How on Earth are spectators meant to easily discern who wins?

[Andy Baker]

Originally Posted by hoag

We corrected ourselves; however, we are afraid of these penalties, they can really hurt your score. While we may dislike the high point penalties, it's part of the game and part of the challenge.

Bingo!

People... this is the point. FIRST is trying to create a game where offensive, task-oriented robots should be able to be somewhat free to what they are designed to do.

If people are complaining that they are getting too many penalties for playing a little defense, one the other side of the field, with a partner as they pin their opponent, then I don't see good reason for that compaint.

A certain level of robot interaction is fun to see... but think about this from a scientific perspective. How is a 10 foot tall robot supposed to have a chance if a 2 foot tall robot is ramming them? These penalties are present to allow the taller, extended teams to control their robot to score points by stacking tetras without getting mauled by a brick on wheels.

Here is the situation: for the first time ever in FIRST, a VERY high percentage of teams have rock solid drive bases. At the same time, we all know that it is difficult to design a good arm to score these silly tetras. So, teams who see their opposition with more scoring ability want to use their drive base to help them win the match.

I bet that 3 separate things are happening tonight:

1. Many drive teams are getting lectured, being told to stop getting penalties

2. Refs at different competitions are comparing notes and trying to get consistent.

3. The Game Design Committee are discussing these issues.

People... chill. It is week 1. Recall week 1 last year when many teams said "no one is capping with the 2x ball"... "only a few teams are hanging". It is early. We will see more clarity from the refs and I hope we see more restraint from the defensive drivers.

Just some thoughts,
Andy B.

[dlavery]

I love it when there is someone that obviously "gets it". People, please read Andy's words again. He has homed in on the right interpretation of the penalties. There are there for a reason. They are behavior modifiers that are intended to have an effect. If a team is modifying their style of play based on a concern about accumulating too many penalties, then the simple existence of the penalties is fulfilling the intended purpose.

The message is simple: STAY AWAY FROM THE LOADING ZONES WHEN AN OPPONENT IS RETRIEVING A TETRA! Lots of tetras should be coming out onto the field. The way to beat an opponent that is scoring tetras is to retrieve and score more than they do, not by wrestling over access to their loading zone.

-dave

(I also hate it when I keep seeing this message: "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Andy Baker again.")

[Madison]

Originally Posted by dlavery

I love it when there is someone that obviously "gets it". People, please read Andy's words again. He has homed in on the right interpretation of the penalties. There are there for a reason. They are behavior modifiers that are intended to have an effect. If a team is modifying their style of play based on a concern about accumulating too many penalties, then the simple existence of the penalties is fulfilling the intended purpose.

Undoubtedly, teams everywhere will learn from the first day's events and make adjustments so that tomorrow and in future events, they are less likely to incur penalties.

I understand that things get better with time, but not all teams have the benefit of attending several events so they may have the opportunity to learn and improve. Furthermore, it seems to me that a spectator off the street isn't going to stick around watching things evolve for the next five weeks. They're not going to see teams learn to be better at avoiding penalties because, for the most part, they don't understand why the penalties were assessed in the first place and did not see anything obviously out of the ordinary during the match.

Again, I see how the penalties can be successfully used to influence behavior on the field -- but I wonder if there are better methods of play balancing that are more spectator friendly.

[Wayne Doenges]

I too have to agree with Andy (you can pay me later )
When I was in the Air Force Reserves we would what they call ORI's (Operational Readiness Inspections). People would complain about the rules and the inspectors. My philosophy was that it was just a game with rules and if you played by the rules you could get through it.
If the penalty is 30 points for hitting a robot in the loading zone than STAY AWAY from the bot in the loading zone. Period!!!
Just my $.02. Take it with a grain of salt. Don't you just hate cliches

Wayne Doenges
Lemmings non sumus

[Kyle]

Originally Posted by M. Krass

I understand that things get better with time, but not all teams have the benefit of attending several events so they may have the opportunity to learn and improve. Furthermore, it seems to me that a spectator off the street isn't going to stick around watching things evolve for the next five weeks. They're not going to see teams learn to be better at avoiding penalties because, for the most part, they don't understand why the penalties were assessed in the first place and did not see anything obviously out of the ordinary during the match.

