Here's the problem with the minibot

[Stephen Liggett]

Originally Posted by LightWaves1636

The head ref at Alamo said he learned from someone on the GDC that the minibot race was going to be the last minibot wins instead of the first one but then they changed their minds last minute over it.
I found that to be interesting.

That would be interesting! I'd bet most teams would still build the fastest possible minibot and play chicken at the last second.

We made two minibots from pieces in the FTC kit of parts, a piece of PVC we already had, one extra motor, and an extra battery. We never had a sub 1 second minibot, nor one that would win every race. But when we DID deploy, we got our minibot to the tower before the 9 second mark, and hit the top every time. We made it up in around 3 seconds, but unless we were rammed during deployment, our minibot went up. Money wise, we only bought the extra battery and motor. The rest was made from the FTC kit of parts. While I think FIRST was encouraging creativity in the minibots, I think they also wanted to see what we would do with the parts we were given, and how we could manipulate that to our advantage.

Personally, I think this year's endgame was alright. Not bad, but not the best I've seen. On the down side, it's the only endgame I know of where an opposing alliance can legally stop you from receiving points. On the up side, it gave teams something new and different to consider when designing their robots, with the whole deployment and rules effecting deployment.

[PayneTrain]

To design, test, improve, and enter the best series of minibots and win the Coopertition award at the VA Regional, we spent ~$2,700 dollars for minibot construction.

For non-KOP robot construction: not even half that.

That's my gripe about it. Unless your team made more than one, younger/smaller teams can be screwed out of victories simply through money.

2010 could have pizza boxes on wheels and be competitive. Not anymore.

[mwtidd]

Originally Posted by Ed Law

I like the idea that Stephen proposed about a flat rate challenge. You made it, you get the points. Last year, you hang, you get the points. Two years ago, scoring a supercell is 15 points no matter when you scored it. Three years ago the big ball on the overpass score the bonus points no matter when you scored it. I don't think it is any less exciting. It eliminates all the problems with deploying too early, crossing the plane etc.

For those who have been around longer, were there a game in past years with end game that gives more points to the alliance that did it first?

It seems to go against FIRST values. We should celebrate when a robot can do a certain task. We don't build battlebots. We don't try to beat the other guy directly. We should try to use the robot we designed to score as many points as possible and use strategy as an alliance to win.

07 there was a 2 tier end game: pts for 6" off the ground and pts for 12"
06 there were points (i believe it was 30) for getting on top of a tall platform
05 i forget...
04 there were 50 points for hanging from a bar
03 there were points for being the king of the hill.

i believe 07 was the only tiered one, but your opponents scoring didnt influence your potential end game bonus. And the task of lifting 2 of your teammates up a foot proved to be a pretty difficult challenge. Easier that lifting a teammate in '10 though.

[Jack Jones]

Originally Posted by lineskier

07 there was a 2 tier end game: pts for 6" off the ground and pts for 12"
06 there were points (i believe it was 30) for getting on top of a tall platform
05 i forget...
04 there were 50 points for hanging from a bar
03 there were points for being the king of the hill.

i believe 07 was the only tiered one, but your opponents scoring didnt influence your potential end game bonus. And the task of lifting 2 of your teammates up a foot proved to be a pretty difficult challenge. Easier that lifting a teammate in '10 though.

'06 was 5-10-25 for robot(s) on the platform

[Ed Law]

Originally Posted by lineskier

07 there was a 2 tier end game: pts for 6" off the ground and pts for 12"
06 there were points (i believe it was 30) for getting on top of a tall platform
05 i forget...
04 there were 50 points for hanging from a bar
03 there were points for being the king of the hill.

i believe 07 was the only tiered one, but your opponents scoring didnt influence your potential end game bonus. And the task of lifting 2 of your teammates up a foot proved to be a pretty difficult challenge. Easier that lifting a teammate in '10 though.

My question was that was there another year that the first robot to do something get more points?

[RMiller]

Originally Posted by Ed Law

My question was that was there another year that the first robot to do something get more points?

Both '03 and '04 offered advantages for the first team up in that they could potentially defend the position. However, they did not get more points than other teams that made it up.

[pfreivald]

I like strategic rewards more than explicit point awards, though both certainly have their place.

