Lesson Learned: The Negative

[lukevanoort]

Originally Posted by Qbranch

Also, FIRST said at Atlanta that they will not be incresing the weight limit on machines to allow for the new control system, which, by the way, weighs about five pounds. As many of you know from having morbidly obese robots and lightening them in the past, five pounds is a LOT of material to lose.

Originally Posted by whytheheckme

:cries:

I'm still on the fence as to whether the change was a good one or not, but I just wanted to clear up a little misunderstanding about the system's weight. While the main controller does weigh a ton, the new power distribution system is a lot lighter than the distro block + 40A block + 20/30A block + tons of 6AWG wire that we currently have. In fact, I was told by one of the NI people that the whole system weight is the same as this year's once you take the savings from the new power distribution system into account. Actually, the power distro system is by far my favorite part of the new setup; for those that haven't seen it, it is like the breaker panel from IFI a few years back, but better (you don't even need to crimp on connectors to plug stuff into it).

[BHS_STopping]

Overall, I have to say that 2008 was a pretty impressive year for FIRST. The game was quite fun to watch most of the time, and it was perhaps even more fun being the one driving (it is, in my opinion). Sadly, I cannot really comment on the Championship in Atlanta, as our team did not qualify to attend, but I can comment on the game.

The first aspect of FIRST Overdrive that could have been improved is eliminating the need for referees to determine a match. This year, I saw a lot of stress being put on the refs, who had to make split-second judgment calls very frequently during a match. These can include:

Did the robot pass over the line?
Was the ball touching the robot as it rolled over the line?
Did the ball touch the robot on its way down from a hurdle?
Is the robot impeding traffic?
Is the robot interfering with a hurdle?
Did the team E-stop before they fell over?
Did the robot intrude outside of the other robot's bumper zone?
Etc. etc. etc.

This year, the refs had an incredibly difficult and stressful job, in that they were usually the ones who decided the fate of the teams on the field. I would suggest that next year, FIRST make the game less stressful on the referees, such as having an automatic scoring system of some kind. One thing I liked about the 07 game is that everything was scored and calculated at the end of the game, giving the refs plenty of time to deliberate and make decisions on the outcome of the match. The 06 game also did this very well, with an automatic scoring system which worked pretty reliably (at least, much more reliably than a human forced to make so many decisions so quickly). Overall, this is my top suggestion for FIRST next year when designing a game.

Obviously, the second major problem people had with FIRST Overdrive was the importance of penalties in deciding a match. And this was quite true. A ten point penalty can pretty much undo the work of a single lap-bot for the whole match. I believe that this year's game was the first game where teams could actually have an average negative score, suggesting that they would be more helpful if they didn't even show up for a match. This, plainly, is just not right. These kinds of situations where robots can actually hurt an alliance makes everybody feel bad, including the team that incurred the penalties. I won't elaborate any more than I (or others) already have, but I will say that penalties were an incredibly controversial subject this year.

So, once again, I really did have a great time with this year's game. I hope that FIRST takes some of these suggestions into account, so that we can make it more enjoyable for everybody.

[meaubry]

Just back from Atlanta - thankyou to all the mods that minded the store while Brandon and many other mods were away.

As to this thread - I will think a little bit more about how I want to say, what I want to say, BUT ...

Please stay ON TOPIC, please keep arguments to a minimum when posting and DO NOT turn this thread into a you said, no I didn't thread.

It is extremely difficult for many FIRST enthusiasts to NOT take ANY type of criticism personally - if you fall into this catagory, please do NOT turn this thread into one where you feel obligated to "protect" FIRST. They, and we, don't need that to happen either.

Other than that - please, remember to stay within bounds, keep moving in a counter-clockwise direction, and don't get a penalty for breaking any rules. There's been enough of those, this year already!

Mike A

[Uberbots]

We got a <G22> on Archimedes when we never actually finished crossing the line in the first place, therefore nullifying our ability to back over it. Something tells me that the refs in Atlanta didn't completely know the rules either- there were a lot of bad, inconsistent, unfair, and different calls.

[Chris Fultz]

Originally Posted by Pat Roche

The FIRST is I agree more seminars would be good. It doesn't necessarily need to be at the Championships either. Many people don't go to the Championships so at the regional level would be really good.

