Anybody really dis-like the game?

[Drwurm]

And really guys, How athletic do you need to be to stand in one spot and toss plastic balls at targets. It's more about hand-eye coordination than athleticism. Humans and robots interact in the real world, so why not have them interact in FIRST?

[smartkid]

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

*clears throat* 357 *clears throat*

I have their button on my wall, it's 357.

One of our mentors from last year was with those guys and he showed me there custom mechanum wheels, I bet those guys were stunned... I bet that also has to really suck.

I'm a big fan of mechanums and omnis...

[65_Xero_Huskie]

I didn't really like this game when i saw the game animation at kickoff.
However, after sitting down and having a discussion about it and going through all the game rules and regs. i would have to say that my opinion has changed.

And for everyone who says that this game is making it a level playing field for all teams, i would have to disagree. There are certain aspects of this game, such as control while moving and scoring consistently in a goal that make the veterans have the advantage because they know how to work through these problems and how to some up with solutions to them.
When i saw last years game i thought the same thing; "Wow, this makes it so rookie teams can still end up being good lap bots and succeding in the competitions". This was true, the lap bots made by rookies were able to score points and do it well. However, When all was said and done, the veteran teams were able to make high end shooters which made lap bots all but obsolete.

So before you judge the game to harshly, wait until there are rule clarifications, and regionals get started. You never know how much fun you could be having

[Katy]

I'm going to skip most of what DeepWater said because I agree with him and there is no sense in me just re-saying everything he did. Lets just pick up some other scraps.

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

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 was never saying you would or should design a box or anything that is the same functionality as a basic box. I said that if you put all the resources in and achieved something no more functional than a box that you wasted your time and resources. The implication was that the additional resources and skill you believe you have could be used to design something that did more than a box did. Otherwise all you have done is created a more expensive and complicated version of something which already worked just fine. That is commonly known as bad engineering.

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

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.

Aside from the fact that a good many of the people who buy million dollar homes do it with either money they don't have (borrowed from a bank) or inherited from their parents...I'll stick with the spirit of your post and debate you from there.

No, nobody is saying you have to pass all the kids, I'm just saying they should all get to take the exam. What high school a student attends has NOTHING, and I mean absolutely NOTHING to do with the student's natural talent, determination, work ethic, or any other estimation of merit. The high school you attend is a reflection of many factors: primarily your parents income because of the relation of housing prices to school district quality. In the case of private schools it still normally based on your parent's income because your parents must pay for the school. Even if the student gets a scholarship there is still the question of the parent's dedication to providing transportation to the school every day for at least the first two years until the student is of legal age to drive, then either continuing to drive or finding the financial means to provide the student with the car. In short: since the merit of the student has a minimal impact on what high school the student will attend it seems pretty reasonable to minimize the advantages of attending one high school over another. FRC is a high school activity. Thus, it is reasonable to minimize the advantages of showing up on one team over another. Let them fight it out for the trophy on their own merits, to do anything else is an insult to their potential.

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?

I find that a pretty absurd comparison. A team may be decades old but under normal circumstances no student will have more than three years experience going into a season with a team. Is it proper for a student to inherit glory simply because he goes to the right school? To reap the rewards of all the students who poured everything into the robots for years before him? Of course not, that would be absurd. Students attend high schools based on their parent's merits: not their own. That would be, in your metaphor, to determine the pay grades of new teachers based on the salaries their parents received. If this was a college league that might be different: the merit of the student plays a much stronger influence on what college he attends. Students do not attend different high schools based on their merit in this country. Propping up existing teams in a high school league, saying that they should continue to be strong just because they were strong, I view as a pretty huge social injustice. The kids need to earn it: each and every year.

And if you look at your own words, I think you will find yourself agreeing with me

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

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.

So, I fail to see why you would object to the "everybody is rookies" setup. If anything your statement there seems like it would cause you to applaud this move! Now the "good teams" (you chose 217, I'll take your word that they don't beat puppies for fun ) will be able to rise above those who simply once had a member, ages ago, who happened to find a particularly impressive solution to the "driving on carpet" problem or have a fat checkbook. This system should reward exactly teams with the qualities you mentioned.

So why do you object to it?

