2001 Not a Great Spectator Sport?

[archiver]

Posted by Lora Knepper at 03/11/2001 2:59 PM EST


Other on team #177, Bobcat Robotics - (Adoptee) =), from South Windsor High School and International Fuel Cells.



One thing I got by watching the VCU on the internet and being at the UTC is when your team is not on the field, this game is suddenly VERY boring to watch. (In most cases...I'm sure when 71 posted that astronomical score, it was a great match to watch regardless of your team affiliation) There were several of us in the Tigerbolt chatroom discussing the regional as it was played, and the overwhelming feeling seemed to be boredom. I'm not entirely sure if that was from the lower score posted by some less experienced teams, or the nature of the game, but I do know that when I was at UTC, when I didn't have my team, or a friend's team on the field, I wasn't nearly as interested in watching as I have been in the past.

Soooo...in short, I think this tends to be an interesting game to play, but a rather boring spectator sport...but of course, feel free to post different )

~ lora

[archiver]

Posted by Steve Alaniz at 03/11/2001 3:29 PM EST


Other on team #57 from Houston Regional co-ordinator.


In Reply to: 2001 Not a Great Spectator Sport?
Posted by Lora Knepper on 03/11/2001 2:59 PM EST:



Lora~

You found it boring? TERRIFIC! That sounds sarcastic
but I assure you I'm serious. The last thing I'd want
to see come out of F.I.R.S.T. is a bunch of robotic
couch potatoes. People who are motivated enough to
participate in F.I.R.S.T. are "Do-ers" not "Watch-ers."
It speaks well for your group that you are driven to be
involved.
I admit it takes a lot of patience to watch all the
rounds, but there's a certain dicipline involved in
watching the same routines and attempting to learn what
is possible and what is not and if you're really
perceptive, to discover,"what has been missed?"
Personally, I find televised football, basketball,
baseball...all the televised sports... boring because
I'M not playing in the game. Thank goodness for
commercials!
OK, there is ONE thing about this game that is good
but adds to the idea it's boring...the co-operation.
In the past, you could watch to see if that robot who
rammed, belted, twisted or otherwise distroyed YOUR
robot would get their comeuppance...consider this game
the "moral" highground.. (Yeah I know... I'm laughing
too.. but hey, that's what I do for a living!!!!)


:

[archiver]

Posted by Lora Knepper at 03/11/2001 7:28 PM EST


Other on team #177, Bobcat Robotics - Adoptee, from South Windsor High School and International Fuel Cells.


In Reply to: Re: 2001 Not a Great Spectator Sport?
Posted by Steve Alaniz on 03/11/2001 3:29 PM EST:



: OK, there is ONE thing about this game that is good
: but adds to the idea it's boring...the co-operation.
: In the past, you could watch to see if that robot who
: rammed, belted, twisted or otherwise distroyed YOUR
: robot would get their comeuppance...consider this game
: the "moral" highground...


Steve,

I have to admit, I was intregued at the thought of a 4 team alliance at the beginning. I absolutely LOVED the development of alliances in 1999 - and think it's one of the best steps FIRST has ever taken. And I still like the idea of working with more and more teams to succeed (any who know me know that at least 99% of my friends are on other teams, and if not for alliances I would not have met many of them) but something about the 4 bots v. the game makes it a tedious viewing.

And I'm not just speaking as someone within FIRST - this was my first year on the sidelines after 3 years of driving a bot - but also as someone looking at the game in a different light. If we were all not in FIRST right now, and didn't understand the whole cooperation goal -- the people who watch Battlebots on tv and have never heard of FIRST -- would we prefer to watch an alliance of 2 bots in '99 fighting to the wire, or a 4 bot alliance playing against a game that's so hard to score from the floor most people don't even try?