Again, I see how the penalties can be successfully used to influence behavior on the field -- but I wonder if there are better methods of play balancing that are more spectator friendly.

I think that FIRST has taken a step back wards on having a spectator/TV friendly game this year, I had a very hard time figuring out who won each match because of the possibility of penalties and such.
I do think that 30 points is a bit much in some cases but they are there to keep people safe, With out the rules this would be battle bots, not FIRST.
I hope everyone has a safe and fun events in the up coming events.

[Kevin Sevcik]

I'll toss another 2 cents into the jar here..

I think it's obvious that the penalties are for behavior modification. I think it's also obvious that they're working because they're so high and damaging that getting a single penalty means your round is pretty much over. No one can risk getting one or even being anywhere near where your could get one. Forget capping the opposing team's goals because you're on their side of the field and an errant twitch of the joystick might make you graze their robot and lose the match.

But I digress. I think the real question at this point is if this kind of behavior modification is what we want and what's in the best interest of FIRST.

The obvious slant is towards an all-offensive game with little or no defense. I submit that we've already seen the results of an all offensive game with Diabolical Dynamics in 2001. Yes, it was slightly different, but a purely offensive game is essentially DD being run on two fields that happen to occupy the same area of the arena. I personally don't think this is as exciting for the reasons stated by many others above. Defense is interesting and exciting. Seeing robots perform choreographed acts of scoring isn't so exciting. I think the general public understands this as well. We will almost always have the problem of spectators no being able to quickly determine how scoring works and who wins a match. By letting defense back into the game you give them something to watch and cheer about while they're figuring out what's going on. If John Q. doesn't understand the significance of the tetra Wildstang is about to cap, winning them 2 rows at the last second, he can atleast understand that they're trying to put it on and Swampthing is trying valiantly to keep them from doing so.

Defense gives poeple a fundamental way of understanding a game. We're competitive creatures by nature, and we understand two robots striving against each other on a rather basic level. I'm not sure why strong, fair defense is a thing to be avoided.

[Dave Flowerday]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

The obvious slant is towards an all-offensive game with little or no defense.

I disagree. If that is what FIRST wanted they could make a 30 point penalty for making any contact at all with an opposing robot. They haven't done anything like that. Dave Lavery already pointed out the purpose of this rule - FIRST wants tetras on the field and being scored. Your scenario of Swampthing trying to stop Wildstang from scoring doesn't work if Swampthing and partners are permitted to prevent Wildstang and partners from ever getting ahold of a tetra in the first place. I'd be surprised if anyone argued that a game in which defensive robots could completely prevent scoring of any kind would be fun to watch.

[Kevin Sevcik]

I'll agree that that's a flaw with allowing more defense this year. I think it's an obvious flaw in the game design this year, since there's just 4 small places on the field you can possibly get items to score with. I'm not sure assigning whopping penalties in these areas is an appropriate fix. It seems akin to fixing mechanical problems in software.

[Petey]

Originally Posted by dlavery

I love it when there is someone that obviously "gets it". People, please read Andy's words again. He has homed in on the right interpretation of the penalties. There are there for a reason. They are behavior modifiers that are intended to have an effect. If a team is modifying their style of play based on a concern about accumulating too many penalties, then the simple existence of the penalties is fulfilling the intended purpose.

The message is simple: STAY AWAY FROM THE LOADING ZONES WHEN AN OPPONENT IS RETRIEVING A TETRA! Lots of tetras should be coming out onto the field. The way to beat an opponent that is scoring tetras is to retrieve and score more than they do, not by wrestling over access to their loading zone.

-dave

(I also hate it when I keep seeing this message: "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Andy Baker again.")

The problem I saw, Dave, is that there were too many penalties being given for seemingly nonsensical reasons.

For instance, in one match our team was involved in, (this isn't as much of a penalty as it is a strange rule) Team 88 was retreating back to their end zone as time ran out. As the buzzer rang, their robot finished rolling with its arm barely touching the lowest tetra on the central back row. This discounted not only that tetra and all above it, but (if I remember correctly), two tic-tac-toes. They were in no way supporting it--just touching it!

