Anybody really dis-like the game?

[dtengineering]

I'm intrigued by the game. My experience has been that it isn't the game itself that makes things fun and exciting, but rather what the teams do with it. The only year I came away from kickoff going "Yeah.... this is the coolest game EVER" was in '06. I never thought FIRST would let us SHOOT things! I'm not worried about seeing a lot of robots "the same" despite the size restrictions. When we had similar size limits in 06 at the two regionals I attended that year there was a huge degree of variety in the robots, well illustrated in the "Behind the Design" book from that season.

I don't think that teams who are from icy parts of the world will have any advantage over those from sunny places. Driving a robot is completely different from driving a car, not least in the sense that you don't have a "seat of the pants" feel for what your machine is doing.

What I AM concerned about is the availability of the Orbit Balls. I expect FIRST will be providing information on where they may be obtained, because it would be too ironic if FIRST were to ignore the COTS rules that teams have to follow...

Jason

P.S. One further concern is that the robot, at the end of the season, might not be a great demo robot because the first thing everyone will wonder is "why didn't they use good wheels?" Sure, lots of people will ask that and get the answer and learn about how that affected the design, but most will probably walk off thinking "Huh... I could do better than THAT."

P.P.S. And as for G14 being an attack on "Great Teams"... I am sure the truly Great teams will be able to take it in stride and still manage to shine. I'm not sure any team is shown at their "best" when they completely blow out a weak opposing alliance.

[Mike Schreiber]

My Likes:
-The closest thing we will get to a water game.
-It's different and challenging which does give rookies a chance.
-The proven preplanned drive train isn't as effective.
-The game combines the shooting/open field aspect of '06 with the goals from '04 (the trailers).
-Very strategic play.

My Dislikes:
-The rules are VERY limiting to strategy.
-There is no objective on the field other than other robots.
-Rookie teams who can't move will cripple their alliance as they are a sitting trailer.
-G14 is a punishment and despite the fact that it "evens the field" it says to teams "don't do your best and show how good you are." IMO it will have little to no effect on any match because I don't believe that all 4 super cells will be used, but it is a psychological deterrent.
-FIRST picked a game piece that is no longer in production and is (so far) not providing us with any means of obtaining them.
-The human player is a GIANT part of scoring and takes away from the impact of the actual robot performance. Who had their human player practice the most instead of perfecting their machine?
-My biggest problem with the game is the renaming of every position. The names are childish and impossible to remember especially if they are to change it every year. What is the difference between the Coach and the Commander? and how is the payload specialist any different than human player? I understand why they theme FLL, but applying the same concepts to 9 year olds and adults just seems ridiculous.


+$0.02

[RoboMom]

Originally Posted by dtengineering

P.S. One further concern is that the robot, at the end of the season, might not be a great demo robot because the first thing everyone will wonder is "why didn't they use good wheels?" Sure, lots of people will ask that and get the answer and learn about how that affected the design, but most will probably walk off thinking "Huh... I could do better than THAT."

Those are the details running through my tired brain at kickoff each year. While everyone else is thinking about robot design, I'm thinking "Ok, how will this game be demonstrated to an audience of educators, potential sponsors, etc after April outside in tents, or in conference rooms? What stuff will need to be hauled around to demo? How can I explain this game in a minute or less, while sitting in the stands with some VIP or prospective mentor? How easy are the game pieces to acquire?
New this year is "that flooring looks pretty important." I do have some concerns about teams carrying robots on/off the field. And there goes the dancing...
And most importantly, "what are my earrings going to look like?" http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/32129

Only have the earring thing answered so far...

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

I understand that but if I put a box on wheels out I wouldn't be too inspired by it. I would be inspired by seeing 1114 dominate the field last year though. Frankly I am sick of the argument that FIRST has to cater to the low resource teams and make them equal to the great teams out there. FIRST is an organization for us to SHINE. <G14> is little more than an attack on great teams, it is saying that if you are an elite team against a team that can barely move you are to be penalized for success. Apparently FIRST doesn't want teams to be performing at their best.

And you can do a lot of pretty awesome stuff using nothing more than some hand tools.

