint (given that handicaps will usually mess with those anyways), and unless this disadvantage is taken into account in seeding, the "ladder" will be almost pointless to look at other than to determine who picks alliances for elimination matches.

Also, if you go by the team-by-team basis, if there is a 3x score in eliminations rounds, there won't be much left. While I can see that it is attempting to make the matches "even," I think that it fails at doing so by making the erroneous assumption that the future opponents are of the same caliber as the past opponents (unless of course, they happen to be the same). In a competitive view, it also makes little sense as it will not necessarily let the best team win, although it doesn't seem likely in eliminations that a team would score 3x then lose twice in a row since they'd have their cells back on the third match
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #39   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 05-01-2009, 20:59
bduddy bduddy is offline
Registered User
FRC #0840 (ART)
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: San Bruno, CA
Posts: 869
bduddy has a reputation beyond reputebduddy has a reputation beyond reputebduddy has a reputation beyond reputebduddy has a reputation beyond reputebduddy has a reputation beyond reputebduddy has a reputation beyond reputebduddy has a reputation beyond reputebduddy has a reputation beyond reputebduddy has a reputation beyond reputebduddy has a reputation beyond reputebduddy has a reputation beyond repute
Re: My case against <G14>

Quote:
Originally Posted by dmlawrence View Post
FIRST may feel that most scoring in a match will be accomplished by humans, rather than by robots. In this case, G14 would serve primarily to limit the human factor in a match between robots. By reducing the power of high-scoring humans, the focus of the match will be kept on the robots. This is an admirable goal, even if its implementation is horrendous.

What about a blowout match that was a blowout because the winning team had three amazing Payload Specialists, even if the losing team had superior robots?
I think the last sentence of your first paragraph may be the operable statement here. If that was the GDC's goal, there are many, many better ways to accomplish it; a higher alliance station wall, for example. An alliance that good could surely make sure they only won 36 to 20 instead of 60 to 20.
Or just ban human players from scoring altogether; I think that might actually make this game a better engineering challenge, although that's another subject altogether.
__________________

Does anyone else remember when TBA signatures actually worked?
Reply With Quote
  #40   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 05-01-2009, 22:58
{td}'s Avatar
{td} {td} is offline
Registered User
FRC #0167
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Iowa City
Posts: 10
{td} will become famous soon enough
Re: My case against <G14>

Quote:
And I'm a little disappointed that no one so far has responded to what I think was my most important point. FIRST has apparently assumed that blowout games are somehow bad and need to be eliminated. In my opinion, not only can a blowout loss be a valuable learning experience for a team, but an false close loss will certainly be no better.
Okay, I'll do it I agree with just about all of your reasoning and especially this point. Let me share an example of just how a blowout game can be inspiring, a good learning experience, and certainly not inherently bad.

Two years ago at the Milwaukee regional, team 1736, Robot Casserole's alliance scored all along the top row (i think they did that singlehandedly, too, but i'm not positive). This meant they had 250 points. (Here is video, courtesy blue alliance: http://www.thebluealliance.net/tbatv...hp?matchid=679)

This got everyone's attention and I think motivated our team to do better the next year and got us pumped up, because we wanted to be like that time one year.

Now, imagine this rule was in place then. They would have secured maybe 4 around the top and then gone to play defense, ensuring a victory. They would have still won, and they wouldn't be penalized the next round. However, i would have lost something i could point to as an awesome achievement. It would have made that game average and not interesting or inspiring.

I personally think this rule does (accidentally) discourage reaching for the stars both in the design phase and during each and every game. Obviously everyone still is going to try hard during games, but who will try to make a statement if it means losing an advantage next game? Nobody who is reasonably sure of a spot in the tournament will try to dazzle, just focus on winning. Especially when there are 15 point swings with a single ball. I imagine there will be close, low scoring games when someone dumps a super cell and ends up winning, but doubling the other team in a close game.

That's the biggest problem, in my opinion. Perhaps if they made certain adjustments (like a minimum difference for the rule to take place, removing the zero score problem, and accounting for penalties) it would be better. But I too am at a loss for a concrete reason why this was needed. I think the tiebreaking score based on opponent's performance already does enough.
Reply With Quote
  #41   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 05-01-2009, 23:56
bigbeezy's Avatar
bigbeezy bigbeezy is offline
Registered User
AKA: Bryan
FRC #2338 (Gear it Forward)
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Oswego, IL
Posts: 311
bigbeezy is a splendid one to beholdbigbeezy is a splendid one to beholdbigbeezy is a splendid one to beholdbigbeezy is a splendid one to beholdbigbeezy is a splendid one to beholdbigbeezy is a splendid one to beholdbigbeezy is a splendid one to beholdbigbeezy is a splendid one to behold
Send a message via AIM to bigbeezy
Re: My case against <G14>

in general i dont have a terrible problem with this rule.

It gives an extra sense of strategy. Now this would be cool, if the drivers/coaches are unable to see the live score on the screen so teams would have to calculate scores in their heads. Plus it would give the crowd a bit more anticipation for the final score.

one thing i just thought of, if it’s been already mentioned i apologize, say your an insane scorer and your paired against other strong teams you'll be able to score high numbers of points, but say that same team is paired against not so great teams, then they will not be able to show their full potential to scouts which may lead to being overlooked at finals unless their strategy does not involve heavy use of super cells.

