In my view this year’s game is fundamentally flawed in several ways which need to be corrected. As I see it the most egregious of these flaws are the finals. The finals are setup in a manner that rips the control of their own destiny from teams. There should never be a situation which makes it impossible to win. There for we need to move back to best 2 out of 3 for the finals. This way if I come out and loose I still have a fighting chance…the current system barely gives me a chance at all. In addition I would like the see the abolishment of the losers score times the cumulative age of the team divided by pi scoring formulas. Raw score for the entire game qualifying rounds, finals, the whole bit. It is time that FIRST teams demand that FIRST games not be designed in the interest of Dean Kamen proving a point to the world. Also I would like to see a little of the focus shift back to the game. After all this is at some level about a robotics competition, at least it was at one point. Now it seems that all I need to do to win an award is have a good business or 7 year plan. What happened to awards like best offensive play or best defensive play? These awards have been abolished as the focus of FIRST shifts away from the game. Again more Dean Philosophy 101, he is so desperate now to avoid even the appearance that we are in some way competitive. News flash the business world is cut throat, I’m not suggesting we have to be, but I am suggesting that we can be competitive we can use defense and raw scores without sacrificing the mission of FIRST. I submit that if game design continues down its current path next year we will not need a robotics competition. Kickoff could be something to the effect of “design a really nice business plan that will make the Segway profitable.”
my team won the business plan, i helped write it and i sold it to the judges. I agree with you in some points, but you have to remember that engineering also needs some one to sell the design that the engineer makes. All FIRST is doing is offering more competition and more things that teams can do, they are only finding new talent that will help them in the future.
the scoring for finals this year was horrible, 2 out of 3 is better, and easier for spectators to understand.
go with raw scores for QPs. it is simpler to understand.
the games could be better. The last 2 years the game has seemed promising in the beginning, but at competitions it turned out into the same thing every match. The amount of competition is going down, to far.
The whole part about FIRST giving each team a list of what matches they are in and who their alliance partner and opponents are for the match is a bad idea in my opinion. They should have done it like they did in 2001. they gave you a list that looked like the following
MATCHES 1, 2, 3
Team 1
Team 2
team 3
team 4
team 5
team 6
team 7
team 8
team 9
team 10
team 11
team 12
They would tell you who you alliance partners were when you were called to the staging area. It made things interesting. It was more challenging, an didnt emphasize so much on the whole scouting thing. It gave a good challenge of being able to work somethin out for a strategy in a very short time.
They need to design a game that guarantees a different match every time. 2003 turned out to be whoever knocked the pyramid over first would win. It was boring.
What really miffed me was the lack of enforcement of certain rules in the game. The tipping rule was very rarely enforced and when it was it was not properly used. Poor Buzz got DQed while one team went around tipping bots and no penalties were issued. Many teams were going around bragging of how many bots they tipped over, none of these teams got penalties. Enforce the rules!!!
I did like the ramp points ot gave my team a chance to make a difference despite haveing to replace our drive train. We were the only bot I saw in Galieo that stuck to the ramp evry time and stayed there despite many repeated attacks. We got on the ramp in 6 out of 7 of our matches and stayed on every single time!!
Even at Rutgers Team 25 could not push us off, and we all know how fast they could ram!!
Look at this pic for proof! (Not 25 but a good example)
It is time that FIRST teams demand that FIRST games not be designed in the interest of Dean Kamen proving a point to the world. Also I would like to see a little of the focus shift back to the game. After all this is at some level about a robotics competition, at least it was at one point. Now it seems that all I need to do to win an award is have a good business or 7 year plan. What happened to awards like best offensive play or best defensive play? These awards have been abolished as the focus of FIRST shifts away from the game.
I don’t know about you, but I think it is MUCH more important what people gather from the experience, and the impact it has upon all of the people in attendance than who wins and who loses a match. I don’t think the focus ever was on the game, and never should be.
There should never be a situation which makes it impossible to win.
Maybe so, maybe not. You can play the first match in such a manner that if you lose, you still can come back. All that matters is that you play the game with the correct strategy, inherent to any game. Just because the scoring system is not traditional does not mean it is flawed.
I think two changes would’ve made the game a bit better.
A) Getting on top is worth less.
B) Stacking gets you points in addition to being a multiplier in an exponential format or some sort.
With more stackers, it’d be easier to win.
First of all, it would never be easier to win. The same number of teams will win and the same number of teams will lose regardless of the scoring system. Second, if all you care about is winning, design a robot that does just that: win. We all have the same rules, and the same number of teams win at the end, no matter what the rules are.
Too many people complain about the rules, but it just seems to me that whatever the rules are, you must be able to conform to it. The rules are ALWAYS fair because we all play by the SAME rules.