Andrew,

I have to disagree with you here.

The game is not won with the best looking machine, nor the best machined machine, not the team with the most money, nor the team with the most mentors.

The game is won by the teams that best understand.
They understand the game, They understand their own machining capabilities, and they only build into their machine what is really required.

A box on wheels will never beat 1114 unless they completely understand themselves, their strategy, and the game at hand. And if they do, then I'll bet that there is a lot more than a box on wheels there if you look real close.

JMHO

[Dan2081]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

Andrew,

I have to disagree with you here.

The game is not won with the best looking machine, nor the best machined machine, not the team with the most money, nor the team with the most mentors.

The game is won by the teams that best understand.
They understand the game, They understand their own machining capabilities, and they only build into their machine what is really required.

A box on wheels will never beat 1114 unless they completely understand themselves, their strategy, and the game at hand. And if they do, then I'll bet that there is a lot more than a box on wheels there if you look real close.

JMHO

I don't think FIRST shoudl have gone to even out the playing field either... From experience I can say that people join FIRST because they see some cool robot doing amazing functions, performing in ways unseen before. With Lunacy this year, the actual functionality of the robot will be equal if not less of an effect of the human players throwing balls..

This game doesn't allow for enough creativity imo; however I am still looking forward to competition!!!

[RogerHebert]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

<G14> is little more than an attack on great teams, it is saying that if you are an elite team against a team that can barely move you are to be penalized for success. Apparently FIRST doesn't want teams to be performing at their best.

I wouldn't worry too much about it. IMO, worst case scenario: Incredible teams and their machines will always be chosen as alliance partners in the end, regardless of whether they managed to finesse the scores in every match. Scouting generally takes those things into account.

[yoshibrock]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

I understand that but if I put a box on wheels out I wouldn't be too inspired by it. I would be inspired by seeing 1114 dominate the field last year though. Frankly I am sick of the argument that FIRST has to cater to the low resource teams and make them equal to the great teams out there. FIRST is an organization for us to SHINE. <G14> is little more than an attack on great teams, it is saying that if you are an elite team against a team that can barely move you are to be penalized for success. Apparently FIRST doesn't want teams to be performing at their best.

And you can do a lot of pretty awesome stuff using nothing more than some hand tools.

I agree with you about <G14>. I was wondering if anyone else noticed the correlation between it and Kamen's speech. Both seem/seemed to have very subtle socialist overtones....
I can easily see discussion of this rule turning into political debate as the season progresses

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Katy

Any team that can pour resources onto a machine and have it come out nothing better than a box on wheels worries me! If your machine does the same things as a box on wheels but with precision mill-work and expensive sensors and the whole thing is coated in lexan just for the giggles: congratulations that WAS a waste of resources. You want to talk about entrepreneurship? You want to talk about real-life applications? A check book is not an appropriate brute force tactic in real life, and because of that fact it is reasonable to propose that it probably shouldn't be considered one in FIRST.

This is pretty much about the minimums you design your bot for. A robox is a pretty solid minimum. If you design your robot in the abstract of "how much better does our design do the task at hand than showing up to the match with only a human player" that is a very low minimum. A slightly better minimum is "how much better does our design do at the task at hand than showing up with a robox?" Higher still would be "what will an average team do at the competition and how can we blow that out of the water?" and for the truly ambitious "what will a good team be able to do and how can we top that?" What you shoot for depends a whole lot on what your team feels ready to take on, but if you take on a low minimum threshold for what you consider to be acceptable performance in your design, don't be so shocked when your robot works no better than you designed it to.

You're totally right! A box has a very high performance this game as a minimum. I guess that means it is probably the lowest benchmark you can safely use when designing a good bot because you can already see how many teams are going to try it.

Who said 397 would design a box on wheels? Trust me, I had a mentor on 2337 have to explain the KISS (Keep it simple Schreiber) principle to me earlier today. The answer to that is I will push our students to do more than that.