0

I would suggest that you create a more robust seminar program - targeted more at kids - that is not "for pay" above and beyond the entry fee, though you could limit the number attending from each team.

Have the seminars be put on BY KIDS not by mentors, and have it concentrate on the various aspects of engineering a robot. Give the kids a chance to shine and show their engineering brilliance, while teaching others how they succeeded - without it having to go on in the pit.

While there is a lot to do in the pits and for the drive team, many schools bring ALL their kids, and - beyond scouting and fetch and carry - it would be great if each FIRST event featured something for the kids to learn or do who are NOT part of the direct pitcrew/drive team. We found things, but having some of the kids present and/or attend conferences on the topics mentioned above might well have been a great experience for them.

a few points on these posts

the seminars are recorded and available later for viewing / listening. that is done to help those who cannot attend atlanta (that is what most of the Rolls-Royce sponsorship covers).

FIRST pays extra to the dome for the space, equipment, etc. for the conferences. Sponsorships hep, but the small fee charged to students and teams helps offset the expenses.

FIRST makes a request for presenters to submit seminar topics early in the season. anyone can submit an idea. Maybe a student / mentor combination? -

And, I will send an email to the conference coordinator and see if there is a way to create an option for students / teams to 'request' specific topics and then FIRST could recruit to find people to present those ideas. I will also ask aout including the 'Student' / 'mentor' focus in the descriptions.

[Pat Roche]

Wow, okay I wasn't aware that those were available. I guess I just never caught on to that.

[Tom Bottiglieri]

The game should not be dependent on penalties. Instead of trying to fix the subjectivity of the refs, the game should be comprised in a way that makes penalties harder to come by and easier to point out.

[Torboticsmember]

I'm not sure if anybody else had this problem, but whenever I was driving and a penalty would be assessed against us I would not know it because i would not be paying attention to the refs at that moment or not notice line crossings. This is the same with bumping to pass and impeding traffic and such. Maybe they could implement a system to better identify when penalties occur and such.
One way to do this would for each of the refs to have a buzzer and hit it whenever a robot causes a penalty and the buzzer would then alert the drivers you just caused a penalty. This could also be used for impeding if you made the buzzer blink on and off for the 6 second period.

[Herodotus]

Before I say anything about Overdrive let me state that I still found it to be enjoyable overall, especially when I was driving. I just don't like some of the specifics.

First, the on field restrictions and penalties. The G22, the impeding, and the protection while hurdling, mostly. I am personally a part of the camp that believes that there shouldn't be that many rules guiding how the robots interact on the field, other than rules regarding destructive behavior. I don't like the game for the simple fact that it forces you to just drive in circles. Yes, you hurdle while driving in circles but you are still just driving in circles.

Though I see the benefit of racing style games, I just don't think that is where FIRST games should be going. It was nice having a simple and easy to explain game. We could explain the rules to someone who has never seen a robotics competition in just a few sentences. So for spectators it was certainly good, but I just didn't really like the restrictions that a race imposes.

I'm also part of the camp that enjoys watching robot interaction. I've always felt defense like in 2006 and 2007 offered even more interesting matches, though I know others disagree. I always enjoyed seeing teams score over a tenacious defensive bot, or even pushing defending bots out of the way and scoring anyways. Some bots(Wildstang comes to mind) could simply scoot around a defending bot and put tubes up anyways.

So I suppose I would simply say less field restrictions overall is better. The more freedom in the game the better.

[ebarker]

Originally Posted by OScubed

I would suggest that you create a more robust seminar program

I think FIRST does a good job of getting the seminars together. What is needed is better response from the teams. They prefer student created seminars over adult ones but they have to take what they get.

One way to improve the situation is to add an award. This award could be related to the 'most instructive' or whatever presentation. Then you have to judge this somehow.

[Nuttyman54]

My biggest complaint is with the game itself.

Originally Posted by T3_1565

I myself never had a problem with diversity in the last two years, yet with what may be the most popular game in FIRST (Aim High) every robot looked the same, yet people didn't care, and it was the game most talked about. Also there were only three ways to score in that game as well, same with 2005, same with 2004 (I may be wrong about 2004, I wasn't around for it ) so talking about how one dimensional this game was, isn't right. The game that had the least ways to score was last year, not this year, and every other game before that, only had three ways to score anyways (whether it was worth a lot or not).

