FRC Blog - How We’re Doing and FIRST Babies

[wilsonmw04]

Originally Posted by martin417

Shouldn't the fact that there is so much rage this year mean something? In my time participating in FIRST, have never seen so many people that really don't like the game. If everything was truly rainbows and unicorns, there would be a lot fewer dis-satisfied customers.

I think the numbers, no matter how non-scientific they are, say something else. It says there is a vocal minority that does not like the game. Here's what I don't understand about the rage about Frank's data. Everyone seemed to agree that last year's game was a good one (I thought it was inherently boring myself). Frank's data from last year supports the idea that it was a "good" game. Frank pulls out data about this year's game. This data is VERY similar to last year's data. This can't be right. This game is "bad." The data is flawed. How can one set of data be accurate on one hand and another inaccurate if it is the exact same tool that was used to collect that data?

I think folks are upset for another reason, but they are focusing their rage at FIRST, refs, the GDC, "crappy robots that win," "teams that don't read the rules," the RNG. The list goes on and on.

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.

[martin417]

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04

I think the numbers, no matter how non-scientific they are, say something else. It says there is a vocal minority that does not like the game. Here's what I don't understand about the rage about Frank's data. Everyone seemed to agree that last year's game was a good one (I thought it was inherently boring myself). Frank's data from last year supports the idea that it was a "good" game. Frank pulls out data about this year's game. This data is VERY similar to last year's data. This can't be right. This game is "bad." The data is flawed. How can one set of data be accurate on one hand and another inaccurate if it is the exact same tool that was used to collect that data?

I think folks are upset for another reason, but they are focusing their rage at FIRST, refs, the GDC, "crappy robots that win," "teams that don't read the rules," the RNG. The list goes on and on.

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.

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

[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

[wilsonmw04]

Originally Posted by martin417

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

so roughly 1% doesn't like the game. That's roughly 35-40 folks who took the survey. I could totally live with that.

[Akash Rastogi]

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.

Does your best student complain too, or just the regular group of slackers? If so, he/she is probably just mad about something else, right?

The people who fill out these surveys on teams rarely know what the hell is going on on the field. Make it drive coach or refs who are mandated to take the survey and you'll see the difference.

[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...

[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.

[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.

[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...

[wendymom]

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