I am saying that I don't want to see a world where doing the bare minimum is rewarded. If you want to compete w/ less resources FIRST just isn't for you. FIRST is for those teams that partner w/ a corporate sponsor. If a team doesn't have a sponsor why is it FIRST's job to design for them? Remember, FIRST is not about teaching students. FIRST is all about partnering students with industry and making kids realize engineers are a hell of a lot better role models than Paris Hilton. Why should FIRST encourage these teams by saying it is ok to not do what FIRST was designed for?

Now, if a box on wheels could be a competitive robot, I am ok with that, but I have to say it is a pretty poor design when a box on wheels can be a competitive robot.

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

I am saying that I don't want to see a world where doing the bare minimum is rewarded. If you want to compete w/ less resources FIRST just isn't for you. FIRST is for those teams that partner w/ a corporate sponsor. If a team doesn't have a sponsor why is it FIRST's job to design for them? Remember, FIRST is not about teaching students. FIRST is all about partnering students with industry and making kids realize engineers are a hell of a lot better role models than Paris Hilton. Why should FIRST encourage these teams by saying it is ok to not do what FIRST was designed for?

Andrew, I can understand your point of view to a point. I'd love to say that in our area of Texas, we have corporate sponsors coming out of the woodwork. That's not necessarily the case. We have teams in the central Texas area who are working very hard to make that ideology a reality, but it takes a lot of effort and hard work. In the meantime, teams are encouraged to find businesses to work with them, obtaining smaller donations/sponsorships, that help add up and help support the teams. There are areas in the FRC communities, globally, that don't have a lot of technical mentor support. The teams work on that but some struggle with it year after year. There are threads in CD that discuss the struggles. Do teams that struggle for corporate sponsorship, that lose corporate sponsorship, that struggle to obtain and retain technical sponsors, fail to belong in FRC? Who decides that? Inspiration is available to everyone. Teams that compete in regionals/competitions and those who are able to go to the Championship, are exposed to incredible mentors. Many of them are the inspectors that work so hard to help the teams qualify. Many are refs, many are field volunteers, coaches, emcees, announcers, pit admins. The teams that are not flush with resources, still have equal access to the experience... to inspiration. To scholarships. To internship opportunities. That's real, that's not ideology.

As far as boxes on wheels... good things happen with boxes on wheels. Ask anyone who was at some of the regionals around the world in 2008. There was a lot of inspiration occurring, a lot of community development going on, a lot of fun happening in a lot of places. I could write a book about OKC's inaugural regional last year and the transformation of some of the teams from Thursday to Saturday. None of the rookies, who formed the majority of teams at that regional, left the competition or the field empty handed. They walked away having gained experience, confidence, a sense of achievement and wonder. Working with mentors like Andy Baker as your head ref can do that.

I will never be convinced that FRC is for an elitist group of mentors or students with deep pockets in the resources area.
--
As for judging this game so early regarding robot design and strategy - I have a feeling that this game, like the others, is layered with possibilities, and teams who think carefully and consider many options, will come up with lots of surprises and innovative ideas. And, regarding labeling the positions with the appropriate titles given - it is going to make it so easy to help explain the game to fans, guests, and viewers. I think it is great.

[mrnoble]

Andrew, I think you're making a grave error in your assessment of the purpose and structure of FIRST. FRC is broad enough to encompass the well-sponsored and highly organized as well as the rookie team made up of a couple kids and a Literature teacher who got a scholarship from NASA. We should celebrate the achievements of both extremes, and the progress made by those who are moving more towards the model you put forth. For nearly all FIRST teams, it takes (many) years to achieve steady corporate sponsorship and consistent mentoring. As far as I'm concerned, this game, and the way it was presented by Kamen et al, is an acknowledgment and affirmation of this aspect of FRC, and I like it.

