Lessons Learned - The Negative

[AustinSchuh]

This is the first game I can recall where robots are scoring on other robots. Normally the robots are all working with a neutral game piece and scoring with it on some disinterested structure.

Originally Posted by EricH

1999 might count, though I don't really remember the rules. The robots' job was to raise scoring objects over 8' in the air. That was the only way to score them. But, they weren't usually putting the objects on the other robots themselves.

I would have to say that 1999 doesn't fall in either category, since you weren't scoring on the other alliance's robots, and you weren't scoring the floppies on a structure.

If you want to be particular, you could say that 2007 counts as robots scoring on other robots, since you climbed on top of another robot to score bonus points at the end of the match.

[Chris Fultz]

There are lots of "comments" on G14, but if you paid attention to it in your strategy you were rewarded.

In every division, the final rankings were determined by RS, average losing alliance scores.

In Newton, all top 8 teams were 6-1, RS determined the order.

In Archimedes, 2 - 8 were 6-1, RS determined the order.

In Curie, 2-5 were 6-1, RS determined the order.

In Galileo, 1-2 were 7-0, 4 - 10 were 6-1, RS not only determined the order, but if you were even an alliance captain.

Use the rules in your strategy and to your advantage.

[martin417]

Originally Posted by Chris Fultz

There are lots of "comments" on G14, but if you paid attention to it in your strategy you were rewarded.

Use the rules in your strategy and to your advantage.

There seems to be a misunderstanding about RS. It has nothing to do with score differential, only with the losing teams score. If the losing team only gets 36 points, that's all you get, regardless of your own score. If you win 38-36, it is no better for RS than winning 135 to 36. The G14 doesn't enter into RS.

On another note though, your average score is the tiebreaker for two teams with identical W/L records and RS. It was the strategic goal of my team to receive a G-14 every match. If the real time scoring had been accurate, we would have boosted the other team's score by scoring on our own trailer, but having seen 70 point swings from real time to final score, we decided that we needed to score as much as possible.

[ebarker]

Originally Posted by Nawaid Ladak

6. Sustaining before Growing /// FIRST keeps on telling us to grow teams. What they don't realize is that 40% of all FIRST teams eventually fold. Instead of trying to create mroe teams, try sustaining and satisfying the wants and needs of the teams you already have, try to bring back already folded teams, and THEN try to grow from there

FIRST clearly understands the issue of teams folding. They have also stated with abundant regularity that teams need to learn how to build sustainable organizations. Your team is responsible for its financial well being, NOT FIRST.

[Chris Fultz]

Originally Posted by martin417

There seems to be a misunderstanding about RS. It has nothing to do with score differential, only with the losing teams score. If the losing team only gets 36 points, that's all you get, regardless of your own score. If you win 38-36, it is no better for RS than winning 135 to 36. The G14 doesn't enter into RS.

On another note though, your average score is the tiebreaker for two teams with identical W/L records and RS. It was the strategic goal of my team to receive a G-14 every match. If the real time scoring had been accurate, we would have boosted the other team's score by scoring on our own trailer, but having seen 70 point swings from real time to final score, we decided that we needed to score as much as possible.

i disagree -

if you are winning 135 - 36, you should start scoring on yourself to push up the other alliances score, so that it is 135 - 100. You get the win, you get of RS.

[sdcantrell56]

Originally Posted by Chris Fultz

i disagree -

if you are winning 135 - 36, you should start scoring on yourself to push up the other alliances score, so that it is 135 - 100. You get the win, you get of RS.

The important point was that real time scoring was so incredibly inaccurate that there was absolutely no way that I as a coach would tell our team to start scoring on ourselves for fear that the score was inaccurate and that we would mistakenly lose. When real time scoring is off by 70 points, there is a serious problem. We were going for at least 1 G14 per match after deciding how ridiculous the rule was.

[MrForbes]

Originally Posted by Nawaid Ladak

2. Bumper Rules/Rober Wheels etc... Xerox Creativity Award. /// 7, Helux, Power Dumper, Shooter, These were the four designs that i saw most of this weekend. FIRST. please stop making the award about the sponcor (Xerox...copies) and more about what it stands for.... Creativity, bending the envolope, thinking outside the box. Seriously, a robot with a Gyroscope won XCA this year at CMPl.... thast sad

That's an interesting observation. I noticed that the concentration of helix/power dumper/shooter/7 robots was very high at championships, but at the regionals out West they were not that common. I guess most of the very creative robots just didn't work as well as these four designs, which is why you didn't see nearly as much creativity at Champs. The few, effective desings won the regionals, so they made it to Atlanta.

http://selectric.org/nerds/2009la/

shows the robots at Long Beach, notice the very wide variety of designs! Arizona was the same way, lots of very interesting designs.

[martin417]

Originally Posted by Chris Fultz

i disagree -

if you are winning 135 - 36, you should start scoring on yourself to push up the other alliances score, so that it is 135 - 100. You get the win, you get of RS.

And how would you know you were winning 135-36? It has been demonstrated that the real time scoring is often not even close.

Hypothetical match: RTS shows you winning 135-36, so you score 30 points in your own trailer making the RTS 135-66. Then the real score appears and the final score is 136-135 and you lose. This is not an exaggeration. I witnessed at least one match where the RTS was off by more than 70 points. It was not worth the risk.

[MrForbes]

You could look at the trailers.

[sdcantrell56]

Unfortunately looking at the trailers and determining the number of balls in each is also not reliable particularly in the heat of the match. I think FIRST needs to do away with these supposedly "leveling" rules. Some teams will inevitably be better than others and they should not be punished for building a more effective robot. For me it is inspiring to see a team go out and truly dominate a match with superior driving, strategy, and robot. I must say this year watching 217 and 67 in various matches was a wonderful experience.

