Team Update #18

[KathieK]

Well, I'm not taking sides on the Update issue but I applaud the "thinking outside the box" strategy. Creativity and thinking outside the box are skills that are still valued by some companies, aren't they?

[The Lucas]

Originally Posted by Cory

2002 all over again...

at least this time it's not as big a deal as it was before.

Are you comparing this to the infamous "tape measure rule"?

It definitely fits the mold of FIRST reversing a ruling after seeing it play out in the game. Lets add it to the list.

EDIT: I don't think it is nearly as big a deal as the tape measures (allowing a expressly prohibited item mid season). There was no rule against it initially and the Q&A stated that. Now there is a rule against it. If you think about it, that happens with many rule changes/clarifications, just not usually this direct and high profile since this strategy was recently used for the first time. Nothing really to get upset about. It wasn't a major strategy (and shouldn't be since we build robots, not stacking boxes). It was just one you could occasionally pull out of your bag of tricks when circumstances dictate (if you and your partners can't fix their bot in time).

[Tristan Lall]

The sad part is, 30 points wins most matches. (Consider the Great Lakes Regional: the mean losers' score was 11.3, and the median was 5.) And the incentive created by this fact could prompt teams to stack their robots; teams would be weighing the obvious advantages of sitting around and doing nothing, versus being the cause of the obviously boring match that would result. Strangely enough, if teams had consistently good ramps, and drivetrains consistently capable of climbing these ramps, everybody would be getting these points, and still keeping the other 2:00 of the match relatively interesting.

If I were to guess, that's the problem that the GDC has with it. He who perches his robot precariously upon something ought to be well aware of the risks of that strategy (note that there was previously no rule against interlocking robots—big zip ties might have been a very useful thing, were it not for the update). But autonomous mode is generally tragic to watch; if something moves, the crowd cheers. The prospect of whole matches like that probably isn't quite what FIRST bargained for, when they pitched the competition to their sponsors. It sounds to me like FIRST wanted to guarantee that there would be substantial robot activity during every match, rather than making a substantial number of matches into 1 vs. 1 competition, with a stationary tower at either end.

I have to say, though; it's better than the tape measure rule. At least they issued an update this time. (I am aware that that was five years ago, and I am mostly over it.)

[Arefin Bari]

I don't look at the rule as anti-veteran or anti-rookie. We never had a game in the past where one robot had to climb on top of another, hence as always the rule stated that the robot must start behind the line in the homezone (not pointing out how exactly it should start). The GDC most likely assumed that we already know that we are going to start behind the line in the beginning of the match (and not on top of each other). One thing they have missed was the fact that we have a Raul in FIRST who comes up with a crazy strategy to win a match with two robots that isn't capable of moving. No one has used this strategy (to my knowledge) in the past. Maybe, the GDC didn't think that it will ever happen, but it did. Next thing you know, we get a rule update.

Rules are rules. Let's play by them. It's given that not all of us will be happy with the same thing since we all think very differently. Please scroll up and read all the posts in this thread and you will realize how different everyone thinks. Some are okay with the rule, some aren't, some don't care. I can go on and on about what happened at the Florida regional but that is not going to get me anywhere. What counts the most is the kids worked together for 6 straight weeks, came up with a beautiful machine, went out there on the field and had fun.

... thats my opinion.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by Arefin Bari

Maybe, the GDC didn't think that it will ever happen

To everybody who keeps insisting this, please stop spreading misinformation. The GDC very clearly considered this as a possibility on January 14th, and saw no fault in it.

For those who missed it, here's the link again (thanks Richard):
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=1280

Originally Posted by Arefin Bari

Rules are rules. Let's play by them.

Agreed. Let's pick one set of rules at kickoff, fix them in the first week of build, and then play by them. Let's not play by different rules every single week.

[Steve W]

As I have said many times, " make the rules before kickoff and DON'T change them for that season". First is the only place I know (except if I make the rules) that the rules change as you go along. This has got to stop.

I would also like to know from the "unsafe" crowd, how placing a robot on top of another is 1: unsafe and 2: who is going to get hurt? If you are worried about the robots look at the number of robots that have over shot the top of the robot or fallen from the sides of the ramp.

BTW there was an instance in Detroit were 1 team wanted to stack on another and the Ref said no.

[KTorak]

I seem to remember the Anti HOT Team flop bot rule imposed on 2006....maybe this is another trend to make it harder for veteran teams?

[ChuckDickerson]

Originally Posted by KTorak

I seem to remember the Anti HOT Team flop bot rule imposed on 2006....maybe this is another trend to make it harder for veteran teams?

I actually see this as more of an anti-rookie team rule if anything. I would bet that the chances are higher that 2 rookie teams on an alliance are non-fuctional than 2 veteran teams. After all, this year FIRST is making it as difficult as possible for two veteran teams to even be on the same alliance during qualification matches where this is more than likely going to happen. If you are in an elimination match and have a non-functioning partner you are probably going to call for a replacement bot.

[d.courtney]

After seeing the brilliance of Wildstang, et al, in this strategy, we considered this if we had a non functional robot on our alliance during eliminations, as to give them more time to fix it between matches before just automatically pulling up a replacement bot. We thought that since something was seen in that robot, mid as well make it score points and buy time for them to solve the problem.