Personally, though I hate seeing my bot get chewed up in a competition - the action of bot v. bot is more interesting that bot v. game from the outside. From in FIRST, I think the game was a good try, but definately needs a few "tweaks" to up the excitement. And I don't mean they need to up the carnage ;o)

As Jess B. posted not long ago, the silence after a match is heartbreaking. The qualifying scores just don't mean as much - the atmosphere is one of two and a half days of practice rounds before 20 teams move up and actually get to play the "real" game (aka the elims). Sure...the alliance my team was on took the gold at NE..and that was exciting....for the 10 teams left in last final round, only 5 of us ever cheering at a time. It seemed so *quiet*, and my mind can't help but wander to days past when the crowd's roar rivaled the music in volume....

~ lora (I really need to make smaller posts!)

[archiver]

Posted by Jon - T190 at 03/11/2001 3:30 PM EST


Engineer on team #190, Gompei, from Mass Academy of Math and Science and Worcester Polytechnic Institute.


In Reply to: 2001 Not a Great Spectator Sport?
Posted by Lora Knepper on 03/11/2001 2:59 PM EST:



I agree, the Game doesn't really mean anything until you're in the elimination matches... the math bogs you down and you don't really care to work it out until your team's life depends on what the other guys make...

I watched a ton of matches this weekend and the only ones that i remember in detail are the eliminations and championship because they were against another alliance. all the other ones were against the intangibles of the bridge or time or random occurances...

[archiver]

Posted by Chris Orimoto at 03/11/2001 4:19 PM EST


Student on team #368, Kika Mana, from McKinley High School and Nasa Ames/Hawaiian Electric/Weinberg Foundation.


In Reply to: 2001 Not a Great Spectator Sport?
Posted by Lora Knepper on 03/11/2001 2:59 PM EST:



I can't really say that I was bored (watching the KSC
and VCU matches). I was actually quite intrigued by
the different strategies going around and the different
methods of scoring chosen by teams. If I were bored of
it, then there's no way I would get up so early (in
Hawaii!!!) to watch these things.
But, I think part of this may be the fact that we
haven't competed yet and will not until the VERY last
regional.

Just my personal thoughts...

Chri

[archiver]

Posted by Anton Abaya at 03/11/2001 4:33 PM EST


Coach on team #419, Rambots, from UMass Boston / BC High and If only we had free donuts....


In Reply to: 2001 Not a Great Spectator Sport?
Posted by Lora Knepper on 03/11/2001 2:59 PM EST:



to me, it's exciting to see the matches, but only if the bots out there are cool teams with cool robots. otherwise, they look boring.

on the other hand, destruction is fun too... none of that this year though. i wish FIRST just told us to MAKE a certain robot each.... and assigned us to make the robot that does that particular job.

it would intrigue us and even help rookies because they already know what to build (not how, what). but if they wish to add more features, they are also welcome to....

that way matches can be prearranged with all robots doing a specific task they were asked to build.

will it make the 6 weeks boring? heck no. you can innovate more than ever... furthermore, games will look be more fun to watch..

just imagine, FIRST robotics becomes a real sport! 4 robots, maybe 2 asked to make defenders, 1 on offense, and one on goalie? ahh... many things u can imagine.

what do you think? raves and rants?

[archiver]

Posted by mike oleary at 03/11/2001 10:59 PM EST


Student on team #419, rambots, from bc high and sponsors are overrated..go pocket-change robots!!!.


In Reply to: hmm... an new twist in the coming years?
Posted by Anton Abaya on 03/11/2001 4:33 PM EST:



i think youve been drinking too much dew

: to me, it's exciting to see the matches, but only if the bots out there are cool teams with cool robots. otherwise, they look boring.

: on the other hand, destruction is fun too... none of that this year though. i wish FIRST just told us to MAKE a certain robot each.... and assigned us to make the robot that does that particular job.

: it would intrigue us and even help rookies because they already know what to build (not how, what). but if they wish to add more features, they are also welcome to....

: that way matches can be prearranged with all robots doing a specific task they were asked to build.

: will it make the 6 weeks boring? heck no. you can innovate more than ever... furthermore, games will look be more fun to watch..

: just imagine, FIRST robotics becomes a real sport! 4 robots, maybe 2 asked to make defenders, 1 on offense, and one on goalie? ahh... many things u can imagine.