[The Pre]

at first i disliked the game but i believe it will bring an even playing field upon the regionals. like many have stated the "custom" or "special" wheels that teams with money have and their "universal drivetrains" will be of no use this year and it will be a total rebuild from the ground up (which is how i believe FRC should be played)

then again i come from a team where we have 1 engineer manager and 1 electrical guy from UL and they don't do much besides answer our questions. all is done by the students. looking at some of the other robots i've seen i really wonder how much is designed, manufactured, or assembled by the students.

i left my home team 1652 in Kenosha and when i came to school at UW-Platteville i noticed they had a team 171 but it seemed alot of the engineers (students and faculty) from the campus were involved with it and the university even payed for it. that doesn't seem like highschool stuff to me but then again i never went to any of their meetings so its all my speculation.

this year will be a big toss up taking away the advantages (wheels) that some (elite) teams had before and put everyone on an even (slick) playing surface which should definitely test who builds the strongest most durable robot which always seems to be a problem. i see lots of creativity coming out of this constraint filled competition

~jp

[Zach Purser]

I won't know if I like or dislike this game until the first round of regionals is over.

My first impression is that this years game will be won or lost by the programmers. The constantly moving goals means that dead reckoning will only be useful as a defensive strategy for automode. And you better start moving when the auto mode begins or you're going to get scored on. Consistently scoring on the opponents goals will be extremely difficult for the drivers without some help from sensors and good programmers.

I like the low friction floor, it's a great distraction. I think the bigger challenge is deciding how to pull a 40 pound trailer efficiently. The ability to drive sideways would be nearly useless when you're attached to a trailer that can't move sideways with you.

After last year I'm thrilled that there will be far fewer penalties. It was so frustrating trying to figure out your last second strategy when you didn't know if you were ahead or behind.

<G14> socialist? You have to outscore the opposing team by 2x before you have to worry about this. This rule just prevents teams from destroying their opponents. If you're worried about your score being more than 2x your opponents, then pull your robot over to your human player and start scoring for the other team, you can both have high scores then, but you still get to win.

A box on wheels? Maybe, but it's what's in the box that matters. Most of the Aim High robots could be described as a box on wheels, but some designs were clearly better than others.

[ChuckDickerson]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

I am saying that I don't want to see a world where doing the bare minimum is rewarded.

Your bare minimum may just be some other team's best effort. Everyone deserves to be rewarded when they work hard and do the best they can don't they?

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

If you want to compete w/ less resources FIRST just isn't for you.

Really? That sounds pretty elitist to me. I feel the opposite. FIRST is for everyone. You do the best you can with what you have and hopefully everyone leaves with more than they came with.

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

FIRST is for those teams that partner w/ a corporate sponsor.

Easy for a Michigan team to say I suppose. Anytime you want to come on down to a small Mississippi town and bring some big corporate sponsors with deep pockets with you we would be happy to have you. We are known as the Hospitality State.

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

If a team doesn't have a sponsor why is it FIRST's job to design for them?

Because every student deserves the opportunity to experiance FIRST, not just the students that live in areas flush with big corporate sponsors.

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Remember, FIRST is not about teaching students.

You are kidding right? FIRST is all about teaching! Professional mentors teaching students how to solve a problem to the best of their collective ability given the tools available and within the constraints placed on the solution. It is not about who can build the shiniest, fanciest, most sophisticated robot using the most expensive CNC equipment they can find. If you have that resource great, if not that's fine as well. FIRST should be for everyone. I could have sworn that I had seen one or two of the hundreds of thousands of FIRST students over the last (almost) two decades learning something useful. I'm sorry you fell you weren't one of them. I suspect your corporate sponsors would be sorry to hear the money they invested in you must have been wasted as well because I'm pretty sure the whole reason corporations invest in FIRST is because they fell it better prepares their future work force by TEACHING students real world lessons.

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

FIRST is all about partnering students with industry and making kids realize engineers are a hell of a lot better role models than Paris Hilton.

Agreed but that is just one of many things that FIRST "is all about".

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Why should FIRST encourage these teams by saying it is ok to not do what FIRST was designed for?

FIRST = For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology. Inspiration and Recognition comes in many forms and on many levels. If a team (rookie or vet) can only build a box on wheels but they learned even a little something along the way why is that a bad thing? At least they built SOMETHING. I have run across many people that couldn't figure out how to get themselves out of a hole in the ground if you gave them a pile of 2x4s, handsaw, hammer, and a box of nails.