I do understand the safety concern, but if the rule was that they had to be e-stopped, it would be better then this outcome.

I really believe this has been a blunderous year for FIRST (then again who doesn't), yes they went a few steps forward as far as scoring system and other parts, but went twice as many back with random seeding, banebots, Update 16, batteries (it seems people have forgotten about this due to everything else, and rightly so), and now this. I hope this streak can turn around now for FIRST (or at least end).

David

[ChuckDickerson]

Why is it inherently unsafe? Shouldn’t it be a decision between the three teams of the alliance if they think they can pull it off safely not someone in NH that isn’t even there? If the refs feel that a robot is precariously placed or otherwise unsafe before a match begins then they should call the team(s) out to fix it whether they are stacked or not. I fail to see why this is a safety issue at all. Again, this year FIRST is forcing a veteran team on each alliance so they should be able lead the younger teams as to whether a stack is a good idea or not. The reason this is such a brilliant play is that there is HUGE risk involved and weighing whether it is a safe play or not is part of the game. If the scheduling algorithm was like in the past and you had 3 rookie teams on an alliance unsafely trying to pull of a stack without any one telling them that it is a bad idea then I might understand but that is and impossibility this year and the refs are always there as a backup plan anyway to keep us all safe with the big red buttons.

[Dan Petrovic]

Originally Posted by KTorak

I seem to remember the Anti HOT Team flop bot rule imposed on 2006....maybe this is another trend to make it harder for veteran teams?

How about limiting one regional win a year? That would really suck.

Seriously. I agree with the new rule. I didn't like the idea of starting the match with a robot on top of another to get 30 points.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by InfernoX14

Seriously. I agree with the new rule. I didn't like the idea of starting the match with a robot on top of another to get 30 points.

It's got nothing to do with whether or not you agree with the substance of the rule.

The issue here is that for the second time in two weeks, FIRST says one thing, and then turns around and says something else, when the time for rule changes is long past.

[Tim Delles]

Originally Posted by Cory

It's got nothing to do with whether or not you agree with the substance of the rule.

The issue here is that for the second time in two weeks, FIRST says one thing, and then turns around and says something else, when the time for rule changes is long past.

For everyone who keeps debating whether or not this should be done. Cory simply answers it all with this.

The issue here is not if it is right or wrong, the issue is that the GDC needs to give us rules that are solid throughout the 5 weeks of competition.

[Danny Diaz]

Originally Posted by InfernoX14

How about limiting one regional win a year? That would really suck.

I disagree. They do this for FIRST LEGO League - if you attend multiple competitions, you are only allowed to win an award at the very first competition you go to. Is it fair if someone is able to go to multiple regionals and take the banner at each one? At that point, why call it regionals - clearly the best bot in the region isn't necessarily going to win, it'll probably be someone from out of town - the regional players are then just fodder.

If you still disagree with me, let's put it a different way. What if the 9 best teams in the nation were able to all attend multiple regionals, and they all decided upon the exact same regionals every year. Also assume that somehow the schedule was transitioned so that it equated to 25% of the total regionals played (so they could somehow attend 9 regionals or whatever it came to). Now, say you weren't one of the 9 best teams in the nation - would you still want to attend the regionals they are at knowing that there is such a high likelihood that they will take home every stinking award?

I wasn't around when FIRST decided to allow teams to compete in multiple regionals, but I bet the arguments were heated. If they were not, then maybe somebody needs to rethink the situation now. I could understand if there was a lack of teams in some regions, and so allowing teams to go to multiple regionals to fill in some of those gaps were a good idea. But I dunno about that any more...

But that's just me.

-Danny

[65_Xero_Huskie]

Originally Posted by Danny Diaz

I disagree. They do this for FIRST LEGO League - if you attend multiple competitions, you are only allowed to win an award at the very first competition you go to. Is it fair if someone is able to go to multiple regionals and take the banner at each one? At that point, why call it regionals - clearly the best bot in the region isn't necessarily going to win, it'll probably be someone from out of town - the regional players are then just fodder.

If you still disagree with me, let's put it a different way. What if the 9 best teams in the nation were able to all attend multiple regionals, and they all decided upon the exact same regionals every year. Also assume that somehow the schedule was transitioned so that it equated to 25% of the total regionals played (so they could somehow attend 9 regionals or whatever it came to). Now, say you weren't one of the 9 best teams in the nation - would you still want to attend the regionals they are at knowing that there is such a high likelihood that they will take home every stinking award?

I wasn't around when FIRST decided to allow teams to compete in multiple regionals, but I bet the arguments were heated. If they were not, then maybe somebody needs to rethink the situation now. I could understand if there was a lack of teams in some regions, and so allowing teams to go to multiple regionals to fill in some of those gaps were a good idea. But I dunno about that any more...

But that's just me.

-Danny

Did you see 1114 and 1503 last year?

And the situation with the stacking of robots, i dont think it is safe and it is just a freebee for those who dont have a working robot. Why should you get the 30 points for just standing there and the other team has to work for it?