I see 1 problem with this years competition. Too many people complaining about one of the most amazing opportunities they will ever have. When I was in High School I saw plenty of things I saw that were wrong about FIRST. But in comparison to all the fun I had and the opportunities FIRST gave me thos minor problems didn’t seem to matter. If you think there are huge problems with FIRST then simply don’t sign up for the team. If you have an issue send an email to someone who can do something at FIRST. Complaining about things on a 3rd party forum is going to change much if anything.
FIRST does everything for a reason. The reason finals were dropped from best out of 3 to highest total because there were complaints that finals lasted too long and teams didn’t playe nough matches. Every match takes time and by getting rid of a third of the finals they figured they could allow teams to play more matches in qualifying. I agree the best of 3 was better. It was possible to come back this year, if you played the game smart. FIRST probobly saw that the new system didn’t work after the first week of regionals but for fairness they stuck with it. More likely than not it will back to best of 3 next year.
Making comments about how the hill should be worth none and the stacks should be worth more to help stackers. FIRST gave everyone the same game. Many teams did not recognize how hard it would be to consistently stack. There were a few teams who realized stacking would be nearly impossible and decided not to stack. I heard comments on CD all season about how high people would stack but noone stacked above what a human could play. The game was about protecting stacks and moving crates not making stacks.
Every year FIRST gives us a new game and a new competition. They try new things each year sometimes they work well other times there flops. 2001 wasn’t a success so they dropped the 4vs0 system. I assume the same thing will happen to the Highest total score finals as well. But there are successes like 2vs2 and 3 team alliances for finals. I could point out flaws in each years game but those flaws are rarely repeated because FIRST learns form there mistakes as we all do.
*Originally posted by Justin *
**In my view this year’s game is fundamentally flawed in several ways which need to be corrected. As I see it the most egregious of these flaws are the finals. The finals are setup in a manner that rips the control of their own destiny from teams. There should never be a situation which makes it impossible to win. There for we need to move back to best 2 out of 3 for the finals. This way if I come out and loose I still have a fighting chance…the current system barely gives me a chance at all. In addition I would like the see the abolishment of the losers score times the cumulative age of the team divided by pi scoring formulas. Raw score for the entire game qualifying rounds, finals, the whole bit. It is time that FIRST teams demand that FIRST games not be designed in the interest of Dean Kamen proving a point to the world. Also I would like to see a little of the focus shift back to the game. After all this is at some level about a robotics competition, at least it was at one point. Now it seems that all I need to do to win an award is have a good business or 7 year plan. What happened to awards like best offensive play or best defensive play? These awards have been abolished as the focus of FIRST shifts away from the game. Again more Dean Philosophy 101, he is so desperate now to avoid even the appearance that we are in some way competitive. News flash the business world is cut throat, I’m not suggesting we have to be, but I am suggesting that we can be competitive we can use defense and raw scores without sacrificing the mission of FIRST. I submit that if game design continues down its current path next year we will not need a robotics competition. Kickoff could be something to the effect of “design a really nice business plan that will make the Segway profitable.”
They use such horribly complex scoring systems to give the rookies a fighting chance. My guess is that in order to retain teams they want the rookies not to get trounced over and over, so they design the scoring systems to be fairly random.
For instance the LA regional; a team that was broken for every single one of their matches(and when they finally fixed things only functioned poorly) was ranked 4th at the end of the day friday, and through good part of saturday. I think they still wound up in the top 8, though i’m not sure.
On the other hand our robot was functioning very well, and we were dominant in all but one of our matches on friday. At the end i go and check out our ranking, and i’m very surprised not to see us in the first screen (the top 10 or so). So i wait a bit, thinking we must be at least 15th, 15 comes around, and we’re not there. I had to wait until the high 30’s to see my team number come up.
that’s what the “the losers score times the cumulative age of the team divided by pi scoring formulas” are about; giving even the teams who don’t do so well a chance to be high ranked. I think this year they over did it because:
A) a robot which was just a box that drove could be competitive in this year’s game, and
B)the + 2x loser’s score made having a match where no one was dominant very high scoring.
It was to the point where my teammates were jokingly considering dropping our robot off a tall building to break it some, because it might get better while broken.
To finish out this novel of a post I have to say that it is very frustrating for those of us who have built great robots to be outscored by lesser bots, but even so you can understand why FIRST may want to keep it that way
*Originally posted by sevisehda *
**If you think there are huge problems with FIRST then simply don’t sign up for the team. If you have an issue send an email to someone who can do something at FIRST. Complaining about things on a 3rd party forum is going to change much if anything.