As far as the main thread topic, I love the game and thank the GDC for leveling the playing field in such a elegant way. I also love the Moon theme and the tribute to the 40th anniversary of the FIRST lunar landing!

[Alex.Norton]

My vote is still really far out on this game. I like games that level the playing field so that rookies and lower budget teams can really easily compete with the big name teams. Also regardless of my opinion of the game at the start I seem to always warm up to it in the end. Although I have noticed that my opinion at the end is usually the opposite of that at the beginning (I didn't like 07's game at the start and love it now, and I really liked 06 at the start and its perhaps my least favorite now).

I really like the idea of low traction. I have never been a fan of defense, especially playing it in a very pushy way. I love seeing a team stretch to be something amazing and felt that this strategy caused teams to play it too safe and not reach for the stars. This year even if a team is playing defense they're going to have to be really creative. Plus I'm a little gratified that FIRST has been discouraging this type of defense the last couple of years.

The main reason that I dislike the game however is currently winning in my mind. one of the things that I love about FIRST is getting to run around the pits and look at all the solutions that teams have provided for the game. All the different solutions to building the drive train and the manipulator. How the machines expand and work and do everything that they do. This year with the rule limiting the use of different wheels and the rules limiting the size of the robot during the entire game I'm worried about the diversity of the machines.

I'm confident and hoping that my concerns won't be realized but that's why they call them worries isn't it...

[Nawaid Ladak]

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

I don't like it right now.

But games grow on you. I didn't like rack n roll at all at first, but some plays were kinda fun.

07 was great, the end game was so much better than 08, 06, or 05, robots lifting each other up, a spoiler going up at the last second, 2007 was my second favorite game for as long as i've been in FIRST (04 tops the list, you can't beat bots hanging from a bar.... or 61 trying to block bots hanging while hanging themselves...)

Originally Posted by DeepWater

Your bare minimum may just be some other team's best effort. Everyone deserves to be rewarded when they work hard and do the best they can don't they?



Really? That sounds pretty elitist to me. I feel the opposite. FIRST is for everyone. You do the best you can with what you have and hopefully everyone leaves with more than they came with.



Easy for a Michigan team to say I suppose. Anytime you want to come on down to a small Mississippi town and bring some big corporate sponsors with deep pockets with you we would be happy to have you. We are known as the Hospitality State.



Because every student deserves the opportunity to experiance FIRST, not just the students that live in areas flush with big corporate sponsors.



You are kidding right? FIRST is all about teaching! Professional mentors teaching students how to solve a problem to the best of their collective ability given the tools available and within the constraints placed on the solution. It is not about who can build the shiniest, fanciest, most sophisticated robot using the most expensive CNC equipment they can find. If you have that resource great, if not that's fine as well. FIRST should be for everyone. I could have sworn that I had seen one or two of the hundreds of thousands of FIRST students over the last (almost) two decades learning something useful. I'm sorry you fell you weren't one of them. I suspect your corporate sponsors would be sorry to hear the money they invested in you must have been wasted as well because I'm pretty sure the whole reason corporations invest in FIRST is because they fell it better prepares their future work force by TEACHING students real world lessons.



Agreed but that is just one of many things that FIRST "is all about".



FIRST = For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology. Inspiration and Recognition comes in many forms and on many levels. If a team (rookie or vet) can only build a box on wheels but they learned even a little something along the way why is that a bad thing? At least they built SOMETHING. I have run across many people that couldn't figure out how to get themselves out of a hole in the ground if you gave them a pile of 2x4s, handsaw, hammer, and a box of nails.

As far as the main thread topic, I love the game and thank the GDC for leveling the playing field in such a elegant way. I also love the Moon theme and the tribute to the 40th anniversary of the FIRST lunar landing!

excelent points

im not sure how i feel about the game, im teamless right now (well, semi-945ish but thats a 2-hr bus ride for me ) I think i'll have to wait until week one of the regionals to decide if truly do like this game (scrimmages are on valentines day if im correct and i might be busy that day...)

P.S. DeepWater, what are these "deep pockets" you speak of, last time i checked, some companies from MI were in DC asking for some $$$ ?