2010 Lesson Learned: The Negative

[zman2865]

Ok first of all i'm going to say i appreciate all the volunteers that helped out with FIRST FRC robotics this year and every year, but i think that FIRST needs to have a code of conduct for when it comes to inspecting a teams robot. For example having to ask to move your robot at ANY and EVERY time they wish to do so, ect. the reason i say that is because this year when we went to Atlanta we missed our very first match because during our teams inspection the inspector moved our robot while it was off while this doesn't seem like a problem it is because our team decided to use CAN this year and when he moved our robot he sent reverse current into our jaguars thus completely ruining functionality of 3 of our jaguars it was to bad that the only thing the texas instruments guy could do for us was give us three new jaguars(after 30min. of trying to fix them. on top of the at least 1 hour inspection) and after that things just went down hill for our team.

[efoote868]

I didn't like that we have to reuse control systems from a previous year. *thinks about the pile of robot skeletons in the closet*

I didn't like the no-bonus autonomous.

I didn't like the low scoring matches.

I didn't like how the game wasn't conducive to defense.

[Grim Tuesday]

I dont like the seeding system. Although, next year, with a new game, I hope for a new seeding system more like elims.

EDIT: Suspension. With only about 5 total in the season, it was a completely failed game mechanic.

[Tom Ore]

It looked to me like some robots at the championships had issues (weight, electrical, pneumatic) that needed to be fixed but passed inspection at the regionals. I don't think they're doing teams a favor by letting them through regionals this way. Maybe they can issue conditional inspection approvals to let teams compete but all issues need to be corrected before the eliminations. That way teams earning their way to Altanta would be confident they are good to go.

[billbo911]

A picture paints a thousand words. Here are two pictures that express my biggest negative this year.

There was a lot of this........




shortly followed by a whole lot more of this........



Hurry up and wait....and wait....and wait.......


Maybe we can have custom built for FIRST WiFi next season.

[David Brinza]

Originally Posted by Tom Ore

It looked to me like some robots at the championships had issues (weight, electrical, pneumatic) that needed to be fixed but passed inspection at the regionals. I don't think they're doing teams a favor by letting them through regionals this way. Maybe they can issue conditional inspection approvals to let teams compete but all issues need to be corrected before the eliminations. That way teams earning their way to Altanta would be confident they are good to go.

I completely agree with you. There were several inspection "faults" that should have been caught and corrected at the regionals. These problems were identified and corrected at CMP at the cost of considerable stress to the teams and the inspectors.

I also don't think teams should be held off the field at regionals for minor discrepancies, but the teams should be forced to correct such problems before the elimination rounds. The pre-elimination round weight check should indeed include a check for any conditional "passes" and verification that the problem(s) are resolved.

[steelerborn]

I agree that a no bonus autonomous period was a big problem. Teams that work hard to write great autonomous code should get some benefit for it. I was upset to see so few autonomous codes being played this year, many robots would stand still then clear their zone.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by efoote868

I didn't like the no-bonus autonomous.

Autonomous was huge this year. What do you mean by "no bonus"?

Things negative about this year:

Suspension probably should have been worth more points if the GDC wanted us to do it. The single extra point it's worth convinces me that they wanted us to analyze and determine that suspension indeed wasn't worth it. It would have been cool to see though.

There simply should not have been so many field connection issues. My team shouldn't have to bring their unplugged router with them to a match in order to prove that the robot wasn't trying to connect to it. (Apparently, despite the custom encryption, field crews at WPI claimed my team's robot was connected to our own router in the pits, which remained unplugged throughout the event) It seemed like every other match there was that one, two, or three robots that took several minutes to get to work, and the fact that more than one match was decided for my team by whether or not field personnel felt like spending the 10 minutes it takes to make a robot work or not is stupid. One match we didn't move. Another match, our partner that we desperately needed to try and upset 1124 in CT quals didn't move and they made them take the robot off the field (side note: i wish they let us move that robot in front of the opponent's goal instead of walking it off). If you're paying ~$500 a match, this kind of thing isn't acceptable.

To drive home my point... it happened on Einstein! 294's sync issues, while it made me hear more of Dave Verbugge's awesome speech, are something that just shouldn't happen.

The Safety Award should be awarded to the safest teams, not the most obnoxious. Just imagine if the GP award was given out the way the Safety award is...

Some method of ensuring judges give each team a minimum amount of time to talk to them would be nice. Say, 10 minutes per team Friday morning? Judges do go by every team's pit, but 90 seconds isn't enough to decide whether or not a team should get an award. Not that I'm bitter...