**
If there’s any message at all that FIRST consistantly sends out to its participants, it’s that we should all take an active, participatory role in changing the things that have problems.
It seems silly to think that it’s okay to make an active, vocal effort at changing culture, but FIRST is immune to that same effort.
*Originally posted by Spikey *
**What really miffed me was the lack of enforcement of certain rules in the game. The tipping rule was very rarely enforced and when it was it was not properly used. Poor Buzz got DQed while one team went around tipping bots and no penalties were issued. Many teams were going around bragging of how many bots they tipped over, none of these teams got penalties. Enforce the rules!!!
I did like the ramp points ot gave my team a chance to make a difference despite haveing to replace our drive train. We were the only bot I saw in Galieo that stuck to the ramp evry time and stayed there despite many repeated attacks. We got on the ramp in 6 out of 7 of our matches and stayed on every single time!!
Even at Rutgers Team 25 could not push us off, and we all know how fast they could ram!!
Look at this pic for proof! (Not 25 but a good example) **
Flipping was a touchy subject. Obviously as in the picture you posted, both bots are on the ramp. Now, since it is a “king of the hill” competition, there’s bound to be pushing and shoving. Add in an incline/ramp, and an obscure center of gravity, and you get a pretty ugly looking soup. Generally speaking, if a robot flips due to head to head bashing, no penalty is called. However, if one robot is stationary, another rams into it, resulting in the tipping of the stationary bot, a penalty should be called. If two bots are in head to head bashing, and one has a pneumatic/mechanical “ramp”, they are safe so long as they don’t actuate it. Once an action is used while in contact that results in the flipping of another bot, it becomes intentional. If the action is NOT used, and the other bot flips, it’s non intentional.
At least, this is how we tried to run it on Curie. If anyone has any other questions about flipping, PM me, and I’ll answer what I can.
*Originally posted by Spikey *
**What really miffed me was the lack of enforcement of certain rules in the game. The tipping rule was very rarely enforced and when it was it was not properly used. Poor Buzz got DQed while one team went around tipping bots and no penalties were issued. Many teams were going around bragging of how many bots they tipped over, none of these teams got penalties. Enforce the rules!!!
**
Yeah our alliance was DQ’d in the semis against Truck Town when both Buzz and T3 were stuck up against eachother. Buzz just happened to have wheels and had a advantage over T3, who was protecting a stack… Either one could’ve been DQ’d-- And by the way, T3 did not even flip over.
And then in the elimination finals 111 flipped us with their wedge- and they weren’t DQ’d… We have a very low COG and they rammed us after flipping us, causing a 10-tooth sprocket to shear. Thus, we couldn’t self-right ourselves for the first time this year… I still have to commend them on their awesome bot…
A lot of experiments were done this year in the way the competition was done. One was how teams were inspected, and there were others, including active use of the message board system. A lot of problems that I saw this year develop came from conflicts over interpretation and the message board. However, I didnt see as many flaws as expected with the GAME. No game is perfect, and it is difficult for FIRST that the game changes every year. That means they cant set out rules to follow year in year out which specifically address problems which dont pertain to safety issues.
The game wasnt impossible to win in the elimination rounds, even if you did lose the first match. If you did well in the second match, and did better then the other team did in the first match, then it was still very possible to advance. I also liked the way the scoring went this year, although justin frankly you misrepresented it. It was two times the opponents score plus your own. This way you gained credit for the points that you gained, but you also gained points for what your opponent did if you won.
Also an opportunity for LEARNING still occured in this game. The business plan award for example. This might seem useless to you but I can see how the reasoning behind that award could be very valid. It encourages teams to structure how they are run more like a business would be run, and possibly help them be more efficient during the build season. If FIRST was just about building the robot…what would separate it from other competitions? The point behind this competition is to inspire the students who participate in it. Also it is to give students who are interested in science and technology something to do that they can look back on, and give them something that allows them to work as a team. Where did this game fail at giving them that opportunity?
Maybe this years game wasnt perfect, but if you REALLY have an objection instead of venting in here, bring it up at the team forum in a reasonable manner. Try to think of the reasons why the game was created the way it was. This years game wasn’t targeted at marketing the segway, and I find it sad that you thought it was. FIRST was never totally about the game. The game is the end result but it isnt the whole point behind the competition. When you forget that…it makes it difficult to have as much fun as you could otherwise.
*Originally posted by sevisehda * I see 1 problem with this years competition. Too many people complaining about one of the most amazing opportunities they will ever have. When I was in High School I saw plenty of things I saw that were wrong about FIRST. But in comparison to all the fun I had and the opportunities FIRST gave me those minor problems didn’t seem to matter. If you think there are huge problems with FIRST then simply don’t sign up for the team. If you have an issue send an email to someone who can do something at FIRST. Complaining about things on a 3rd party forum is going to change much if anything.
