Limitations too far?

[HUNT397]

Looking at this year's game rules, when is FIRST going to give us detailed robot assembly instructions? It appears that FIRST is limiting on our creativity way too much, challenges are one thing but where is the line? Never before have we had so many restrictions on our robot such as wheels, playing size, trailer attachment, and now after wasted precious hours no descoring or blocking trailer. Can the FIRST GDC come up with an interesting challenge in the future without destroying competitiveness and creativity.

Chris Hunt

[Petey]

Originally Posted by HUNT397

Looking at this year's game rules, when is FIRST going to give us detailed robot assembly instructions? It appears that FIRST is limiting on our creativity way too much, challenges are one thing but where is the line? Never before have we had so many restrictions on our robot such as wheels, playing size, trailer attachment, and now after wasted precious hours no descoring or blocking trailer. Can the FIRST GDC come up with an interesting challenge in the future without destroying competitiveness and creativity.

Chris Hunt

I agree, I feel that this game is far too limiting. Some limits (like not being able to extend outside the footprint) force you to think outside the box. Other limits (like limiting you to the vertical plane of your bumper perimeter) crush the box entirely.

[Matt C]

I'm sure you will be very surprised at the variety of mechanisms that appear at the competitions.

Also, the original rules pretty much discarded the idea of descoring/blocking the goal when interptreted as a whole instead of rule by rule, the update merely called it out specifically.

[Laaba 80]

They want to see something different from the usual robots. Also, remember they have to try and make this fair for all teams, and restrictions are the way to do that.

They also want to encourage creative thinking. Honsetly how hard is it to think that you could cover up your own goal? Thats not creative at all.
Joey

[HUNT397]

Originally Posted by Matt C

I'm sure you will be very surprised at the variety of mechanisms that appear at the competitions.

Also, the original rules pretty much discarded the idea of descoring/blocking the goal when interptreted as a whole instead of rule by rule.

Not really MATT the rules started out being that you could not extend outside your box. The rules did not say that you could not incorporate something that would reach inside the goal to remove balls as long as it is inside your box.

[Matt C]

Originally Posted by Petey

Other limits (like limiting you to the vertical plane of your bumper perimeter) crush the box entirely.

Crushing the box makes it much easier to think outside the box.
Since it's kinda hard to think inside of something that no longer has an inside?

Not really MATT the rules started out being that you could not extend outside your box. The rules did not say that you could not incorporate something that would reach inside the goal to remove balls as long as it is inside your box.

As originally written and intended, rule <R08> did restrict any sort of mechanism.

[HUNT397]

Originally Posted by Laaba 80

They want to see something different from the usual robots. Also, remember they have to try and make this fair for all teams, and restrictions are the way to do that.

They also want to encourage creative thinking. Honsetly how hard is it to think that you could cover up your own goal? Thats not creative at all.
Joey

But being inside of the box makes you sacrafice other options of scoring, while covering, or using the trailer behind you as a hopper and removing balls from it.

[Laaba 80]

Originally Posted by HUNT397

But being inside of the box makes you sacrafice other options of scoring, while covering, or using the trailer behind you as a hopper and removing balls from it.

I didnt mean it would be easy to design. I was talking from a strategy standpoint.

[dtengineering]

Originally Posted by HUNT397

Looking at this year's game rules, when is FIRST going to give us detailed robot assembly instructions? It appears that FIRST is limiting on our creativity way too much, challenges are one thing but where is the line? Never before have we had so many restrictions on our robot such as wheels, playing size, trailer attachment, and now after wasted precious hours no descoring or blocking trailer. Can the FIRST GDC come up with an interesting challenge in the future without destroying competitiveness and creativity.

Chris Hunt

Well, I'm glad to see someone has figured out exactly how to build the perfect robot for this game!

Rather than seeing the restrictions on the robot as destroying creativity, I see them as requiring creativity to gain a competitive advantage within a specific set of parameters.

Specifically I see this year as having the most creative drive trains ever... given that over the past 15 years pretty much everything that can be done on carpet has been done already. This year EVERY drive train will be different from previous years.

I also appreciate the way that this challenge accounts for the extra weight of the new control system by allowing for a lighter drive train (no advantage from extra torque) and places an emphasis on developing software for the new control system. Not all creativity is visible or mechanical!

Jason

[GregW11]

It just got worse: Nothing can extend outside of the bumper perimeter at all.

Seems like now we're relying on skill of the drivers and accuracy of the people shooting the balls, and that's it. (or are they teaching us to find every loophole possible?)

[Petey]

Originally Posted by Laaba 80

They also want to encourage creative thinking. Honsetly how hard is it to think that you could cover up your own goal? Thats not creative at all.
Joey

It was actually very difficult (and required creative chassis) given the footprint restrictions.

Originally Posted by Matt C

As originally written and intended, rule <R08> did restrict any sort of mechanism.

No it didn't.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by GregW11

It just got worse: Nothing can extend outside of the bumper perimeter at all.

Seems like now we're relying on skill of the drivers and accuracy of the people shooting the balls, and that's it. (or are they teaching us to find every loophole possible?)

It's not 'finding every loophole possible', it's applying proper engineering to the problem and gaining advantage from the design.

From my perspective, with all the design requirements, "It's just another challange".

Oh, and by taking teams out of their comfort zone ... Kudos to the GDC.

[waialua359]

Someone posted how this year's game has evened the playing field.
I totally disagree.
I think the very capable teams will be able to meet the much more restricted rules and still build whatever they want and incorporate much more programming creativity to have their robots function how they want.

If anything, I felt that the '07 (ramp bots) and '08 (speedsters) had a much greater chance if they couldn't build a robot for the main objective.

Sure, there are human players scoring, but so does everyone else. There's a tall, talented "basketball" player that can be found on every team, I'm sure.

[nuggetsyl]

I have to agree there are far to many limitations on this year robots. To many aspects of this years robot have been decided for teams instead of challenging them to come up with creative solutions to solve the problem. I hope i am wrong but i think this year we will see the same generic robot for 90% of the teams.

[Alexa Stott]

Originally Posted by Laaba 80

They want to see something different from the usual robots. Also, remember they have to try and make this fair for all teams, and restrictions are the way to do that.

Does a start-up company looking to design the next mobile media player have the same knowledge/experience/advantages as, say, Apple? No. Apple has worked for many years designing new things and working to perfect their methods.

It's similar in FIRST. As a senior programmer on my team, I have worked for the past 4 years to learn the best way to code certain functions on the robot. I have learned how to work with sensors, etc. The same goes for the members of our build team. They have worked over many years to try and build "the perfect drive train."

Now, they want to punish people like us who have worked through mistakes to make their robot better? Teams are good because they have experienced downfalls and failures; it's a part of the game. Nobody expects you to pick up the KOP as a rookie and build 1114 or 254-quality robots. Those teams have worked very hard to build their programs. Isn't the idea behind FIRST to inspire students to pursue careers in science and technology? To give them real-world experiences in those fields? A company is most certainly not going to start restricting their older employees just to let you, "the new guy," have an advantage.

Basically, it can all be summed up in the worn adage: Life isn't fair.