I understand the loading zone penalties--the safety behind it--but some of them are a bit strong to. In another match, our robot was disabled for the entirety of the match because the referee on that side believed that our human player had touched the robot. Video evidence showed that it was not the case. In any case, the suspicion of the judge on a seemingly minor infraction was enough to disable a robot for an entire match.

Quite a few matches ended with robots scoring 0 points on the weight of penalties alone. When it takes a fairly spectacular alliance to score 40+, and each penalty has a weight of 20 or more, the scores go down quickly.

I've no bones to pick--I'm happy, because our robot finished 15th overall and we made it into the finals. There were some truly spectacular robots, and I will admit that some teams were more productive than I thought possible. But for future reference, I would suggest that, when a game is played with such low scoring objects, that the penalties awarded should neither be so great in relative magnitude nor so seemingly superfluous.

The fact is, it is difficult for teams to modify their style of play when the most basic requirements of successful play often result in such serious penalties.

--Petey

[Petey]

In response to several people who have commented on the apparent loss of defense in this game--

Hardly. It just requires a more ingenious approach to defensive strategizing. To be successful, robots must aggressively defend not the stacking of tetras, but the completion of tic-tac-toes. Sure, robots occasionally had success blocking tetras, but the greater success comes with the tic tac toes.

Example:

Team A has their "home row" full, as does Team B. The center goal belongs to Team A.

Assuming one tetra on the top of each, the score is now
A: 22 (4 tetras at 3 points apiece, one 10 point row)
B: 19 (3 tetras at 3 points apiece, one 10 point row)

Far to close for comfort. However, if A can simply stack on one of the corner goals of B, it is a 23 point swing, because you have scored 10 points for yourself with a new tic tac toe, denied B 10 points because you have destroyed their tic tac toe, and scored three points with your placed tetra.

The big points in this game cannot be scored by robots that blindly stack a ton of tetras. To enjoy consistent success, robots must choose where to stack carefully, and stack only where it will be most advantageous to them.

--Petey

[Alex Pelan]

I agree -there does need to be penalty reform. In the majority of qualifiers, a penalty means a loss for an alliance. I think that the 30 point loading penalties are too severe in comparison to the amount of scoring that is going on.I see the reasons for these rules, and that is protect the humans involved in loading tetras either on the robot itself or into the loading zone. At the same time, a lot of these penalties happen by accident, or with no malicious harm meant.

An example of this is today at BAE, Buzz fell over, and while righting themselves, touched a robot in the loading zone. There was not even an attempt to block here, nor did Buzz pose any threat to the human, as their arm was a couple of inches off the ground.

Perhaps penalties should be more like the criminal justice system in the US (minus the bureaucracy). First time offenders can get off with a warning or small penalty, depending on the nature of the incident, while second time offenders get a larger penalty. Third time offenders get disabled. Just bouncing some ideas off here, and they probably won't be necessary as teams learn about these penalties quickly...it's just that so many of these calls are close.

[Bduggan04]

Originally Posted by Petey

For instance, in one match our team was involved in, Team 88 was retreating back to their end zone as time ran out. As the buzzer rang, their robot finished rolling with its arm barely touching the lowest tetra on the central back row. This discounted not only that tetra and all above it, but (if I remember correctly), two tic-tac-toes. They were in no way supporting it--just touching it!

...The fact is, it is difficult for teams to modify their style of play when the most basic requirements of successful play often result in such serious penalties.

--Petey

Touching the tetras isn't a penalty, instead it violate the basic definition of a scored tetra. The situation you describe sounds like dumb luck, not an excessive penalty.

My other observation is that none of the penalties must be violated to accomplish any part of the game as you implied. They are all easily avoidable with skilled drivers and decent strategies. If this means a shift to an all offense game as some have implied, penalties will become less significant because the scores will certainly increase. I don't see this shift in game play. All offense suggests that teams will have the full time period to score freely, and this was not the case in nearly every match.

The only result that can come from penalties is better drivers and robots from good teams, and low scores from reckless teams. They will separate the teams with the most finesse from the rest of teams. The increase in scores in the regionals to come (there always is an increase) will render penalties less decisive than they are now.

Another thought that comes to mind is that if you know a team has received a massive penalty, let them score. There's no need to cap on their goals if you know you have a 30 point advantage over them.