: what do you think? raves and rants?

[archiver]

Posted by EddieMcD at 03/11/2001 6:23 PM EST


Student on team #121, Islanders, from Middletown High School and Naval Undersea Warfare Center.


In Reply to: 2001 Not a Great Spectator Sport?
Posted by Lora Knepper on 03/11/2001 2:59 PM EST:



The only thing interesting to watch is if a team screws up and they end up on their back, or a goal falls, etc. Other than that, they are doing the same thing over and over (and over) again.

-Ed "Somebody's gotta screw up to make it interesting" McDonnell

[archiver]

Posted by Patrick Dingle at 03/11/2001 10:02 PM EST


Coach on team #639, Red B^2, from Ithaca High School and Cornell University.


In Reply to: 2001 Not a Great Spectator Sport?
Posted by Lora Knepper on 03/11/2001 2:59 PM EST:



My main concern is about all the high school members of my team. This is new to all of them, and if the competitions aren't that exciting, I fear a couple of them will not come back next year. For some, working on building the robot is exciting and that alone keeps us coming back. However, there are others who haven't worked on the robot, but go to the competition to see what it's like. If they find it boring, they might not be involved next year at all. My first year, I was the same way... I didn't work on the robot at all, but I went to the competition. It was the excitement of the 1999 competition that got me to be more involved in building the robot in 2000, and here I am today with a new team altogether. I wonder, if the 1999 competition had been less exciting, I might not be here at all today.

I think this is precisely the angle FIRST needs to look at the competition from. Although it is a very politically correct / gracious professional thing if teams are "working together", this is a very minor detail in the overall picture. The games need to INSPIRE (fIrst). With the 2v2, we still have teamwork, but at least it'll get people pumped and convince them to be more involved next year.

Patrick

: One thing I got by watching the VCU on the internet and being at the UTC is when your team is not on the field, this game is suddenly VERY boring to watch. (In most cases...I'm sure when 71 posted that astronomical score, it was a great match to watch regardless of your team affiliation) There were several of us in the Tigerbolt chatroom discussing the regional as it was played, and the overwhelming feeling seemed to be boredom. I'm not entirely sure if that was from the lower score posted by some less experienced teams, or the nature of the game, but I do know that when I was at UTC, when I didn't have my team, or a friend's team on the field, I wasn't nearly as interested in watching as I have been in the past.

: Soooo...in short, I think this tends to be an interesting game to play, but a rather boring spectator sport...but of course, feel free to post different )

: ~ lora

[archiver]

Posted by Mike McIntyre at 03/11/2001 11:49 PM EST


Coach on team #1, Juggernaut, from Oakland Technical Center Northeast and 3 Dimensional Services.


In Reply to: 2001 Not a Great Spectator Sport?
Posted by Lora Knepper on 03/11/2001 2:59 PM EST:



What we've got is a game that is challenging to build and design for, fun to play, and very different from Battle'bots. The game is good, but it doesn't inspire the crowd much and would certainly never be made into a TV series. This game definitely lacks the excitement we've seen in recent years but still manages to get pretty intense during the elimination matches(because there is an element of competitiveness built into the format). Listening to Dean speak, I understand his motivation in changing the game and I can appreciate the need to take some risks, but I thought the blend of cooperation and competition that we've seen in recent years is much more "true to life". I have come to know and respect many people from many teams while competing head-to-head against their team, and we could always talk about the matches, strategies...etc. and laugh about it all later; you knew that they would be your ally again some day and it drew people closer. I miss the planning of offensive and defensive strategies, I miss the continuous altering of gameplans as opponents thwarted our moves, and I miss the fun I had as a spectator when my team was not on the field. Dean's distinction using an analogy of BattleBots being the WWF and FIRST being like Olympic wrestling only holds true for me if we're still talking about last year's game. To continue the analogy, this year's game would be more like watching the wrestling team practice their moves over and over. In an elimination match, a good alliance is apt to execute the same exact moves 6 times in a row! I hope Dean and the people at FIRST keep taking risks and hitting us with radical changes each year; while this year's game may not be as good as last year's, the FIRST experience is still better than any other high school science/technology experience that I have encountered.