[Team 288]

Originally Posted by Stephen Liggett

The motors are $30 and the Batteries cost $50. The starting point is $110.

Ah! I forgot about the batteries! (We have three FTC team so we already had 12)
So it's about 150 per minibot =)

[rsisk]

If only they had made the minibot race to be the last one to reach the top before the end of the game, now that would have been interesting

Edit: Shoot didn't see LightWave1636 post above. We must have talked to the same people ;>

[JohnBoucher]

Same points for all teams finishing is a very interesting twist.

[Chris Hibner]

I like the "complete the task - get the points", but I would like to add a twist: once your minibot scores the points - your hostbot is disabled (also, you must trigger the tower before the match expires).

One thing I haven't liked over the past few years is the defined endgame: "thou shalt only play the end game after the sound comes from on high". I like the old end games that require a little gamesmanship (like 2000/2003/2004).

Getting the points for a minibot regardless of time but disabling the hostbot would be a really fun twist to the game.

1) It would benefit FAST minibots since the hostbot could continue to score until the last second and then go deploy.

2) I would benefit SLOW (but repeatable) minibots since the team could theoretically deploy it with 30 seconds to go and then continue to score tubes until their minibot scored and their hostbot gets disabled.

Deploy too late and you don't hit the target until after the match ends: too bad - you cut it too close.

[Jared Russell]

There are many issues with the minibot competition this year, and I fear we haven't seen the end of controversy yet. On both ends of the minibot race, there have been documented problems. Even in week 6, there were issues with towers failing to trigger. And we are relying on human eyes to decide whether or not you deployed early by 1/100th of a second. On Einstein, where there are sure to be several ~1 second minibots, an early deploy can mean the difference between 1st and 4th.

In our second to last qualification match of the Philly Regional, a ref decided that we deployed early. It was freeze-frame close - I maintain (as do all of the spectators I spoke to from a number of teams who saw it) that the driver simply timed it perfectly. But the tower was disabled, and the 40 point swing (-30 for us, +10 to opponent) cost us the match and the #1 seed. The referees watching the towers (at least at Regionals) are not head referees, and have had little formal training. Yet they have the power to make a judgement call in 1/100th of a second that can decide an event.

Ultimately, you cannot blame referees for not having perfect vision and timing. But a game whose outcome can be almost completely decided by such calls is fundamentally flawed (and the higher the level of competition, the more likely such an event becomes).

It is what it is, and I know I will not be disappointed once Logomotion is over (though I know LEGO/Tetrix will be).

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by LightWaves1636

The head ref at Alamo said he learned from someone on the GDC that the minibot race was going to be the last minibot wins instead of the first one but then they changed their minds last minute over it.
I found that to be interesting.

That would be a terribly boring endgame. The 7 elementary/middle school kids I had at DC were excited because the minibots were FAST. I don't think I'd like to watch a "last place wins" race, ever.

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

My proposal:
Slightly fancier towers with multiple scoring zones marked along the length.
15 pts for triggering the tower.
10 pts for stopping the minibot in the correct, randomly determined scoring zone.

Depending on the difficulty you're aiming for, the random zone could be told to teams at the start of the match, told to the robot through the fms, or indicated on the pole via lights, an electromagnet placed inside the pipe, or something else.

I love this idea.

Any offseason events thinking about going to a flat rate for the minibot race?

[thefro526]

I think this is a very good thread full of very good insight and I sincerely thank the OP for making this.

My biggest problem with the Mini-bot is that it was created in an attempt to spur the growth of Tetrix. Essentially FIRST created an unnecessary burden on teams, both financially and in the thinning of resources within teams, because they wanted us to build "FTC robots." Anyone who has made or seen a sub 1.5 second Mini-bot, heck even a sub 2.5 second Mini-bot knows that they're EXTREMELY far from being FTC robots, or even Tetrix Robots.

IMO, I think FIRST shot themselves in the foot on this one anyway. I've yet to hear anything positive about the Tetrix Kit from the FRC teams that I'm close with.

Originally Posted by Jared341

It is what it is, and I know I will not be disappointed once Logomotion is over (though I know LEGO/Tetrix will be).

Jared, I fear that the end of Logomotion will not be the mini-bot.