[Steve_Alaniz]

First of all, congratulations to all the teams for their achievements. I don't want to take anything away from the winners but I do have some concerns about the way the judging went.
I think the most obvious example was the All Star Rookie award. There were some really fantastic rookie robots out there and a lot of people who struggled to make it to Atlanta. But this DOES feed into the definition of a rookie team and more specifically... WHEN you become a rookie team.
Team 3091 is an excellent team and They have given enormous support to FLL and FTC... However, when Woodie was chronicling their activities and reasons they were selected, one line stood out to me. They had done fund raising for FLL/FTC over the summer and sponsorship of FLL/FTC teams before the start of the 2009 season. In my estimation, you become a rookie team on Jan 3 2009 and should be judged by your rookie season IF it is indeed a rookie award. I must have missed something because I have never seen a guide detailing what you should do the year before you become a rookie team. Normally, a rookie team is not expected to have extensively promote the FIRST family because they are... well... new. (I don't think you are even ALLOWED to submit a Chairman's Award bid as a rookie.)
I have no problem with the award being given to 3091. But I have a problem with the reasons the judges chose to give it to them. There seemed to be a bias due to their involvement with FLL and FTC and it made for an uneven playing field for the other rookie teams. Not all areas have FLL and FTC, and FRC is often the first competition that arrives (though I think that may be changing) so the opportunity to help isn't even there.
Still, I'm sure the judges had their reasons but I hope prior involvement does not become a requirement to win a rookie award at the championships.

My 2 cents

[sdcantrell56]

Originally Posted by Steve_Alaniz

First of all, congratulations to all the teams for their achievements. I don't want to take anything away from the winners but I do have some concerns about the way the judging went.
I think the most obvious example was the All Star Rookie award. There were some really fantastic rookie robots out there and a lot of people who struggled to make it to Atlanta. But this DOES feed into the definition of a rookie team and more specifically... WHEN you become a rookie team.
Team 3091 is an excellent team and They have given enormous support to FLL and FTC... However, when Woodie was chronicling their activities and reasons they were selected, one line stood out to me. They had done fund raising for FLL/FTC over the summer and sponsorship of FLL/FTC teams before the start of the 2009 season. In my estimation, you become a rookie team on Jan 3 2009 and should be judged by your rookie season IF it is indeed a rookie award. I must have missed something because I have never seen a guide detailing what you should do the year before you become a rookie team. Normally, a rookie team is not expected to have extensively promote the FIRST family because they are... well... new. (I don't think you are even ALLOWED to submit a Chairman's Award bid as a rookie.)
I have no problem with the award being given to 3091. But I have a problem with the reasons the judges chose to give it to them. There seemed to be a bias due to their involvement with FLL and FTC and it made for an uneven playing field for the other rookie teams. Not all areas have FLL and FTC, and FRC is often the first competition that arrives (though I think that may be changing) so the opportunity to help isn't even there.
Still, I'm sure the judges had their reasons but I hope prior involvement does not become a requirement to win a rookie award at the championships.

My 2 cents

So I guess you are trying to say that because they went above and beyond what most if not all rookie teams do, then they should not be allowed to compete because most other rookie teams can not accomplish as much as they have. This sounds incredibly flawed to me. We had the privilege to play with 3091 at Peachtree and they are a great group of young people. They are without a doubt a real rookie team, but they happen to be very dedicated and they have some very strong mentorship from many local atlanta teams. Rather than saying it is unfair for a team who is capable of so much to win this award maybe all the future rookie teams should look to this as an example of what should be done to win the Championship Rookie all-star award. It sounds to me like they are already on there way to winning an EI award or a Chairmans award which should be applauded.

[Steve_Alaniz]

Originally Posted by sdcantrell56

So I guess you are trying to say that because they went above and beyond what most if not all rookie teams do, then they should not be allowed to compete because most other rookie teams can not accomplish as much as they have. This sounds incredibly flawed to me. We had the privilege to play with 3091 at Peachtree and they are a great group of young people. They are without a doubt a real rookie team, but they happen to be very dedicated and they have some very strong mentorship from many local atlanta teams. Rather than saying it is unfair for a team who is capable of so much to win this award maybe all the future rookie teams should look to this as an example of what should be done to win the Championship Rookie all-star award. It sounds to me like they are already on there way to winning an EI award or a Chairmans award which should be applauded.

Without a doubt they are an excellent team and a great bunch of young people. I believe I said that. And I never said they were in anyway unfair. And you are quite right, they are on their way to a chairman's award. My point, that you have horribly twisted, is that they should win on the merits of being rookies... there are other awards... like the judges award that would cover the extraordinary work they did. In fact I wouldn't mind if they had been given BOTH a Judge's for their work and the All Star rookie for being an exceptional rookie team. I'd actually wouldn't be mentioning this if they had. I just feel the work they did PRIOR to becoming a rookie team should not have been a consideration for this particular award. Just splitting hairs what "rookie season" means.

[sdcantrell56]

I think rookie season should encompass the entire time before a team finishes competing in their first season. All of the planning and team building as well as fundraising that occurs before the official season is just as important as what goes on during the six week build season and ensuing competition.

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by Steve_Alaniz

I just feel the work they did PRIOR to becoming a rookie team should not have been a consideration for this particular award. Just splitting hairs what "rookie season" means.

Effectively, we are now in the 2010 season. It started at about 6:45 pm EDT Saturday. Existing teams are free to do tons of pre-build-season work, both on robot prototypes and extra-curricular activities; why not rookies? (Just don't use any of the parts you fabricate before kickoff on your 2010 competition robot.) If there's no FLL team in your area to mentor, start one.