Team update 16

[pathew100]

Originally Posted by martin417

I was surprised at the <G46> penalties, not because the penalties were called, but because teams did not design their bot to prevent it. How hard is it to design a bot that doesn't allow a 3" penetration? Did teams not do testing prior to ship? The rule existed from the beginning. I hate to put blame on teams, but that was an easy thing to fix.

Before I get flamed, I am not talking about getting forced over a ball on a hump, or something un-avoidable. But if the ball can get under your bot just driving around, you need to make a change. You should have tested for this possibility. The rules were clear.

Obviously teams need to prevent the ball from going under completely, and that is still a penalty.

The situation that U16 addresses regarding <G46> is a 'transient'-type ball incursion. This happened many times and was the cause of most of the <G46> penalties last week (that I saw).

For example, when a robot drives up to a ball and a traction wheel grabs it and they 'ride up' on it for a a second and then immediately back down and off the ball. Or a roller bar grabs a ball and starts to suck the ball under but they back off immediately.

[Conor Ryan]

I think Team Update 16 was a result of the Referees doing an excellent job at week 1 regionals. They called the penalties by the book at least 95%+ of the time and because of that the GDC was able to make appropriate rule changes.

Also of note, I hope Bill's Blog updates to give us more insight to the changes.

Good job GDC, I support these changes, despite being unfair to week 1 regionals (hindsight is always 20/20), I think this will improve the spirit of the game a great deal.

[ExTexan]

This could be tested with a $10.00 soccer ball in 5 minutes of testing prior to ship.

Now there is something I am going to suggest to my team...."testing before ship (bag)"....on second thought, maybe I'll just ref!

[ks_mumupsi]

bah... now i cant have fun with my strategy team

great update, only wish was that it should have been pre-week 1 as others said.

im looking forward to going ot nyc and seeing how this affects rankings now.

gluck out there.

[Sumathi]

So they are still using the coopertition ranking system to award points, but the winner gets 5 extra points? Correct me if I am wrong.

[anyheck]

Changing the rules in the middle of the season = Fundamental FAIL.

[jspatz1]

Originally Posted by anyheck

Changing the rules in the middle of the season = Fundamental FAIL.

It is the beginning of the season, not the middle. NOT changing the rules after flaws are uncovered would have been a fundamental fail.

[anyheck]

Originally Posted by jspatz1

It is the beginning of the season, not the middle. NOT changing the rules after flaws are uncovered would have been a fundamental fail.

The beginning of the season was more than 6 weeks ago.

[BIGWILLI2081]

Originally Posted by anyheck

Changing the rules in the middle of the season = Fundamental FAIL.

When were they to know some of the rules were not the best? Before the regionals started? They had to observe it before they could change it. Although, I do agree the seeding point system was not the best to begin with, it just took some examples (and complaining) before the GDC realized they had to do something to make it better. Unfortunately for week 1 teams, they were the guinea pigs. It's better they change them now than never. I give props to the GDC for fixing the rules.

[Molten]

Originally Posted by BIGWILLI2081

Unfortunately for week 1 teams, they were the guinea pigs.

Sounds better if you call them beta testers.

[PayneTrain]

It's just a general issue FIRST has tried to deal with for a few years; they almost have to turn regionals week one into a test drive.

Why not just set the regionals a week later and allow the FiM guys to run a district or two to test out the field system, points settings, and the rules? At least beta test on something that covers less money and less teams.

[pfreivald]

Is it really that big a deal?

1551 has been going to week 1 regionals since it's inception -- and has never attended two regionals -- and we've never found that there's some big problem with the first week...

Could they have anticipated the seeding issues? Sure.
Could they have anticipated the reffing issues? Sure.

Were either of these things a surprise to anyone playing? Not if they read the rules and assumed they would be followed to a 'T'***...

...and that means that at the very least, week 1 teams were playing a fair game.

**...even though this may be a bad assumption. Two years ago, our robot Shiela was designed around the fact that contact outside the bumper zone would be penalized. It pretty much never was, and our super-compact trackball grabber went basically unnoticed -- as did the elegant design that only extended 3" outside the frame, and then only while gathering a trackball from the floor. And there were plenty of games that we would have won had cotbz penalties been called...

But that's ok. Once we knew how it would be played, a fair game is a fair game, and fun (and learnin') was had by all.

[anyheck]

Originally Posted by BIGWILLI2081

When were they to know some of the rules were not the best? Before the regionals started? They had to observe it before they could change it. Although, I do agree the seeding point system was not the best to begin with, it just took some examples (and complaining) before the GDC realized they had to do something to make it better. Unfortunately for week 1 teams, they were the guinea pigs. It's better they change them now than never. I give props to the GDC for fixing the rules.

I'm glad that we could be part of the beta test for the game. Let the real week one begin!

[Vikesrock]

Originally Posted by anyheck

I'm glad that we could be part of the beta test for the game. Let the real week one begin!

Do you have a suggestion on how FIRST could do things better? Or do you just like to whine and complain?

[anyheck]

Originally Posted by Vikesrock

Do you have a suggestion on how FIRST could do things better? Or do you just like to whine and complain?

They could improve by not changing the rules after 'coopertition' has actually begun.

I guess I wasn't clear before.

Some other ideas:

Call the week 1 regionals 'beta' so people know that that's what they're buying into and don't make them 'count.'

Discount teams a N>1 regional if they are doing an N=1.

Run a test regional early with 'real scoring' to find bugs. Some areas have enough density of teams for this to be reasonable.

Have FIRST build some robots and play with them with 'real scoring' in the 9-months that they have to design the game.

Live with the rules they came up with even if they suck.