Petition: Lower technical foul values to make this game better

[xXhunter47Xx]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

This alone is horrible logic. Let's spite teams for over a month of regionals and championships just so people that have already played don't feel bad? If it's broke, fix it.

It's broke, by the way. No doubt about that.

Okay, I'll give you that.
But there's been 6 weeks to know the rules. Maybe the HP got into the heat of the moment and tossed the ball in without paying attention. TF for whatever alliance he's on. He should already know that it was a TF.

A better suggestion.
Give a little more leeway in tech fouls, or at least the G40 one. There are a lot more technical fouls that do deserve a 50 point penalty.
Let's say you lowered it to 20 points.
Red alliance has 2 robots that can throw and 1 can catch and hit one pointer.
Red alliance accidentally commits a G12 against Blue alliance.
20 point penalty to Red.
Red goes for truss shot, the second red bot catches and goes for high goal and makes it, all in an amount of time for it to not be considered an extended amount of possession.
30 points, already made up for the Tech foul and got 10 points to spare.

Now lets keep it the way it is, at 50 points.
Now Red is still behind 20 points.

For G40 infractions, give it just a little bit more leeway. But for other tech fouls (like in the example) I'd say keep it the way it is.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by xXhunter47Xx

Okay, I'll give you that.
But there's been 6 weeks to know the rules. Maybe the HP got into the heat of the moment and tossed the ball in without paying attention. TF for whatever alliance he's on. He should already know that it was a TF.

This isn't teams being stupid (always) - these are hard to avoid, incidental infractions that do not affect the game at all. Teams have gotten G40s for catching a ball thrown at them by field reset with just a bit too much force. Teams get tournament ending technicals for a ball bouncing in their robot, returned to the floor faster than an out of bounds ball would have.

For G40 infractions, give it just a little bit more leeway. But for other tech fouls (like in the example) I'd say keep it the way it is.

Your example really, really trivialized how easy it is to score quickly. If teams racked up 30 points that fast frequently, this wouldn't even be a problem.

[FrankJ]

Originally Posted by inquiryteacher

Definitely Yes.


The same teams who were cleverly included this year are also the most at risk. The simple apparatus necessary to compete often lack the sophistication to quickly be moved out of harms way. Asking for students to design a bot with allowances for a 20 inch overhang, and then repeatedly dinging them for contact within the perimeter of another bot is a design flaw in the contest. This type of contact should have been expected without the addition of any safe zones and bots should be designed sturdily, to withstand the rigors of the contest.

While there naturally should be some sort of penalty associated, We will likely see teams exploiting this flaw to gain foul points as the weeks go by, as I believe I have already witnessed a few times. It will decide contests and it is simply to easy for them not to.

This was addressed in Team Update 2014-3-04

G28

Initiating deliberate or damaging contact with an opponent ROBOT on or inside the vertical extension of its FRAME PERIMETER is not allowed.

Violation: TECHNICAL FOUL

High speed accidental collisions may occur during the MATCH and are expected. ROBOTS extend elements outside of the FRAME PERIMETER at their own risk; no penalties will be assigned for contact between two such extended elements.

A ROBOT with an element outside its FRAME PERIMETER may be penalized under this rule if it appears they are using that element to purposefully contact another ROBOT inside its FRAME PERIMETER. Regardless of intent, a ROBOT with an element outside its FRAME PERIMETER that causes damage to another ROBOT inside of its FRAME PERIMETER will be penalized, unless the actions of the damaged ROBOT are the catalyst for the damage.

[Keiko]

I think this was very intentional.

I don't see FIRST changing the values either.

This is a game that may not allow powerhouse teams to win every match they play. It's all dependant on their alliance partners. That's why this year the middle to low seeds have been making it farther in the eliminations in comparison to other years. It's also a year where its not so common for the first seed to pick the second seed.

You could argue that loosing due to penalties is discouraging to many teams. But what about the teams on the other side? The ones that are winning?

There are events where the same team always dominates. The creation of the wildcard is proof of that. For teams that may only get to compete in one regional per season, it can be very discouraging to loose year after year. That's discouraging for the students, and ultimately for many of them, to STEM. Winning a regional can make a huge difference for a team. It can kickstart a mediocre team to strive for excellence in future years. If this game is giving a chance for more teams to win, I would say thats a big plus.

On the other hand, teams that have already reached their peak, and are among some of the best, could find very discouraging to loose after all the work and time spent perfecting a robot to play a game which many think is flawed.

It looks to me like this game is giving more teams a chance to win. In a way, this game is levelling out the playing field. Walking into a regional in the past, you may have a good idea who's going to win. This year is the opposite. Its anyones game.

This is a game where your only as strong as your weakest link, unlike other games. It's different, and I believe that it was in the GDC's intentions to have it played this way.

[nlknauss]

I also disagree with the idea of changing the values of penalties. It would be unfair to the teams who've completed their competition season already and would probably change game play strategy. All rules having to do with human safety are good for me too. Our students can get seriously injured in a game like this and should think about their interactions with the field and the robots.

The penalty for possessing or controlling an opponent's ball to me is much like pass interference in football. The opportunity for a clean catch and possession by a robot must be allowed in order for this game to be played the way it was designed. If there was only one ball for both alliances to possess, I would understand the concern.

[sircedric4]

Originally Posted by Keiko

You could argue that loosing due to penalties is discouraging to many teams. But what about the teams on the other side? The ones that are winning?

There are events where the same team always dominates. The creation of the wildcard is proof of that. For teams that may only get to compete in one regional per season, it can be very discouraging to loose year after year. That's discouraging for the students, and ultimately for many of them, to STEM. Winning a regional can make a huge difference for a team. It can kickstart a mediocre team to strive for excellence in future years. If this game is giving a chance for more teams to win, I would say thats a big plus.

I dont want to follow this line of thought to its ultimate conclusion which is if you have nebulous enough penalties and make them harsh enough and allow no recourse, replay, or protest then you can simply have the referees choose who win. Yay!

This game already is developing that particular appearance and reputation but I find it extremely hard to believe that was FIRST's intention. I hope they will continue to listen to those in the trenches playing the games and improve the rules to have a equitable, consistent and ultimately safe and fun game. I personally feel they have a ways to go yet.

[Keiko]

Originally Posted by sircedric4

if you have nebulous enough penalties and make them harsh enough and allow no recourse, replay, or protest then you can simply have the referees choose who win. Yay!

If the penalties are called correctly, then refs aren't the ones choosing who wins, its the drivers and/or designers.

If we're talking about penalties that aren't being called properly, well thats different.

I attended both a week one and week two event and there was much improvement on penalties being called. I would hope that by week four or five, most penalties will be called correctly.