FRC 2011: Logomotion [Initial Impressions]

[IndySam]

Originally Posted by Alex Cormier

Horrible move on FIRST part that teams are close to required to purchase and acquire FTC parts to have a good shot at winning matches...

The programs should never mix and match again.

Totally agree, it's a huge disadvantage to teams that chose to do and mentor Vex instead.

FIRST shouldn't try and force a program on us that we don't want.

[SashaKuznetsov]

Originally Posted by IndySam

Totally agree, it's a huge disadvantage to teams that chose to do and mentor Vex instead.

FIRST shouldn't try and force a program on us that we don't want.

What do you mean, a program we don't want? FTC is a part of who we are as a program, they are the origins of good FRC members. And if you didn't know, FTC, FLL, and FRC are ALWAYS related. The biggest clues you can get before kick-off aren't those we're given, but the ones you can get by observing the other two's challenges and preparing for it appropriately.

Plus, they're not forcing anything on us, they actually gave us a really easy way to earn points. They gave us a simple challenge, a base model for how to rise to it, and FREE kits of simple parts to put it together.

If you don't like it, just don't use it.

[IndySam]

Originally Posted by SashaKuznetsov

What do you mean, a program we don't want? FTC is a part of who we are as a program, they are the origins of good FRC members. And if you didn't know, FTC, FLL, and FRC are ALWAYS related. The biggest clues you can get before kick-off aren't those we're given, but the ones you can get by observing the other two's challenges and preparing for it appropriately.

Plus, they're not forcing anything on us, they actually gave us a really easy way to earn points. They gave us a simple challenge, a base model for how to rise to it, and FREE kits of simple parts to put it together.

If you don't like it, just don't use it.

Its not a collective we, it is a my team (and many other teams) we. We don't do FTC. We don't want to do FTC. We do a much more cost effective program.

They stated many times during kickoff how being involved in FTC would be an advantage for teams. To me that infers that teams like ours who choose a different rout to inspire and bring younger students into the FRC team will be deliberately and intentionally at a disadvantage.

This isn't about a challenge in the game it's about politics pure and simple.

Trust me I'm not the only one who feels this way, although I will be one of the few who will voice my opinion.

[Grim Tuesday]

Originally Posted by oddjob

First impression, don't like the game at all. The logo array scoring is spectator unfriendly. Scoring will be unclear and games will end with no idea who has won until the official score is announced, not only because the logo scoring requires a rule book to tally but also the end of game bonus is relatively large. Positioning game pieces on a rack has no relevance to anything in the real world for most people.

For the participants, it will be challenging and fun as it always is when you are competing. In the grand scheme of broadening the appeal of FRC, this game is a step backwards from 2010 "soccer" and a huge disappointment.

You hit the nail right on the head. I think the game will be exciting and fun to watch for the millions of people on an FRC team. However, the scoring is relatively complex, and makes no sense to someone who isnt in FIRST.


Personally, I love the game, it mixes up 2007 enough for it to be completely different (the biggest change imo is no defense) but it won't be fun to watch for spectators.

[UkuleleGuy]

Originally Posted by Alex Cormier

Horrible move on FIRST part that teams are close to required to purchase and acquire FTC parts to have a good shot at winning matches...

The programs should never mix and match again.

FTC parts are not that expensive, you can get a good set for ~$500.

You cant tell me that the winning teams spend less than $500 on special parts for the current year's game.

And you can also use these parts for prototyping during the next years.

[Tetraman]

Originally Posted by IndySam

Its not a collective we, it is a my team (and many other teams) we. We don't do FTC. We don't want to do FTC. We do a much more cost effective program.

They stated many times during kickoff how being involved in FTC would be an advantage for teams. To me that infers that teams like ours who choose a different rout to inspire and bring younger students into the FRC team will be deliberately and intentionally at a disadvantage.

This isn't about a challenge in the game it's about politics pure and simple.

Trust me I'm not the only one who feels this way, although I will be one of the few who will voice my opinion.

To say it another way:

Imagine if the NFL gave out touchdowns at the last 2 minutes of each game based on how often an NFL team goes on youth outreach programs. Yes, it makes sense to honor and praise the teams that are able to do such great deeds, but for teams who go on elderly outreach programs are at a massive disadvantage because it's not a youth outreach program - and either way it's not about how well you do at playing the game of football.

What if a team can't start a FTC team because of money? They would if they could but every year they just can't get enough money. Are they to be penalized because they barely had enough to even build a box with wheels for FRC?

My quarrel comes from the fact that the majority of the legal parts and easiest way to build a mini-bot is though the FTC system. I understand why they chose to use the FTC system for the mini-bot, it makes perfect sense. FIRST controls what is FTC legal, thus what the mini-bot could be built out of is controlled easily. I just think more teams would be more comfortable with a wider array of legal parts and previous knowledge of FTC was an advantage.

That said, I LOVE everything else. I even love the Mini-bot race. I can't wait for this game...except for the field reset part...but I still love doing that too.

Originally Posted by UkuleleGuy

FTC parts are not that expensive, you can get a good set for ~$500.

You cant tell me that the winning teams spend less than $500 on special parts for the current year's game.

And you can also use these parts for prototyping during the next years.

What if a team can't even spend an extra $500 outside the traditional built robot? $500 is a big chunk of change for some teams they just can't afford to spend on something that is, to them, trivial.

[penguinfrk]

Originally Posted by BBnum3

I think that the endgame is insanely important. If your alliance gets the first two minibots, that's 50 points, so the other alliance can only get 25. Those 25 points are going to be almost impossible to make up using tubes alone.

That's why I think this game is a bit lopsided. For the last 10 seconds of a match to be able to swing the first 125 seems a bit unbalanced to me. 20-15-10-5 or 15-10-5-0 seems more reasonable (and the 0 may add a little twist in strategy...)

Originally Posted by oddjob

For the participants, it will be challenging and fun as it always is when you are competing. In the grand scheme of broadening the appeal of FRC, this game is a step backwards from 2010 "soccer" and a huge disappointment.

I agree. As IndySam mentioned, it's not to say that non-FTC students can't become great FRC students. The FIRST vision says "To transform our culture by creating a world where science and technology are celebrated and where young people dream of becoming science and technology leaders" and I don't read anything about being specifically part of any team (Jr.FLL, FLL, FTC, FRC, VEX, etc).

That being said, I think working with the parts restrictions introduces a new type of innovation not formerly present in FRC: designing around limited parts to achieve your ends. For many rookie teams, this arguably provides a more level playing field because the parts aren't as expensive, no excessive resources required (machining, expertise, ...)

[Grim Tuesday]

Originally Posted by Tetraman

To say it another way:

Imagine if the NFL gave out touchdowns at the last 2 minutes of each game based on how often an NFL team goes on youth outreach programs. Yes, it makes sense to honor and praise the teams that are able to do such great deeds, but for teams who go on elderly outreach programs are at a massive disadvantage because it's not a youth outreach program - and either way it's not about how well you do at playing the game of football.

That analogy is flawed. It would correctly be:

For the last 2 minutes of the game, the players play only touch football. They can do it, and if they werent in little leage middle school football, then they are at a disadvantage.

Any FRC team can put together n FTC robot, it might be harder if they arent used to it, but thats part of the fun and the challenge.

[Tetraman]

Originally Posted by Grim Tuesday

Any FRC team can put together n FTC robot, it might be harder if they arent used to it, but thats part of the fun and the challenge.

What if an FRC team can't afford an FTC kit?

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by UkuleleGuy

FTC parts are not that expensive, you can get a good set for ~$500.

You cant tell me that the winning teams spend less than $500 on special parts for the current year's game.

And you can also use these parts for prototyping during the next years.

FTC parts are dramatically more expensive than Vex - that's the "expense" referred to here. Teams like ours chose VRC or similar programs because it was cheaper and much less reliable than FTC - easier for us to inspire students.

FIRST is punishing teams that inspire "the wrong way". Plain and simple.

Originally Posted by IndySam

Its not a collective we, it is a my team (and many other teams) we. We don't do FTC. We don't want to do FTC. We do a much more cost effective program.

They stated many times during kickoff how being involved in FTC would be an advantage for teams. To me that infers that teams like ours who choose a different rout to inspire and bring younger students into the FRC team will be deliberately and intentionally at a disadvantage.

This isn't about a challenge in the game it's about politics pure and simple.

Trust me I'm not the only one who feels this way, although I will be one of the few who will voice my opinion.

I completely agree. This is 100% politics and I'm not afraid to say it.

[Dargel1625]

Originally Posted by Grim Tuesday

That analogy is flawed. It would correctly be:

For the last 2 minutes of the game, the players play only touch football. They can do it, and if they werent in little leage middle school football, then they are at a disadvantage.

Any FRC team can put together n FTC robot, it might be harder if they arent used to it, but thats part of the fun and the challenge.

That analogy doesn't work either, as the challenge is not the main problem for most teams. It would be like making them only play flag football for the last 2 minutes, and charging them half a million dollars to buy the flags.

[synth3tk]

Originally Posted by Tetraman

What if an FRC team can't afford an FTC kit?

Yeah, what if they can't afford free?

http://www.usfirst.org/uploadedFiles...ome%20Page.pdf

[marwahaha]

Just a couple things.

As for FTC parts, i think the game committee did consider rookies and limited budgets. This is why the FIRST Choice system is up, promoting organization, as this program is only offered for about a week. They want everyone to get their free parts, including an FTC Kit (you only pay for shipping). It's still frustrating to keep paying for extra parts, but if the endgame was different, then the shipping costs might have been spent elsewhere on the endgame strategy. Most teams should be able to get this kit, they just have to make the deadline.
This is also where the veterans who have more FTC parts can make more minibots to share and work towards a coopertition award.

As for the spectator viewing pleasure, I think this will be interesting to watch for at least the first 30 seconds, and especially the last 30 seconds. It's fine to complain, but these are the rules, let's work to meet this criteria. The first 30 seconds will be autonomous and the beginning of racking tubes, semi-interesting as robots extend out of starting configurations.
However, i think the more "fun" part of watching will be the robot interaction. If you can block the opponent from scoring in their zone, then the game turns into a "red rover" or "sharks-and-minnows" style game. Stay in your feeder/protected lane, then try to dart across the field to your scoring zone, avoiding robots trying to ram you off course. If games are played in this fashion, even people not involved in FIRST will be interested in the maneuverability of the robots and skill of the drive team rather than the racking of individual tubes.
The last 30 seconds will be very interesting as teams get ready to ignite their minibots. They will get ready by their tower, and "open up", essentially spitting out another robot to climb. These races will be intense to watch, probably determining who won.

The best analogy to think of is Harry Potter: Quidditch goals are only worth 10 points each, but whoever gets the Snitch at the end of the game gets 150 points, and likely wins.

EDIT: And in Quidditch you have scorers, and beaters/blockers trying to prevent scoring. Also, the Snitch is not released until later in the game, so for the beginning of the game you watch the scoring (for us, the tubes). When the Snitch is released and sighted you watch the Snitch (or minibot race). This analogy may work pretty well...

I enjoyed how FIRST worked out the kinks of scoring and "coopertition" this year. Take a look at pp65-67, it's pretty cool, as winning is most important. Then close, high-scoring games are preferable to low-scoring games or blowouts for tiebreaking scores. They also wanted to avoid the winning alliance helping the losing alliance to boost tiebreaking scores: As a result, a heavily weighted endgame makes the winner indeterminate until it's too late to help your opponent. I think this endgame change was one of many to prevent the 6vs0 games of last season.

FIRST is trying to unify spirit by integrating programs; I think we will be seeing more cross-overs in the future. This is the reason for the stress on "FIRST Team ----" during Kickoff. To them, it is less important to be a FRC robotics team than be a FIRST robotics team, the true organization behind it all. Yes, it is politics, but it's uniting all the different FIRST spirits (FRC, FTC, etc.) into one big giant community all excited about FIRST. Not only is the FTC kit involved, but the FLL line-tracking is present. By uniting the spirit into one group, the organization can get better recognition from the public and from the government and the media...
Which in turn may increase corporate sponsors, willing to donate to local teams or nationally, and more recruitment from younger schools, helping FIRST grow.

I am content with this year's game. Just really excited to be back in season.

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by synth3tk

Yeah, what if they can't afford free?

http://www.usfirst.org/uploadedFiles...ome%20Page.pdf

Free only works when you can get access to the store.

[dtengineering]

I'm hesitant to be critical of the GDC, as they have done a pretty good job of most things in the past. Well, certain ranking and match scoring algorithms haven't been that well thought out, and it was almost easier to get actual moon rocks than the game pieces, but as far as the game goes... they've done a pretty good job of it.

I am a bit disappointed, however, to see tubes on a Rack again.... I'm not quite sure why using 1/2" plywood cut and painted to form the logo pieces wouldn't have done the trick... they would have presented a slightly different grasping/manipulation challenge from what we've seen in the past, and teams would have had easy access to an essentially unlimited number of them.

Oh, yeah... they wouldn't pop, either.

The minibot is a neat idea. I think if I had to build one, however, I would look at how I could build it without the RCX... you are allowed two light switches, and I don't see where the rules say you cant hook the minibot motors up to them directly. For that matter, I don't see anything saying that the minibot motors can't be running at the start of the match. Last time I looked, lighter objects tend to go "up" faster. No sense packing an RCX up that pole if you don't have to.

Mind you, I've only had a cursory look at the rules this year as (for the first time in eight years) I'm not playing the game... but I don't think I'm missing out. I played Rack'n'Roll and had fun with it, and get the mini-bot experience and more through volunteering with VEX and teaching about mini-sumo robotics. The teams will make this a fun and interesting game, but I don't think it is the GDC's strongest effort. As far as game design goes, I'd have to say that both the VEX and FTC games this year are more "interesting" games to me.

Jason

P.S. When will we see used car tires as a game piece? Cheap, ubiquitous, easy to grasp in many different ways... and a delightful challenge to lift up in the air!