Edit: 2002 also only had three ways to score!

The issues I don't think is with the number of ways to score, but rather with their relative worth.

In 2004: You could score 50 points either by hanging on the bar, or by getting 10 balls in your goal, or by getting 5 balls and a cap in your goal. Teams could be competitive with just one method, or with a combination of them.

In 2006: You could score 3 points by shooting high or 1 point by going low. There were a number of very good dumper robots that made significant point swings for their alliance. The ramps at the end were a nice touch, making it really worth a significant amount if you could get all 3, but not completely worthless if not all the robots could get up.

In 2007: You could score points on the rack or with ramps, and you had a choice of the potential payoff of 256 point rings, or a mostly undefendable 60 points. Both scoring methods were extremely important and had very equal weight.

If you look at games like 2005 and 2008, there is clearly one method of scoring that is much more effective than the others.

2005: Sure you could put tetras underneath, but that took almost as long, was worth 1/3 of the points, and was overshadowed when someone put one on top. The 10 point bonus at the end was typically worth too small a percentage of points compared to the effort it took to make sure all 3 robots were back behind the line.

2008: Even the best lap bots couldn't compete with an above-average hurdler, and while a few herder robots were clearly very good (58 and 173 come to mind), they also were overshadowed by high-power hurdlers. Looking at the alliances on Archimedes (which I watched) and on Einstein, none of the non-hurdling robots were running fast laps. Even 148, arguably the best lapper of the year played, defense.

I also agree with Tom Bottiglieri that penalties this year were a little outrageous. There was not a single match on Einstein that did not have penalties. That shouldn't happen at world championships. Maybe in one or two matches, but not in every single one of them.

[Lavapicker]

After three events this year and four years of FIRST, here's my two cents:

1. There was way too much subjectivity in this years game which we knew would create problems (ie was it interferring enough to affect a hurdle??)

2. There was no consistancy in the way it was called. How many bots fell over obviously over the 80-inch rule and were never called?

3. Even though ref's were supposed to be trained we still got three different definitions (one at each event) of what a robot had to do in order to be protected while hurdling. Most disturbing was an entire crew that didn't know how to score the game correctly as witnessed in the SVR finals that went to four matches.

4. The Finals this year went WAY too long in Atlanta...I know bots need time to get back in shape but we started with only 3 matches in one in a half hours! Half hour between matches....cmon...less talk please, please!

5. I agree on the harsh negative value placed on teams this year and the lack of notifying teams that a penalty had occured until after a match. I think I saw a team hit their partner's E-stop to shut them down before they could get more penalties and lose it for their alliance. We had one match where our partners accumulated 40 points in penalties to wipe out a convincing 70-50 win. 3 were on one team for driving backwards, barely, over a line. It seemed silly to make it worth so many negative points.

We had many many positives this year but this thread is to comment on the negative so I'll end on that negative note.....

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by Lavapicker

After three events this year and four years of FIRST, here's my two cents:

1. There was way too much subjectivity in this years game which we knew would create problems (ie was it interferring enough to affect a hurdle??)

I agree with this one. I don't think penalties should come down to 'intent'. I think it just puts to much pressure on the refs to determine what a team ment to do. There were two occasions of this on Galileo eliminations. In the quarterfinals, 1114 and 148 got blocked by a team (121?) in hybrid. Many people on the Gameday chat were wanting a penalty/yellow card for the intentional blocking in hyrid. I think that whole rule is nearly pointless because it is so hard to judge intent, especially in hybrid mode where teams have no to limited control of thier robots. Of course, no penalty was called because it was just about impossible to judge the intent. The second example came in the semifinals where 40, holding a trackball, tipped 1114. 40 was called for a penalty for intential tipping. There is alot more to that story that I don't want to get into, but I don't think you can judge what a team's intent was. Unless you hear thier drivecoach telling them 'tip them, tip them' or 'come on, block them'. I don't think the referees should be put in position of judging a team's intent.