[Chickenonastick]

The fact that we received 89 penalities in one match due to DOGMAR explains most of my complaints.

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by Chickenonastick

The fact that we received 89 penalities in one match due to DOGMAR explains most of my complaints.

This post says it all!
And disagree with the so-called no bonus of autonomous. Starving an opposing alliance and scoring points was absolutely a difference maker in matches at CMP.

[Isaac501]

The Game: Having a week one regional with this game was horrific. Penalties coming out the ying-yang and many of them, after the next Team Update, never would have been called. A lot of week1 teams got hosed by bad calls and bad rules.

The Wireless Bridge: Throw the WET610N away. It is a piece of garbage. It is slow to connect, impossible to configure, and a horrible piece of hardware to use in a game where seconds count. Six minutes a match? You wait almost a minute for the darn thing to even connect. Solutions: www.ebay.com or www.amazon.com. Our WGA600N connects in about 6 seconds, every time, no matter what the order we plug stuff in.

The Safety Award: The mechanic is *useless*. The token system is ridiculous. You have UL safety judges, a whole gaggle of them. Make Safety Judging part of Robot Inspection.

[pfreivald]

My primary suggestion for how things can be done better is the same every year: If something is illegal, and will garner a penalty, it should be penalized *every time*, consistently, and without even the tiniest regard to whether or not it will make the game 0-0...

From contact outside the bumper zone (which was almost never called during Overdrive, much to my chagrin given our robot design) to balls 3+" inside the frame perimeter (which was properly called week one, and then modified afterward for reasons I do not agree with), teams should have very clear expectations for how their robot should be designed so as to minimize penalties.

Defining situations that incur penalties and then not penalizing them (to the best of the refs' abilities, of course) just simply should not be done. If it's a penalty, then students should design their robots not to incur that penalty -- and if they don't, then they should learn a little something about game play and design constraints, just like every other aspect of the game.

[thefro526]

I already posted in this thread, but I dislike the next subject so much that I'll make another post.

BUMPERS.

I've never really known a game in the Pre-Bumper Era except for triple play, and I feel that bumpers a good thing for FRC because they do lessen some impacts and the amount of damage taken by a robot due to defense. Any robot I build from this point forward will have bumpers whether they are mandatory or not.

BUT, I hated the mandatory bumper colors and marking restrictions this year. Also, I don't think that bumpers should be mandatory, or at least the rules should be relaxed so they aren't such a design restriction. I can understand what FIRST was trying to do with the red and blue bumpers this year, but many teams used bumpers in previous years to help in decorating their robot and to carry their team image through their machine.

Personally, I think that FIRST should find another way to differentiate one alliance from the other that isn't bumper colors. IMO, I'm a huge fan of the Giant Spinning light used in games pre-2005.

[Grim Tuesday]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

My primary suggestion for how things can be done better is the same every year: If something is illegal, and will garner a penalty, it should be penalized *every time*, consistently, and without even the tiniest regard to whether or not it will make the game 0-0...

From contact outside the bumper zone (which was almost never called during Overdrive, much to my chagrin given our robot design) to balls 3+" inside the frame perimeter (which was properly called week one, and then modified afterward for reasons I do not agree with), teams should have very clear expectations for how their robot should be designed so as to minimize penalties.

Defining situations that incur penalties and then not penalizing them (to the best of the refs' abilities, of course) just simply should not be done. If it's a penalty, then students should design their robots not to incur that penalty -- and if they don't, then they should learn a little something about game play and design constraints, just like every other aspect of the game.

I assume you are talking about G46. My team, as well was saddened to heard that it was abolished, as we had built our robot to specifically not get balls under it, by having tank treads. It gave us a competitive advantage that other teams didn't have when they rode over balls. In the entire FLR, we did not get a single ball penetration violation. However, if the same rule was in place at other regionals, then we may have seeded even higher than we did.

I do understand that it was the GDC's intent, though, and it made it a more fun game to watch, without the MC constantly yelling BALL PENETRATION VIOLATION, like they did at FLR

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Grim Tuesday

I assume you are talking about G46. My team, as well was saddened to heard that it was abolished, as we had built our robot to specifically not get balls under it, by having tank treads.

Our Overdrive robot extended outside our bumper zone a maximum of 4", and then only while acquiring the ball, so that we would not incur incidental contact penalties. Watching the games and counting actual incidental contact from various trackball manipulators, I think *every single match* would have been a 0-0 tie if they were calling it properly...

...which means that teams are so used to penalties not being called for certain rules that they don't even worry about them... So why have them?