[...when your team is not on the field, this game is suddenly VERY boring to watch. (In most cases...I'm sure when 71 posted that astronomical score, it was a great match to watch regardless of your team affiliation) There were several of us in the Tigerbolt chatroom discussing the regional as it was played, and the overwhelming feeling seemed to be boredom. I'm not entirely sure if that was from the lower score posted by some less experienced teams, or the nature of the game, but I do know that when I was at UTC, when I didn't have my team, or a friend's team on the field, I wasn't nearly as interested in watching as I have been in the past.

: Soooo...in short, I think this tends to be an interesting game to play, but a rather boring spectator sport...but of course, feel free to post different )

: ~ lora

[archiver]

Posted by Rob Zeuge at 03/12/2001 11:38 AM EST


Coach on team #121, Rhode Warrior, from University of Rhode Island and Naval Undersea Warfare Center.


In Reply to: What we've got...
Posted by Mike McIntyre on 03/11/2001 11:49 PM EST:



Interesting parallel betwen FIRST this year and Olympic wrestling. I would, however add that this game is more like Syncronized swimming than any other event. The random element is really the only difference.

Personally i like head to head competition with limited fighting rules to "keep the competition clean", but I will work with what I am given.

Robert Zeuge
rzeu0470@postoffice.uri.edu

P.S. Despite the fact that I will work with what I am given, we need to reinstitute the materials rules from last year!

[archiver]

Posted by Matt Leese at 03/12/2001 12:15 AM EST


Other on team #73, Tigerbolt, from Edison Technical HS and Alstom & Fiber Technologies & RIT.


In Reply to: 2001 Not a Great Spectator Sport?
Posted by Lora Knepper on 03/11/2001 2:59 PM EST:



Having watched too many matches so far (most of New England) and seen some of the VCU regional, I think this year can be exciting. However, it's only exciting when you see really good teams play. And guess what? That's pretty much the same way I felt last year. Watching bad teams play is never interesting. When I saw good teams play, making high scores, then it was fun to watch. Poorly coordinated teams with uniteresting robots just aren't fun to watch. I think there's a bit less enthusiasm this year from the crowd but I think part of it is that it just takes a while to get into it. And as always, it's easier to be interested when you're teams playing.

Matt who really is going to post a little bit more now -- yes, he does realize he leaves for NJ on Wednesday

[archiver]

Posted by Jeff Waegelin at 03/12/2001 9:33 AM EST


Student on team #201, Visteon FEDS, from Rochester High School and Visteon Automotive Systems.


In Reply to: 2001 Not a Great Spectator Sport?
Posted by Lora Knepper on 03/11/2001 2:59 PM EST:



I fully agree with every single one of you. This competition really doesn't have the same spark without all the head-to-head competiton. At West Michigan, I was assigned to videotape all the matches. (And I mean ALL the matches) After the first few hours, the matches became increasingly boring. By Saturday morning, I couldn't stand to tape or even watch another match. They had just become so repetitive. Either the teams were a poor match for each other, or a team like #71 used their standard (but high-scoring) plan. It just wasn't as fun to watch.

I would like to say the elims are completely different, but in all reality, they get just as boring. The first few were extremely exciting, but the alliances quickly found a set pattern and stuck to it. The worst part was the fact that you just didn't know who won until two minutes after the match. There's no instant gratification from knowing you beat the other team; you have to wait for the score to be tabulated, and by then much of the excitement has died down.

Jeff, the exhausted video guy

: One thing I got by watching the VCU on the internet and being at the UTC is when your team is not on the field, this game is suddenly VERY boring to watch. (In most cases...I'm sure when 71 posted that astronomical score, it was a great match to watch regardless of your team affiliation) There were several of us in the Tigerbolt chatroom discussing the regional as it was played, and the overwhelming feeling seemed to be boredom. I'm not entirely sure if that was from the lower score posted by some less experienced teams, or the nature of the game, but I do know that when I was at UTC, when I didn't have my team, or a friend's team on the field, I wasn't nearly as interested in watching as I have been in the past.

