FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04

This tread sounds like some of my students after they get a test back. These students who have not done well and complain that the test was "a bad" test for various reasons. I would then post the range of test scores. They would not be significantly different than the results of the last test. The students would still insist the test is bad or the teacher didn't teach the material properly.

It's amazing how folks can see data right in front of them and still insist their original opinion is that of the majority when it may not be.

So much rage this year. So much misplaced rage.

There is a really bad trap most people fall into, when presented with data they tend to trust it. This is dangerous.

I'd be willing to bet you I could survey folks and get a drastically different answer. Heck, I could do that with the same folks. Furthermore, I could take the exact data and present it in a manner which paints the opposite picture. My point is, just because there's data doesn't mean that the conclusion being painted is the correct one, merely that it is the one we are meant to be seeing.

And before someone jumps down my throat AGAIN. Everyone has an angle. Even this post is meant to make you think one thing while ignoring the opposite opinion. For example, I've conveniently left out any evidence that Frank is an upstanding individual, instead I focused entirely on discrediting the usage of data (visualization) as a method of determining ground truth. Even this statement is here to make you trust that I DON'T have an angle that I'm trying to sell you on, don't be fooled, I do.

[Nate Laverdure]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Everyone has an angle... Even this statement is here to make you trust that I DON'T have an angle that I'm trying to sell you on, don't be fooled, I do.

Well geez, now I don't know what to think.

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04

Heck someone said they were tired of hearing "it's not about the robot." Folks need to evaluate their priorities. This rage is misplaced and misguided.

Originally Posted by martin417

So as IndySam pointed out, a 400% increase in "very poor" ratings means most people like it?

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

And before someone jumps down my throat AGAIN. Everyone has an angle.

Those who find favor with the game think the data is favorable, and those who choose to make even mroe threads listing the same complaints see a sharp increase of negative results. Everyone has an angle. My angle is that the game is a mixed success because it is supposed to serve 3 masters and in the end only serves one well and the other two have vastly varying results.

[DampRobot]

Just wondering, how does this game compare to, say, Lunacy, in everyone's opinion?

[Nick Lawrence]

Originally Posted by DampRobot

Just wondering, how does this game compare to, say, Lunacy, in everyone's opinion?

Even in Lunacy, you weren't 100% out of luck if your partners couldn't possess game pieces well.

-Nick

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by Nick Lawrence

Even in Lunacy, you weren't 100% out of luck if your partners couldn't possess game pieces well.

-Nick

That's right, because human players scored a lot of the points! I can't count the number of matches in Lunacy where human players outscored robots...

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

That's right, because human players scored a lot of the points! I can't count the number of matches in Lunacy where human players outscored robots...

As opposed to 2004 wherein the only way to score other than hanging was the human player? 2004 that is considered a wonderful game?

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

As opposed to 2004 wherein the only way to score other than hanging was the human player? 2004 that is considered a wonderful game?

I wasn't around in 2004, so I have no opinion on or knowledge of that game...

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

I wasn't around in 2004, so I have no opinion on or knowledge of that game...

Well, allow me to inform you: Human players were the only way the main scoring object could be scored. Not by practicality, by rules. Yet, many folks who were around consider 2004 to be a high point for FRC game design. We had 2 distinct game pieces, we had lots of them so there was no penalty for trying to play the game, there was no chokehold strategy. Matches were exciting up until the last second due to hanging being worth a ton of points but also due to the 2x multiplier ball... It was a great game.

[wendymom]

Everyone should go look at the baby pics….it will make you feel better

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by Nick Lawrence

Even in Lunacy, you weren't 100% out of luck if your partners couldn't possess game pieces well.

-Nick

Yeah, but you were very, very screwed if they couldn't move in auto or were disabled for some reason or another.

[jlmcmchl]

Originally Posted by DampRobot

Just wondering, how does this game compare to, say, Lunacy, in everyone's opinion?

This year's more fun to watch, that's for sure. It's also focused on cooperating as an alliance to score high, rather than human players(who accounted for ~50% of points in lunacy, if I remember correctly). This can be incredibly painful, I know, but it's an interesting game mechanic that made for interesting, exciting strategies this year.

[Tom Bottiglieri]

Originally Posted by DampRobot

Just wondering, how does this game compare to, say, Lunacy, in everyone's opinion?

I think the some of reason that many long time FIRST mentors are pretty unhappy with this game is not due to the nature or general strategy of the game, but rather the implementation.

In 2009 we saw that robots would be traction limited and had to lug around a big heavy goal. It was pretty apparent from the beginning the game would be a snoozefest. Most people accepted this, built the best robot they could, and competed with it. Sure there were some penalties but they weren't game changers and the scoring was straightforward. Like most good games, the score could easily be verified by counting the game pieces in the goal at the end of the match.

This year, we have the opposite situation. On paper, the game looks good. It has tons of potential (Robots working together? To throw and catch giant balls? With a human player in the mix? Sounds AWESOME!). The issues this year have been mostly technical due to an overcomplication of both field hardware and penalty rules. This will leave a bad taste in any engineer's mouth because these issues are totally avoidable. Unlike 2009, the bad parts of the game are not inherently part of the game!

Some of the issues people have been complaining about are seemingly things that can be fixed with no team intervention (for example with a field software patch or rules update).

• Referee tablets freezing, causing pedestal delays
• Hot goals not turning on
• Missed assists/points due to referees having to watch too many things and having a bad interface to record the score.
• Rules which allow an entangled robot to force penalties on to their opponent (Waterloo SF1-3?)

Now, I'm sure our gripes do not fall upon deaf ears. There have been field software updates. There have been rule changes. While I love that the community's concerns are being heard, these updates have not solved the issues. What makes this blog post a bit hard to swallow is it seems like damage control. This is understandable, this is something every company will have to do at some point in time (though in the real world this comes with a replacement or refund).

We don't want to have the blanket pulled over our eyes. We want FIRST to fix the field. I promise we won't hold a grudge. Just fix the field.