[lingomaniac88]

Originally Posted by EricLeifermann

I don't think it was the amount of penalties called it was how much the penalties were worth. 10 points in this game was huge. The penalties should have been 2 or 5 points at the most. You have to think about how much you can score and how fast you can score it, and then asses how much a penalty should be worth. Penalties should not decide the match, and this year they decided just about every match. This is the first year out of the 7 years I've been in first where just about every match had penalties in it, and 9 times out of 10 they decided who won. I know the GDC probably didn't expect as much pile-ups near the quadrant lines but, again you should try and expect the worst so you can plan around it.

I know. Our record was 3-8-0, and most of the time, we lost because of a penalty. Without penalties, we actually would have won more games.

[Amanda Morrison]

Back to the topic of the thread, here goes:

• Based on some of the feedback from some veteran teams I was talking with this weekend, every year, it seems the same group of veteran teams (esp. single digit and two digit numbered teams, of which there are already limited numbers) go to Championships. Even though the algorithm has changed once or twice, these teams often end up playing each other over and over each year. I'm going to send a note to FIRST's awesome customer service folks to suggest a change in the algorithm each year (so if this year was 1, 2, 3, 4, perhaps next year can be 4, 1, 3, 2 or something similar).
  
  
• The FIRST package for teams is very expensive. I do understand where that money is being spent and agree that it's a fun activity, but it is just not an option for many teams. I know of one team that ended up saving $6-8K by not purchasing the package for their team and instead making their own arrangements for hotel and Saturday night activities. I don't think it detracted from that team's experience to not stay as close and not be part of the team party, and it is difficult to explain to a sponsor a difference of that much funding. The party is fun, but saving an entire entry fee's worth makes it definitely worth skipping.
  
  
• I was lucky to be on a team in 2002 that won the Championship. As a high school senior, I cannot tell you what a profound experience it was to walk on stage, receive our trophies and medals, hug Woodie and Dean, and get the recognition from other competing teams. This year, the stands were emptying before the last half of the last finals match. An announcement was made for teams to head over to the FIRST Finale immediately after the match completed and the score announced. I was extremely saddened that my students were not able to have a similar experience for their hard work and effort as that which profoundly changed my life. Their win was trivialized - yes, confetti and streamers, but having a teacher hand you your medal in the abandoned pit area shortly before you get on the bus is anti-climactic compared to the team walking across Einstein or the stage and receiving recognition for their effort to get to that point. Seeing thousands of people in the stands and realizing what an extreme honor is being placed upon you is a truly epic moment in a child's life. While I know my students were exceptionally happy and excited for the honor, I had only wished they could have been given the opportunity that I was lucky enough to experience.
  
  
• At one point, all three of the teams on our alliance was wandering through the tunnels of the Georgia Dome attempting to find a way back to the pits after being called to the field. With probably 100-150 people in this group, we were given incorrect directions a ridiculous four times before getting sent in all different directions and the group completely splintering. It took a good half hour to get everyone back together - even our students were separated from our mentors. I understand the issues with the Dome and GWCC being under repair, I understand some confusion on the part of both staff and volunteers. However, it completely takes away from a team moment of cohesiveness and pride to be bumbling through the Dome tunnels without direction like Spinal Tap before their show.
  
  
• Our guys had to scramble to find flashlights between finals matches on Einstein - with the lights completely off, we were unable to do our pre-and post-match evaluations and fixes of our alliance's robots without having a flashlight handy. I'm sure this is one of those silly things that nobody thinks about prior (honestly, who would have thought about this?) but next year, it might be another way to prepare your team by making sure you have a flashlight in your toolbox.
  
  
• PLEASE, please don't close down the practice fields next year until after the finals on the divisions have started! We knew that we needed that time to practice (especially after having a really rough Thursday and Friday only to realize on Saturday that our steering motor had been fried) and felt like we could have better tuned the robot during that time. I don't know that we were alone... it's nice to know that you're ready to go prior to the big show. Even though I know FIRST really needs to get packing as soon as they can, I think it'd be beneficial for teams if tearing down the practice fields was delayed until after the lunch hour.
  
  
• More strategy presentations by Karthik Kanagasabapathy and Team 1114. Seeing that made me realize I need to get our Tactical Team into shape. What this team is able to accomplish is phenomenal and inspiring.

Okay, I have a whole list of positives from the event this year, too. Time to go to that thread.