[Carbon419]

I also dislike the game as well. Only due to the fact that it is primarily based on luck if you think about it. We are all on ice, basically, and we have to try and "score" into a trailer that is moving while we are moving at the same time. Its like a drive-by shooting. But hey, I am not trying to totally destroy the fact that the game is "different" I am just saying that it will be challenging and tough, I guess. Also, I think the human players are going to be the semi0most important "item" on the field. What do you guys think.

[sxysweed]

It's different. Drivetrain from past years is out the window. We'll be drifting this year, and you have to take it into acount for scoring. I like it. We have to re-think it, but for a low budget team like the one I'm on, it seems easier/cheaper than last year.

[Ben Bastedo]

I have to say, redesigning almost all components of past years robots will be complicated but I have a feeling this years game will be a lot of fun. Also we are three days into the season, you have to give the game time. It could turn out to be one of the best games in FRC history.

[oddjob]

I don't dislike the game but I think it misses on a couple of points.

1. Dean likes to refer to ball bouncers as possessing no useful skills to tackle life. This years game relies a lot on the skills of the ball throwers. I'd rather the game was more dependent on the robot. If this is a way to get the roookie teams on more level footing with the veterans, I wish they had found a better way than by reducing the significance of the robot in the game.

2. The game is a dud to a general audience. Last year we had robots trying to get the huge ball off the overpass in autonomous, and putting it back at the end of the game. The crowds had great fun screaming at the end of the game as balls were almost on the overpass and would they stay there or fall off or get knocked off. Robots could race around at high speed. The year before, robots would try to get on ramps. This year - slow robots, no autonomous bonus points and I predict a deathly boring first 15 seconds as the robots crawl out of their starting positions, the supercell at the end of the game is much like any other cell and a casual observer won't know or care about it.

As the series approaches 20 years and wants to expand its support base, this game is a step backwards. It's not visually exciting and needs more spritz!!!

[jrdude]

i don't like the game because the fact if you beat your oppenent (sp?) you will lose supercells

[oddjob]

Originally Posted by jrdude

i don't like the game because the fact if you beat your oppenent (sp?) you will lose supercells

Ha ha, I forgot about that rule. It's really lame that teams can be penalized for doing their best.

Maybe next year they'll stop keeping score and everyone is a winner.

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by oddjob

Ha ha, I forgot about that rule. It's really lame that teams can be penalized for doing their best.

Maybe next year they'll stop keeping score and everyone is a winner.

You my friend just struck a chord.

If you'd like to present your case further, there's more threads about that rule. But yea, its one of the reasons I don't like the game so far either.

Remember teams... this is just day 3 so far.

[Sean Raia]

I dont think that veteran teams will be stooped down to rookie level again at all, actually i think the slippery conditions will just make rookies more confused.

[Drwurm]

Originally Posted by oddjob

1. Dean likes to refer to ball bouncers as possessing no useful skills to tackle life.

I realize this is a bit off topic, but I found Dean's comment about that during kickoff rather elitist and divisive. Anybody else feel that way?

I doubt Dean Kamen would object to the "follow your dreams" mantra. When I was in 7th grade, I dreamed of building robots when I grew up. Who's to say that the 7th grader next door whose dream was to play basketball is any less valid?

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by sxysweed

It's different. Drivetrain from past years is out the window. We'll be drifting this year, and you have to take it into acount for scoring. I like it. We have to re-think it, but for a low budget team like the one I'm on, it seems easier/cheaper than last year.

Cheaper? possibly
Easier? I don't think so. And rookies will be even harder pressed.

The robot designs this year will have to be just as intricate and though through as previous years ... just in different ways ... and that that worked before, may not work now, and I like that

[Adam Y.]

Originally Posted by Drwurm

I doubt Dean Kamen would object to the "follow your dreams" mantra. When I was in 7th grade, I dreamed of building robots when I grew up. Who's to say that the 7th grader next door whose dream was to play basketball is any less valid?

There is a difference between following your dreams and deluding yourself so badly that you can achieve something. Most people delude themselves that the have the necessary talent to play a professional sport.

Anybody else feel that way?

I don't know about you but there are a lot of sports figures who have the maturity of a two year old let alone no skills to change the world in any appreciable way. It actually makes me want to laugh and cry at the same time.