Problems with this year... and a solution?

[archiver]

Posted by Kris Verdeyen at 04/10/2001 4:48 PM EST


Engineer on team #118, Robonauts, from CCISD and NASA - Johnson Space Center and Friends.



This was my first year with FIRST (I was a coach and an engineer with team 118), and I must say that the experience was great. I really enjoyed meeting many of the other teams and seeing what they had built. I actually did enjoy the negotiations that this game required, but as a rookie, I had no way of telling whether previous years had that aspect or not.

But, in the spirit of getting my own two cents in on the issue, I would like to recognize what I see as the main complaint about this year's game, and Dean & company's complaints about previous games:
---Diabolical Dynamics---
This year's game offered no direct competition, thus limiting the amount of control a robot had over its own destiny when competing head to head in the finals.
Also, four robots on an alliance raised the possibility that a well-meaning but accident-prone robot could ruin things not only for itself, but also for three other teams.

---Ye olde First Robotics---
Past First games have been too violent, and eliminating head to head competion was required before First started looking like Battlebots.


How about a compromise?
A game where there are two positions, each occupied by a team of robots. The goals for each of these positions would not be the same, e.g. one team of robots could be offensive, and one could be defensive. Using this year's field as an example, one team of three robots would have the object of doing just what they did this round, while one other robot (perhaps enabled 5-20 seconds late) had to stop them. A team would only have one robot, of course, to play in both parts of this competition.

Here you would have some head to head competition, without having a true winner or loser. Let me know what you think.

--my apologies for the long post, but I was on a roll --

[archiver]

Posted by Chris Orimoto at 04/10/2001 7:57 PM EST


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


In Reply to: Problems with this year... and a solution?
Posted by Kris Verdeyen on 04/10/2001 4:48 PM EST:



This year's emphasis on teamwork was great...in my humble opinion. It didn't do too much for the aspect of "competition", but that's where teams have to humble themselves and realize the true mission of FIRST.

I remember the emphasis of last year's game...somewhere along the lines of "helping the losers", or "not crushing the competition". It'll be interesting to see how the game evolves next year, especially after this year's milestone.

In response to the compromise...it would be pretty interesting, but I'm not exactly sure what kind of "real-world" scenario it is employing.

Just my personal thoughts...

Chris, #368

[archiver]

Posted by Patrick Dingle at 04/10/2001 11:33 PM EST


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


In Reply to: Problems with this year... and a solution?
Posted by Kris Verdeyen on 04/10/2001 4:48 PM EST:



I've been meaning to post about this year's game for a while, and offer my two cents... so here it is.

Having attended UTC and nationals as a spectator, it just isn't as exciting to watch as previous years. I do like the idea of working together as a team... It is very idealistic and I was impressed how well it worked. However, I believe this altruistic goal of everyone working together is less important than the major goal of FIRST -- to excite & inspire people about science & technology. I believe that the #1 concern when choosing the game should be to make an exciting game with simple scoring for people to watch -- something that when people watch, they'll immediately get a sense of what the robots are trying to do, and be INTERESTED and INSPIRED. This year I was disappointed to see looks of apathy and disinterest on people's faces all over the place. Never in previous years have I seen so many people reading books during elimination matches.

Having competed at the New York City regional as a coach, I must say the game this year was AWESOME to play.... but hey, isn't it every year?

I was also disappointed at regionals and nationals to see grudges form between teams. I won't list any teams, but I was amazed at some of the comments I heard about other teams -- especially after a team, for example, falls over on the bridge and ruins a match for three other robots; or when a coach hits the red button and all four teams get a zero.

On a positive note, I really liked the fact that you could walk up to any team this year and ask all about their robot, and not really feel like an outsider. I feel like it was much easier to get to know other teams and robots.

All and all, I didn't mind this year. Dean said this year's game was a risk, and he seemed to deem it a success at nationals. But regardless if it was a success or not, improvements are made each year and improvements will be made for next year that will eliminate certain problems from this year. New problems will arise as well. I think these major changes from year to year are great -- the strategy changes enormously each year.

Patrick -- counting the days till kickoff

: This was my first year with FIRST (I was a coach and an engineer with team 118), and I must say that the experience was great. I really enjoyed meeting many of the other teams and seeing what they had built. I actually did enjoy the negotiations that this game required, but as a rookie, I had no way of telling whether previous years had that aspect or not.

: But, in the spirit of getting my own two cents in on the issue, I would like to recognize what I see as the main complaint about this year's game, and Dean & company's complaints about previous games:
: ---Diabolical Dynamics---
: This year's game offered no direct competition, thus limiting the amount of control a robot had over its own destiny when competing head to head in the finals.
: Also, four robots on an alliance raised the possibility that a well-meaning but accident-prone robot could ruin things not only for itself, but also for three other teams.

: ---Ye olde First Robotics---
: Past First games have been too violent, and eliminating head to head competion was required before First started looking like Battlebots.

:
: How about a compromise?
: A game where there are two positions, each occupied by a team of robots. The goals for each of these positions would not be the same, e.g. one team of robots could be offensive, and one could be defensive. Using this year's field as an example, one team of three robots would have the object of doing just what they did this round, while one other robot (perhaps enabled 5-20 seconds late) had to stop them. A team would only have one robot, of course, to play in both parts of this competition.

: Here you would have some head to head competition, without having a true winner or loser. Let me know what you think.

: --my apologies for the long post, but I was on a roll --