I couldn’t agree more with you. FIRST has never been about this year’s game vs that year’s game. It is about inspiring young people into the ideas of engineering, science and technology. The competition is merely a way to focus it. For more than ten years, that has been the goal of FIRST, to inspire high school children into going into complex fields of engineering, mathematics, science, etc. This can be seen by the numbers of scholarships given out by engineering schools to those who participate in FIRST. I mean come on, 13 and a half million plus dollars in scholarships is amazing, for anything! FIRST will continue to do what they have been doing since inception, because it is accomplishing its goal. Many people who do participate in this program go on to become engineers, programmers, scientists and other important fields for the future. I’m glad FIRST has done so well in doing so.
As for this year’s game, I don’t think the full-potential of the game was used, thats all. I loved the concepts of this game more than previous competitions. We probably will never see the full-potential of this game utilized, but I can honestly say that this was a good game, if you knew where to look. I have discussed this in depth with numerous people, and I do accept that if the ramp was worth only like 5 or ten points per bot, there would have been a drastic change in some robot designs and strategies. But overall this was a great year for FIRST.
Maybe so, maybe not. You can play the first match in such a manner that if you lose, you still can come back. All that matters is that you play the game with the correct strategy, inherent to any game. Just because the scoring system is not traditional does not mean it is flawed.
If you look at how chaotic this game was, many teams didn’t quite understand the rules, so in the first match in an elimination round, they would keep themselves on the ramp, so on and so forth. Fact of the matter is if there is a difference in EP’s of 90 points or more after the first match in an elimination round, it should be virtually impossible for any team to make that up if the leading team just plays smart. Score yourself 0 points, take out the stacks…there is nothing they can do to win. Not overly difficult with two free robots on the field. This, my friends, makes for a flawed game. I agree with Justin, there should be no such thing as a 1 match final. These games were more fun when it was two out of three…and isn’t that what this is all about…making engineering fun? This is why we criticize the game, because we want it to be more fun. When its more fun, more students get into it, and it tends to stick in their minds. I understand that FIRST wants to get a point across about working together and other similar messages, and thats ok. But in the end, we all just want to have fun…you can get the same message across without making the game a metaphor.
to all of you that insist on a more “fair” competition and such, look at what you are saying. you cannot have a competition where everbody wins, and that seems like what you are saying. we all start out as equally as it is humanly possible for FIRST to do, and it is up to us to figure out how to win. making it easier and simpler and such will only prove to turn a competition into basically a robot show.
dont be offended by what i say, just argue:D
What I was trying to say is coming to CD and whining about things won’t solve anything. Legitimate concerns should be sent to FIRST.
As soon as a team saw a bad call they should of gone and talked to a ref. Seeing they are volunteers they may not have a 100% understanding of all the rules. To the people who have issues with calls, did you go and talked to the refs before complaining about the refs on CD? I know they can’t really change something after the fact but it may prevent them from making future mistakes.
I agree the highest score thing was a failure but just about everyone knows that. FIRST instilled it to cut the finals matching by a 3rd to save time. They won’t do it again.
A final thought: Everytime I sign on to CD there are at least 3 threads complaining. Complaing to CD will solve nothing. CD isn’t going to make next years game. FIRST will make next year’s game so send your grievences there.
What I was trying to say is coming to CD and whining about things won’t solve anything. Legitimate concerns should be sent to FIRST.
…
A final thought: Everytime I sign on to CD there are at least 3 threads complaining. Complaing to CD will solve nothing. CD isn’t going to make next years game. FIRST will make next year’s game so send your grievences there. **
I disagree. FIRST reads ChiefDelphi. They used to post here, even. I think that presenting your grievances in a tempered, intelligent manner and exchanging ideas about solutions is why this website exists.
The Team Forum exists as well, but many of the participants here cannot attend the Forum because of their role on their teams and their age.
I disagree with your logic there M. Krass. Sure, people who work for FIRST may read the CD forums, but that doesn’t mean anything. I talked in depth with some people from FIRST about this in detail after UTC. CD is a great reference area for people to connect and talk about their ideas, meet other FIRSTers and so-forth. However, it is an unofficial message board. This is why it drove alot of people from FIRST nuts every year when people go to chief delphi to contest rules, or to get a clarification. It creates confusion because sometimes different teams have different interpretation of the rules for that year and confusion is spread, and with CD being used often, it only spread that confusion quicker.
I agree that complaints, grievances and questions should be sent to FIRST, not the forums. But before people do, may sure it is a legitimate claim or question.