FIRST may have also added this rule for another reason. Say Alliance A goes ahead really quick, so now Alliance A goes on defense to insure a win. The score at the final 20 seconds is 60-46. Alliance A is holding their supercells and not using them, but Alliance B just needs to score one supercell to get an upset.
__________________
Team 1592 Bionic Tigers -- Driver 2005-2008
Winner - Florida Regional 2005
Finalist - Newton Division 2007
Winner - Colorado Regional 2008
Florida State University - BS Mechanical Engineering
Team 2338 Gear it Forward -- Mentor/Drive Coach 2013-Present
Winner - Wisconsin Regional 2013
Chairman's Award - Midwest Regional 2015
Winner - Archimedes Sub-Division 2015
Chairman's Award - Midwest Regional 2016
Reply With Quote
  #42   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 06-01-2009, 00:13
gbrettmiller's Avatar
gbrettmiller gbrettmiller is offline
Registered User
AKA: Brett
FRC #2893 (The Robohobos)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Rookie Year: 2009
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 53
gbrettmiller is on a distinguished road
Send a message via Yahoo to gbrettmiller
Re: My case against <G14>

Unlike most games, where the goal is to get as many points as you can while denying as many points as possible to the opponent, LUNACY seems to be taking a different approach.

I'm not really sure what the intent of <G14> is, especially considering that the ranking score that both teams receive at the end of the match is based on the score of the LOSING alliance. Running up your alliance's score while your opponent ends up with very few points will get you the win, but will hurt your ranking within whatever tier you end up in. Why would you want to have such a blowout, when it doesn't really do you any good?

9.3.5 All teams on the winning ALLIANCE will receive ... ranking points equal to the un-penalized score ... of the losing ALLIANCE. All teams on the losing ALLIANCE will receive ... ranking points equal to their final score.

I agree that one main effect of the rule, and scoring, will be to discourage defensive strategies and focus on the offense. And that's what the crowds like, right, lots of action with lots of scoring?
Reply With Quote
  #43   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 06-01-2009, 00:23
gbrettmiller's Avatar
gbrettmiller gbrettmiller is offline
Registered User
AKA: Brett
FRC #2893 (The Robohobos)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Rookie Year: 2009
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 53
gbrettmiller is on a distinguished road
Send a message via Yahoo to gbrettmiller
Question live scores

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbeezy View Post
Now this would be cool, if the drivers/coaches are unable to see the live score on the screen so teams would have to calculate scores in their heads. Plus it would give the crowd a bit more anticipation for the final score.
Question from a new guy: Do they typically show live (real-time) scores during the matches? Will they be showing these scores during this year's games?

I'm just trying to visualize how a judge would keep an accurate track of the number and types of balls in the trailers....
Reply With Quote
  #44   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 06-01-2009, 00:54
BRAVESaj25bd8 BRAVESaj25bd8 is offline
Bobby D
AKA: Bobby DeFelice
FRC #0250 (Dynamos)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Rookie Year: 2004
Location: Colonie, NY USA
Posts: 121
BRAVESaj25bd8 has a brilliant futureBRAVESaj25bd8 has a brilliant futureBRAVESaj25bd8 has a brilliant futureBRAVESaj25bd8 has a brilliant futureBRAVESaj25bd8 has a brilliant futureBRAVESaj25bd8 has a brilliant futureBRAVESaj25bd8 has a brilliant futureBRAVESaj25bd8 has a brilliant futureBRAVESaj25bd8 has a brilliant futureBRAVESaj25bd8 has a brilliant futureBRAVESaj25bd8 has a brilliant future
Re: My case against <G14>

Quote:
Question from a new guy: Do they typically show live (real-time) scores during the matches? Will they be showing these scores during this year's games?
While I'm not sure it is required that live scoring is posted, it has been at every competition I have been to since 2005 I think. The live scoring, however, is unofficial and I have never found it to reflect penalties.

As far as why FIRST might want to eliminate blowouts, I suppose that's a matter of opinion. I was on the field for my 4 years as a student and towards the end, I felt like there was quite a bit of pressure on me to perform well. When did I perform my best? Right after competing well against another group of robots. I suppose some people could pull inspiration from a 70-12 loss but I am not him. The best match I ever had the privilege of being the driver for was a tie in 2006. It was incredibly thrilling. As far as the crowd goes, who enjoys a 50-10 football game? It's boring and the crowd often leaves early because of the lopsided difference in team caliber. I suppose getting beat badly is something people do have to deal with in their lives, but I have never heard that FIRST wants to show people what it is like to get blown out of the water. I'm sorry but this rule IMO just adds another dimension to the strategy and is a good one from FIRST.
Reply With Quote
  #45   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 06-01-2009, 01:01
UnknownMember UnknownMember is offline
Registered User
FRC #1245 (Shazbots)
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 30
UnknownMember is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: My case against <G14>

I, too, take issue with this rule. It just seems so contradictory to FIRST in so many ways. For one thing, it's FRC, FIRST Robotics Competition, and we're not supposed to compete, or we'll be punished? It is against the very fundamentals of the idea. Also, FIRST: For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology. Where's the inspiration when if a team has a good idea and implements it well, they will be penalized for it? Recongition? Of what? How well a team can hold back? It should be the inspiration for students to do their absolute best, with anything less being a disadvantage. The recognition should be of the most innovative or most effective ideas, not of how close the matches can be made when one side is given a handicap.

I, for one, don't understand why they put this rule in. Is this the new idea for "Gracious Professionalism"? I hope not...
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
<G14> Shenanigans? Team1710 Rules/Strategy 123 12-01-2009 12:42
Rule G14 KE5WGE Technical Discussion 3 03-01-2009 17:36
G14 & a difference between start & end of match Elgin Clock Rules/Strategy 6 09-01-2008 20:26
G14 - ball on rack at end ericand Rules/Strategy 5 09-01-2008 08:00
Unsportsmanlike conduct. 3 against 1 angryyoungnpoor General Forum 16 14-03-2004 08:42


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 00:51.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi