paper: Spanking the Children

[Conor Ryan]

I'm a fan of the paper.

Being the GDC is not an easy job, anything can happen. Lunacy happened

Like every year, there are issues with this game, but most importantly I think what the GDC did (quite excellently) is create a game that evolves dramatically with a variety of strategies. This year more than ever, the strategy on the field is not always "Shut Down XXYY, and we might win the match." Yes, every game has an optimal strategy, just like in basketball, but this year has a certain amount of the “underdog alliance could legitimately pull off an upset with this strategy” that I absolutely love it.

I think loosening of the defensive rules was a byproduct of that, allowing for more strategies. Could there be some room for improvement on the rules? Yes. Does the GDC try to influence how they want the games played through the rules? I'll let you decide that.

Should there be a safe zone? Would that not lead to checkmate type strategies? Likely. Is the human player involvement in this game unpolished? That is debatable, I think with a wall or something to limit how a human could enter the ball into play would take away one of the most unique opportunities this year - passing to a human.

But honestly, I've been around FRC for long enough to really appreciate and love the nuances that GDC gives to every year's game and this year, the element of unpredictability in the strategies is my favorite.
This game will continue to get better as teams learn to leverage that ability to their advantage.

[Chadfrom308]

Originally Posted by JesseK

Long term:
Limit tractive drive train peak power to 1300W or speed to X ft/s?
Add a safety zone to every FRC game?
No more open fields?
Require full bumpers?
Remove the irrelevant autonomous rules?

I hope they allow drive trains with more than 1300w of power! Ours is 2.4 kW!!
But most of those long terms are things teams need to design for.

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

On a side note, I saw several instances this past weekend where a human player tossed a ball toward/into an opponent's robot, in what seemed to be a clear attempt to force a technical foul. While I'd hope this would be called as a G14 if it ever happened, with the amount of things the refs have to watch, I'm not sure it would be.

It was called at Southfield in Week 1. The HP threw the ball into the wrong robot. Most likely it was a mistake, but it was a deliberate action that would have resulted in the other team getting a foul if there was no G14 rule. Then the HP realized what he had done, and reached into the field to try to grab the ball back - 2nd technical.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

It was called at Southfield in Week 1. The HP threw the ball into the wrong robot. Most likely it was a mistake, but it was a deliberate action that would have resulted in the other team getting a foul if there was no G14 rule. Then the HP realized what he had done, and reached into the field to try to grab the ball back - 2nd technical.

Ouch.

[cbale2000]

Originally Posted by Chadfrom308

I hope they allow drive trains with more than 1300w of power! Ours is 2.4 kW!!
But most of those long terms are things teams need to design for.

I couldn't agree more. One thing that I've seen in recent years is that many teams no longer build a "robust" robot that's designed to handle the intensity of the game. The robots we all used to build prior to 2007 (the first year bumpers were mandated) make some of the chassis I see these days look like they're made out of tin foil.
Personally I think teams that decide to take extreme weight-reducing measures by compromising the durability of their bots should do so at their own peril.

I do think that offense should be deregulated more (getting a penalty called because a defending robot gets itself in the way of your collector is absurd), but I don't think you necessarily need to super regulate defense (like in 2008) to accomplish a balanced game. I still think 2006 was one of the best, most balanced games to date, and it included an open field, lots of game pieces, good defensive robots, good offensive robots, and few bumpers.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by cbale2000

I couldn't agree more. One thing that I've seen in recent years is that many teams no longer build a "robust" robot that's designed to handle the intensity of the game. The robots we all used to build prior to 2007 (the first year bumpers were mandated) make some of the chassis I see these days look like they're made out of tin foil.
Personally I think teams that decide to take extreme weight-reducing measures by compromising the durability of their bots should do so at their own peril.

I do think that offense should be deregulated more (getting a penalty called because a defending robot gets itself in the way of your collector is absurd), but I don't think you necessarily need to super regulate defense (like in 2008) to accomplish a balanced game. I still think 2006 was one of the best, most balanced games to date, and it included an open field, lots of game pieces, good defensive robots, good offensive robots, and few bumpers.

Emphasis mine.

That's the big key here, by having multiple ways to score it cuts the defense across a couple different people. In 2006 there were potentially 3 scoring robots and only 2 defending robots except potentially in the last period of play. Compare that with this year where exactly one robot is capable of scoring points for their alliance. This leaves 2 defenders on one robot by virtue of having nothing better to do.

I think the core problems with this years game stem from the lack of alternate ways to help your alliance. There are exactly two ways your robot can provide benefit to your alliance: 1) Manipulation of the ball. 2) Inhibit the opponent from manipulating their ball. Being as only one robot can do #1 the other 2 need to do SOMETHING.

[IKE]

Originally Posted by cbale2000

I couldn't agree more. One thing that I've seen in recent years is that many teams no longer build a "robust" robot that's designed to handle the intensity of the game. The robots we all used to build prior to 2007 (the first year bumpers were mandated) make some of the chassis I see these days look like they're made out of tin foil.
Personally I think teams that decide to take extreme weight-reducing measures by compromising the durability of their bots should do so at their own peril.
...snip....

I don't think you fully understand the role velocity plays in hit energy. Yeah, pre-2007 some of the more thuggish teams built tanks and bashed opponents "back in the good old days", but most teams trying to play the games drove around and got beat on quite a bit. Frames have IMO actually gotten better. the KOP frame has a lot better durability to it than the KOP frames from 2004 onward. In fact, I would say it is nearly equivalent to some of the best from the 2007/2008 timeframe.

Deformation comes from energy. and Kinetic energy is KE=1/2*m*V^2. In 2007, most defenders only traveled at about 7 FPS or less. Now, may are hitting 10 FPS with some teams exceeding 12 or 14 fps even. When comparing the two, a 7 FPS robot has 1/2 the kinetic energy of a 10 FPS robot. 12 FPS robot is at 3X a 7 FPS robot. 14 FPS is at 4X the Kinetic energy.

I help kep a lot of teams running during the weekends, and this year, I am seeing a lot of fallout due to wires getting pulled out during high speed impacts. Its a rough game.

[Jean Tenca]

This is a great paper. I couldn't agree with you more. As someone who has been part of the FIRST community since I started competing in 2002, it was a lot of fun to read this and travel back through memories.

A lot has already been said on this thread regarding this, but I do hope they drop the impact of unavoidable and non-malicious actions throughout the game. I also wish they would stop writing rules that use the word "intentional" since it's so subjective. Until then, we'll keep doing our best to have fun and avoid penalties

[Joe Ross]

I don't remember 2000 as being a rough year, 1999 was much worse. However, watching the following video from 2000 15 years later and two things jump out. Robots were really slow and even normal play was really rough.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FJFbvHRyco

[magnets]

Originally Posted by IKE

I don't think you fully understand the role velocity plays in hit energy. Yeah, pre-2007 some of the more thuggish teams built tanks and bashed opponents "back in the good old days", but most teams trying to play the games drove around and got beat on quite a bit. Frames have IMO actually gotten better. the KOP frame has a lot better durability to it than the KOP frames from 2004 onward. In fact, I would say it is nearly equivalent to some of the best from the 2007/2008 timeframe.

Deformation comes from energy. and Kinetic energy is KE=1/2*m*V^2. In 2007, most defenders only traveled at about 7 FPS or less. Now, may are hitting 10 FPS with some teams exceeding 12 or 14 fps even. When comparing the two, a 7 FPS robot has 1/2 the kinetic energy of a 10 FPS robot. 12 FPS robot is at 3X a 7 FPS robot. 14 FPS is at 4X the Kinetic energy.

I help kep a lot of teams running during the weekends, and this year, I am seeing a lot of fallout due to wires getting pulled out during high speed impacts. Its a rough game.

For the most part, I agree with the frame comment. The 1x2 aluminum box frames that are popping up all over the place these days are pretty tough. The ball intakes this year aren't that tough.

I also agree with the speed comment. Now that teams with an average budget can just purchase a frame with a three CIM two speed transmission, there's a ton of teams with wicked fast robots.

As for past robots being slow, I don't think you could call 111's 2003 auto slow. Full speed collisions in auto could be dangerous that year, especially with teams using CIMs and drill motors together. I remember being amazed that a team (??) built a robot that went 14 fps, which isn't that far off from some teams this year.

http://youtu.be/vnwl31zoAPI?t=1m4s

[cbale2000]

Originally Posted by IKE

I don't think you fully understand the role velocity plays in hit energy. Yeah, pre-2007 some of the more thuggish teams built tanks and bashed opponents "back in the good old days", but most teams trying to play the games drove around and got beat on quite a bit. Frames have IMO actually gotten better. the KOP frame has a lot better durability to it than the KOP frames from 2004 onward. In fact, I would say it is nearly equivalent to some of the best from the 2007/2008 timeframe.

Deformation comes from energy. and Kinetic energy is KE=1/2*m*V^2. In 2007, most defenders only traveled at about 7 FPS or less. Now, may are hitting 10 FPS with some teams exceeding 12 or 14 fps even. When comparing the two, a 7 FPS robot has 1/2 the kinetic energy of a 10 FPS robot. 12 FPS robot is at 3X a 7 FPS robot. 14 FPS is at 4X the Kinetic energy.

I help kep a lot of teams running during the weekends, and this year, I am seeing a lot of fallout due to wires getting pulled out during high speed impacts. Its a rough game.

I was actually not speaking of the KOP frame, and you're right that it's considerably better than previous years (though I still thought the older ones were fairly durable if assembled right). I just remember when we used to build our robot frames out of ~0.25" aluminum plates because there were no bumpers (granted, this could have just been our team, but we never had a bent frame).

I will admit my experience is limited to 2005 and later, but still, I don't remember seeing nearly as many of THESE problems back in 2006 and 2007, and as I recall there were some pretty speedy robots in those games, maybe they didn't all have 6 motor drives (though ours did in 2006), but there were definitely robots that could get across the field very quickly.

[dtengineering]

I'll say this write up is a factual summary of rules, but strongly disagree with the bias that FIRST does a poor job of rules and penalties.

I missed the "no penalties" era by a year. I started in 2004 with "Raising the Bar" and in our team's very first match we were complete, moronic, rookies with two Bosch drill motors for our drive system, and a floppy scissors lift with floppy appendages that crossed the plane of the goal so many times that we caused our exceptionally talented partners, team 33, to lose the match.

I'll give team 33 some GP credit for taking that one on the chin, but here's the thing: we analyzed what we did wrong... which started back with not actually considering all the rules when we built our robot, and set forth to take responsibility to never have a match deciding penalty called against us, ever again.

It almost worked... I think we did get one a couple years later.

When the rules were announced, we would read the rules and design a robot that could play the game within the rules. We would also plan a strategy to play the game within the rules. We would quiz the drive team on the rules and emphasize the goal to play a clean game.

I know we didn't quite meet our goal of having a perfect record of rule compliance, and I can remember more than one time when I privately disagreed with a referee's call, but never... ever... in all the games that Jim references have I felt that I could have done a better job of writing the rules or making the calls.

Nope, the rules aren't perfect. The refs aren't perfect. But they are a heck of a lot better than I could do, and as part of buying in to FRC, I'm buying in to the rule book, too.

Perhaps my approach comes from playing a variety of sports. Basketball, hockey... none of them have perfect rule books or perfect refs. Just ask the American women's ice hockey team. Or the Canadian women's soccer team. (Do those two, match-deciding, calls in Olympic finals and semi-finals balance each other out?) Compared to other sports FRC is pretty darn good. If you think explaining an FRC game is complex, try explaining football or baseball to someone who has never seen the game before.

So I completely reject the thesis that the rules are "bad". The GDC is made up of some pretty brilliant people who do a fantastic job of coming up with a creative game each and every year. While it is easy to complain about aspects of the game, I'd have to be pretty arrogant to suggest that I could do better... and I'd be the cliche of the armchair quarterback to suggest that I could do a better job of enforcing the rules than the refs do!

Okay... maybe this turned into a bit of a rant. Everyone is welcome to have their opinion on the rules, the refs, and is more than welcome to suggest improvements. And I have no problem with people having "favorite" games, or suggesting that they enjoyed one game more than another (Aim High was my favorite). I'll even agree with the fact that there are many match-deciding penalties. But that happens in sports. Really. It does... and that's okay.

But please take into account that each year, the GDC has to come up with a rule book that will spend the next three months being picked apart by 40,000 of the brightest, most creative minds on the planet. I think they do an outstanding job of it.

Jason

[wilsonmw04]

Originally Posted by dtengineering

I
Okay... maybe this turned into a bit of a rant.

Jason

Jason, I just had a similar rant with my team. Rant on, Brother. Rant on.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to dtengineering again.

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by dtengineering

I'll say this write up is a factual summary of rules, but strongly disagree with the bias that FIRST does a poor job of rules and penalties.

I missed the "no penalties" era by a year. I started in 2004 with "Raising the Bar" and in our team's very first match we were complete, moronic, rookies with two Bosch drill motors for our drive system, and a floppy scissors lift with floppy appendages that crossed the plane of the goal so many times that we caused our exceptionally talented partners, team 33, to lose the match.

I'll give team 33 some GP credit for taking that one on the chin, but here's the thing: we analyzed what we did wrong... which started back with not actually considering all the rules when we built our robot, and set forth to take responsibility to never have a match deciding penalty called against us, ever again.

It almost worked... I think we did get one a couple years later.

When the rules were announced, we would read the rules and design a robot that could play the game within the rules. We would also plan a strategy to play the game within the rules. We would quiz the drive team on the rules and emphasize the goal to play a clean game.

I know we didn't quite meet our goal of having a perfect record of rule compliance, and I can remember more than one time when I privately disagreed with a referee's call, but never... ever... in all the games that Jim references have I felt that I could have done a better job of writing the rules or making the calls.

Nope, the rules aren't perfect. The refs aren't perfect. But they are a heck of a lot better than I could do, and as part of buying in to FRC, I'm buying in to the rule book, too.

Perhaps my approach comes from playing a variety of sports. Basketball, hockey... none of them have perfect rule books or perfect refs. Just ask the American women's ice hockey team. Or the Canadian women's soccer team. (Do those two, match-deciding, calls in Olympic finals and semi-finals balance each other out?) Compared to other sports FRC is pretty darn good. If you think explaining an FRC game is complex, try explaining football or baseball to someone who has never seen the game before.

So I completely reject the thesis that the rules are "bad". The GDC is made up of some pretty brilliant people who do a fantastic job of coming up with a creative game each and every year. While it is easy to complain about aspects of the game, I'd have to be pretty arrogant to suggest that I could do better... and I'd be the cliche of the armchair quarterback to suggest that I could do a better job of enforcing the rules than the refs do!

Okay... maybe this turned into a bit of a rant. Everyone is welcome to have their opinion on the rules, the refs, and is more than welcome to suggest improvements. And I have no problem with people having "favorite" games, or suggesting that they enjoyed one game more than another (Aim High was my favorite). I'll even agree with the fact that there are many match-deciding penalties. But that happens in sports. Really. It does... and that's okay.

But please take into account that each year, the GDC has to come up with a rule book that will spend the next three months being picked apart by 40,000 of the brightest, most creative minds on the planet. I think they do an outstanding job of it.

Jason

Well put Jason and thanks for sticking around and helping with the tear down in Mt Vernon as well as being a Judge.

[billylo]

Originally Posted by dtengineering

\
But please take into account that each year, the GDC has to come up with a rule book that will spend the next three months being picked apart by 40,000 of the brightest, most creative minds on the planet.

I think you hit it right on the nail. No one individual person or group can make a well-balanced and well-received game/scoring/penalty system when you are dealing 40000 bright participants. It's simply impossible to do this year-after-year, in a sustainable fashion.

What if we turn the problem itself around into a solution? Leverage the 40000 brightest minds to help with fine tuning v1 of the game, solicit inputs in different stages in a structured way, and engage them to assist?