[Joe Matt]

Originally Posted by Andy Baker

Bingo!

People... this is the point. FIRST is trying to create a game where offensive, task-oriented robots should be able to be somewhat free to what they are designed to do.

If people are complaining that they are getting too many penalties for playing a little defense, one the other side of the field, with a partner as they pin their opponent, then I don't see good reason for that compaint.

A certain level of robot interaction is fun to see... but think about this from a scientific perspective. How is a 10 foot tall robot supposed to have a chance if a 2 foot tall robot is ramming them? These penalties are present to allow the taller, extended teams to control their robot to score points by stacking tetras without getting mauled by a brick on wheels.

Here is the situation: for the first time ever in FIRST, a VERY high percentage of teams have rock solid drive bases. At the same time, we all know that it is difficult to design a good arm to score these silly tetras. So, teams who see their opposition with more scoring ability want to use their drive base to help them win the match.

I bet that 3 separate things are happening tonight:

1. Many drive teams are getting lectured, being told to stop getting penalties

2. Refs at different competitions are comparing notes and trying to get consistent.

3. The Game Design Committee are discussing these issues.

People... chill. It is week 1. Recall week 1 last year when many teams said "no one is capping with the 2x ball"... "only a few teams are hanging". It is early. We will see more clarity from the refs and I hope we see more restraint from the defensive drivers.

Just some thoughts,
Andy B.

That's the irony at VCU Andy, I saw many un-gracious teams do very bad things to robots, and not get penalized, yet other teams who just tap a robot get 30 points taken off. I understand that a team who threatens the safety of another team member should get a huge penalty, but this has not happened as many times as huge penalties have been given out.

[Petey]

Originally Posted by Bduggan04

Touching the tetras isn't a penalty, instead it violate the basic definition of a scored tetra. The situation you describe sounds like dumb luck, not an excessive penalty.

You're right. I've edited my post. It wasn't a penalty, but it was a situation in which a nonsensical rule was in place.

My other observation is that none of the penalties must be violated to accomplish any part of the game as you implied. They are all easily avoidable with skilled drivers and decent strategies. If this means a shift to an all offense game as some have implied, penalties will become less significant because the scores will certainly increase. I don't see this shift in gameplay. All offense suggests that teams will have the full time period to score freely, and this was not the case in nearly every match.

Scores do not increase. I would venture a guess that the average score would be somewhere between 25 and 35 points. Highest I saw was 79 to something--lowest I saw was 3 to 0.

The only result that can come from penalties is better drivers and robots from good teams and low scores from reckless teams. They will separate the teams with the most finese from the rest of teams. The increase in scores in the reginals to come (there always is an increase) will render penalties less decisive than they are now.

I don't agree with your assessment, because it assumes that A) the penalties will be assessed judiciously and B) all the penalties described in the manual are fair and meaningful. I'm not sure if either A nor B is true.

Another thought that comes to mind is that if you know a team has recieved a massive penalty, let them score. There's no need to cap on their goals if you know you have a 30 point advantage over them.

But you don't know, because the assessment of penalties is so arbitrary, there are different weights to each penalty, it's impossible to see the penalty flags from the drivers station, and, overall, your point doesn't make sense because you could be assessed with a similar penalty and that would bring your score down. So that's not valid at all.

Originally Posted by JosephM

That's the irony at VCU Andy, I saw many un-gracious teams do very bad things to robots, and not get penalized, yet other teams who just tap a robot get 30 points taken off. I understand that a team who threatens the safety of another team member should get a huge penalty, but this has not happened as many times as huge penalties have been given out.

Agreed.

--Petey

[Bduggan04]

I don't agree with your assessment, because it assumes that A) the penalties will be assessed judiciously and B) all the penalties described in the manual are fair and meaningful. I'm not sure if either A nor B is true.
--Petey[/quote]

Both are variables out of your control. Until that fact changes the best solution is to accept it and deal with it.

My assumptions are based on the fact that in years past, both the judges/referees and the teams improved at their jobs. Not assuming that the same would be true this year would suggest that one of the parties is incapable of learning from mistakes and self improvement. I know of no teams or judges that fit this description.