: Soooo...in short, I think this tends to be an interesting game to play, but a rather boring spectator sport...but of course, feel free to post different )

: ~ lora

[archiver]

Posted by Steve Goldberg at 03/12/2001 11:04 AM EST


Engineer on team #157, Aztechs, from Assabet Valley RTHS and EMC/Simplex/Intel MA/Others.


In Reply to: 2001 Not a Great Spectator Sport?
Posted by Lora Knepper on 03/11/2001 2:59 PM EST:



I agree with most of the people that posted in this thread that this year's competition isn't as interesting to be involved in or watch as past years. I believe that the people at FIRST, although I know they worked really hard on this year's competition as they always do, made a mistake in the design of the game for the following reasons.

1) Having a game that is intersting to watch is important.
As people have already mentioned in this thread, it is important for the retention and recruiting of new teams that the competition be interesting to watch. After all, who is going to want to be a part of something that doesn't even hold their attention?

2) Removing the idea of competition is, although noble, a mistake.
Over the past few years the FIRST competitions have been slowly shifting the focus from head to head competition to group work. I must admit that at first I was opposed to the idea of coopertition (1999 and 2000) but I grew to see how this was important. In 2001 however they changed this to total cooperation by removed all vestiges of competition. The benefit of the coopertition years was that it showed students how in the real world you need to compete against some and cooperate with others to achieve your goals. This is a good idea. However, the idea that you must work with everyone and against no one is a sweet but impractical idea in the real world.

Not to disagree with our esteemed competition founder but I have to repond to something that Dean said at the UTC regional in Hartford. He said,
"Here, there is an important difference from sports; in the world of engineering, it is pointless to defeat somebody"

This statement is both naive and incorrect. In the world of engineering everyone is trying to defeat the competition. It is the nature of business and of capitalism. I will give you an example of how this statement is incorrect even with regard to Dean himself.

At this moment Dean and DEKA research are creating an unknown device named IT/Ginger that everyone here has, I'm sure, heard about. But why don't we already know what the device is? Why is Dean hiding it? In his own words he is hiding it because there are (and I'm paraphrasing here) "large established companies that would not like the introduction of this product" In other words there are companies that would like to never see this product released. Dean is, in effect, hiding the production of this product to foil the attempts of other companies to stop it.
He is also hiding the design and even the nature of the product to keep other companies with larger engineering staffs and more money from coming in, reverse engineering his product, and selling it themsevles.
What does all of this add up to? Competition plain and simple. Dean is working with his company to be the first producer of this product. If he truly believed that "it is pointless to defeat somebody" then he would release the designs, plans and ideas for every product he has ever designed or even conceived of. Obviously this is a ridiculous idea and no one would expect him to do this.

So, the whole idea of removing competition runs counter to how the real world works and how real engineering works. Dean and the rest of the offical FIRST folks should realize this and reinstate the competition that was present in previous years.

Comments?

(Sorry this was so long but I felt it had to be said)

[archiver]

Posted by Ellery at 03/12/2001 12:20 PM EST


Engineer on team #191, X-CATS, from Joseph C. Wilson High School, Rochester NY and Xerox Corporation.


In Reply to: 2001 Not a Great Spectator Sport?
Posted by Lora Knepper on 03/11/2001 2:59 PM EST:



Hi All!

I agree with alot of what was said on this topic. Especially that competition is a good thing and it keeps people on their toes. You don't necessarilly need to beat someone down to win but I think this competition is more against time and who has the best design. That's why it seems kinda boring to some since it's no longer in the same category as a sports competition that we all know. In a capitalistic society as our's, competition in the market is in tune to similarities to Darwinism "Survival of the fittest". Sad to say it's what we have now.

Maybe next year they'll take into consideration some of these observations people have posted here.

Oh well 3 more days till NJ!

Ellery