2012 Lessons Learned :The Positive

[MechEng83]

I really liked the fact that I could describe this game in very simple terms to a community member not associated with FIRST. "We're making robots to play basketball" while a massive simplification gets the conversation going and opens the door with something intriguing. Logomotion was difficult to make seem fun and interesting to the unitiated: "We pick up inner tubes and hang them on a wall of pegs..." Again, the end-game was easy to figure out: more robots balancing = more points.

Kudos to the GDC for making this a fun, challenging game, with broad based appeal for non-FIRSTers.

PS, I think anyone who wants to post in the negative thread should have to post here first.

[Alan Anderson]

The Championship FRC pit layout was well done. I could quibble with the placement of Pit Administration, but it wasn't a problem.

The response to the call for lots of experienced robot inspectors was fantastic. Among other things, I don't think any teams had to wait to unbag their robots due to a lack of an authorized person to "unlock" the bag.

I actually thought the bumper rules were pretty good. (It's not the manual's fault if teams miss implications like "unless you actually have at least 8 inches of frame on each side of a corner to protect, you won't be in compliance with the rule that bumpers must protect at least 8 inches of frame on each side of a corner.")

The black volunteer shirts were a good choice. They didn't show the accumulated grime of several days of working around robots. (They also didn't show perspiration.)

Retroreflective vision targets and camera ring lights are a very good combination.

[RoboMom]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

The response to the call for lots of experienced robot inspectors was fantastic. Among other things, I don't think any teams had to wait to unbag their robots due to a lack of an authorized person to "unlock" the bag.

A shout out to Big Al, Ed Sparks and all the inspectors at CMP this year. What a great group this was to work with. (I was on the N & G side, but on the C & A last year). The inspectors were full of wisdom, humor and most of all, common sense.

After 2 years, I believe having dedicated people to "manage" the inspectors and process is a valuable addition to keeping the train moving to benefit all the teams.

I am hoping there is a way to sign up for this specific position in the VIMS in the coming season, as to not turn off volunteers who might be good at it. I worked with 2 volunteers who were new to the position, but who were so good at it I wasn't needed and was able to move to another position.

[vhcook]

Originally Posted by RoboMom

After 2 years, I believe having dedicated people to "manage" the inspectors and process is a valuable addition to keeping the train moving to benefit all the teams.

I am hoping there is a way to sign up for this specific position in the VIMS in the coming season, as to not turn off volunteers who might be good at it. I worked with 2 volunteers who were new to the position, but who were so good at it I wasn't needed and was able to move to another position.

Perhaps we could call them "Inspector Wranglers"?

I loved the game this year -- good balance of scoring between the game phases, exciting, easy to explain, wide variety of successful designs, and a generally thrilling endgame.

The KC and OKC regionals were well-run as usual, and MOREnet did their usual awesome job on the KC webcast and archiving.

Having the HOF positioned right up front and center by the pit entrance at Championships was much better.

On the build front, the KOP was lovely this year. I liked the new motor selection and the FIRST Choice options. It took us a bit to figure out how to use the ARA program, but that was also nifty.

[Bob Steele]

Our team had a great experience at CMP this year.
The FINALE, even though it was raining.... was terrific!!
We got to go to the Science Center and the food was really good..I just wish we got there earlier so we could see more!!

I thought the volunteers were also terrific.... whenever we had a question it was answered to the best of the volunteer's ability and they went out of their way to find the right answer.

The field crews were quick and helpful.
We had plenty of room in the pits...

Being on the floor for all of our matches was also very nice.
Last year we only got one day there... this was much better!!

All in all, I think this was our best experience at CMP since our team started to go. We have been lucky enough to qualify for the past six years in a row and this was the best.

I guess the best thing about CMP is getting to know the other teams and we had great fun both on and off the field.

We hope to see you all next year!!!

[rsisk]

Madstream's webcast aggregator was the best.

[dag0620]

You know, if people can just let the field issues, 2012 was really a great year. Some reasons why:

Rebound Rumble was a great game. It's spectator friendly, and fantastic to play. Watching the balances was really an incredible sight. Plus games like Rebound Rumble of Breakaway are always great, cause they make my job of explaining what we do to not FIRSTers a lot easy. People always respond better to our robot plays soccer or basketball then to years when I say it hangs inner tubes or shoots these moon balls. (not slamming those games, just to the public there harder to explain).

I love the faster reveal times on final match scores. Doing everything electronic like that was a fantastic idea, and props go to whoever at HQ pushed that through.

The overall policy of having the Finals hand shake moved from after the first Finals Match to before finals begins is a very welcome one. Props to Blair Hundertmark and whoever else was involved in that change for making it happen.

[Alan Anderson]

Many cheers for the smooth-scrolling ranking displays!

[BJT]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

Many cheers for the smooth-scrolling ranking displays!

Amen to that!!

[Triple B]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

Many cheers for the smooth-scrolling ranking displays!

I will second this, but it should have scrolled from 100th seed to first seed with the 30 second freeze frame containing the top seeded teams, just a thought.
mike d

[gyroscopeRaptor]

Originally Posted by Triple B

I will second this, but it should have scrolled from 100th seed to first seed with the 30 second freeze frame containing the top seeded teams, just a thought.
mike d

Hm, this might make looking at the screen much more exciting!

I will give first a lot of credit for the field test info videos. They are much better laid out than Dean and Woodie's field tour, give facts and figures that teams need (try searching here on CD for tube height from last year), and are easily available online. Do more of them next year! (Maybe we will see part one?)

[kmusa]

Originally Posted by gyroscopeRaptor

Hm, this might make looking at the screen much more exciting!

I will give first a lot of credit for the field test info videos. They are much better laid out than Dean and Woodie's field tour, give facts and figures that teams need (try searching here on CD for tube height from last year), and are easily available online. Do more of them next year! (Maybe we will see part one?)

I agree - the video info clips were great. Though our experience was that the practice field bridges at regionals (didn't have a chance to check at championships) didn't quite behave as the video described - they took slightly less force. And the competition bridges "appeared" to take more. If FIRST is going to go to the effort of documenting expected behavior, there should be some way to confirm that the actual field behavior is consistent.

I can't condone one team mentor check bridge loading early one morning at the DC regional, but a mechanism to confirm that game elements are behaving as documented would be useful.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by kmusa

I agree - the video info clips were great. Though our experience was that the practice field bridges at regionals (didn't have a chance to check at championships) didn't quite behave as the video described - they took slightly less force. And the competition bridges "appeared" to take more. If FIRST is going to go to the effort of documenting expected behavior, there should be some way to confirm that the actual field behavior is consistent.

I said this before but it's worth saying again, because it's bitten us more times than I'd care to admit:

In FIRST, assume all values are nominal.

[jslokovitz]

A big lesson learned; don't trust opposing alliances to hold to their word on the co-op bridge. We strategized in every match to balance and twice the opposing alliance left us on the bridge holding the bag. I think that the co-op points were too valuable in this game; your standings were left-up to the opposing alliance. It’s a great idea, but I think the point system did not safeguard against the possible sabotage. It was a great experience one of the best games played!!!
“We don’t just build robots, we build character!”
Slok
FIRST Team 533

[jslokovitz]

A big lesson learned; don't trust opposing alliances to hold to their word on the co-op bridge. We strategized in every match to balance and twice the opposing alliance left us on the bridge holding the bag. I think that the co-op points were too valuable in this game; your standings were left-up to the opposing alliance. It’s a great idea, but I think the point system did not safeguard against the possible sabotage. It was a great experience one of the best games played!!!
“We don’t just build robots, we build character!”
Slok
FIRST Team 533