Some others thought otherwise, so I’m opening this again as I said I would.
Chris, just because your robot lost doesn’t mean that it was a bad robot. I haven’t seen it play. But as everyone else has said, FIRST did design the game to have defense, a lot of it. They tried to make it so that teams could do multiple things. The winning teams of almost every regional so far were made up of robots with different strategys that shooting coupled with shooters. Furthermore, to me, it sounds as tho your team failed, like many others, to put on bumpers. Bumpers are extremely valuble pieces of hardware. Teams with them are definatly the least prone to damage. Therefore, take this to heart. Your robot was beaten by a team that had recognized your threat and neutralized it. AIM HIGH is a fun, exciting game. However, could you imagine it without robots d-ing eachother up, pushing it around. It wouldn’t be too much fun for anyone.
To respond to these comments, I must say that you are bordering on crossing the line. To say that you were never able to test it in the conditions it was designed for and that you were focused on Atlanta before winning shows disrespect for the other teams at your regional, all of whom spent the same amout of time that you did. Your robot was designed for AIM HIGH. Your robot played AIM HIGH. Therefore, the conditions it was designed for were validated.
I hate to take anything away from any of the teams that attend the StL regional, but it is generally one of the weaker regionals. Founded on rookie teams in 2002. Generally dominated by the Baxter Bomb Squad (16). A rookie team has a really good chance at winning that regional. I don’t know where this post is going… so I should probably end it right now. I didn’t read this entire thread either. I have a short attention span.
Hopefully this is a joke post…otherwise…wow.
After reading these posts I noticed that everyone is saying what they think FIRST is. So I started thinking-- what is FIRST? Then I thought, well, it’s all of these things. It’s about innovation, hard work, inspiration, teaching, learning, experimenting, strategy, competition, meeting new people, being inspired, aiming high and changing paradigms. Then I realized, for some people it’s more than that. For others, it’s simpler. Really, FIRST is what you make of it.
If you want to finish a competition and say, “We were shafted,” then do it. Because if you really were the victim of unfairness, you did built an awesome robot. In building that machine, you learned something, and hopefully you were inspired along the way. However, I really hope you don’t, for your sake. If you leave a competition and didn’t go as far as you had hoped, it’s because there was a team who was able to play the game to their advantage a little bit better than the other teams. So rather, say to yourself, “Next year, we’re going to build a better drive train.” “This summer, let’s work on making that camera work for us, so we can win auto.” I hope that you’ll say, “That was one of the best experiences of my life,” and you’ll realize that 6 weeks of hard work paid off and you’re robot went out and won a match or two.
I would idealistically like to believe that every team out there is playing fair and is playing to win. I work on strategy for our team, and I personally love it when teams play good defense, because I get to do more work and figure out how to avoid them.
I would like to point out though, that it’s unfair to say that one team worked less hard than another simply because they didn’t built a shooter. I honestly believe that every team wants to win and builds the best they can. A good pushing and defensive robot, that can push balls into corner goals and climb the ramp has a very good shot of doing well.
Also, keep in mind, the rules are designed for safety and for fair play. These are the top priorities of organization and the referees. You have to remember though, that they wanted defense, there is a reason that there is a period of the game referred to as such. There is a reason that the bumpers were added this year. If the referees see something unfair and against the rules, trust them to call it.
I’m so very proud of FIRST because they strive for success, and every time, teams deliver. This game has been played well. Teams have worked and continue to work hard. I personally can’t wait for the Wisconsin Regional and the Championship to see what others have done with such a complex task.
Yeah… it wasn’t my finest hour… I read the first post in the topic and had my mind made up. I do that a lot. Sorry. 
I have the entire match on video at a fixed angle that views the entire field. I shall post it on youtube.com thursday afternoon since i will be unable to get to my video equipment. I will set up a new post with a poll and we can vote if it was unsportsmanlike or not.
I dont want to sound mean or anything I just feel that people dont see the unsportsmanlike conduct that went on in this match. If all three robots tip over in a match and not by their own accord, you know there is a problem.
I’m tired and I can’t take the time to read this whole thread but I will reply to the very first post (and the starter of the thread).
Your team is better off than so many more out there.
Last year, we had 26 pounds of 3 motor (each) 2 speed gearboxes and never had to engage in one pushing match because of the way penalties were being handed out.
This year we are in our 6th year. We own no machining tools. We don’t even have a bandsaw. We build our robot in a computer lab. We didn’t get picked for finals in Arizona. We have 50 pounds of a mechanism that has scored a grand total of 3 points. We lost more matches than we won. We have never been to the Championship event.
You are doing just fine. There are so many others right around you who have many more problems than your team.
Alright…
Few things: First, I think everyone needs to chill a little bit; Chris27, it might be a good idea to read your posts before you hit “submit reply”, and consider how they might be offensive to some individuals. Everyone else, consider the fact that Chris27 and his team were disappointed with the result of their regional, and that their experiences and response are thus coming through a biased, slightly distraught lens.
Chris27, I understand your frustration, and we totally experienced it last year; my team built a robot that had the ability to cap higher than all except for two bots at our regional, and perhaps ten or twenty bots that I saw at nationals could cap higher than us; what we didn’t reckon on was the development of strategy and driver skill; we built a robot that, with a properly developed strategy and actually making some practice matches, would have been stupendous. We didn’t do these things, and we didn’t play the game well; that was our fault, and that is why this year we planned on playing the game.
We are one of those robots that will play primarily defense, although we will probably be able to score in both the high and corner goals. We collect balls, we shoot them, and we dump them, but what we do really, really well is push other robots wherever the hell we want to. This is a valid strategy, and while you claim a lack of “innovation” in these bots, I draw your attention to what we were forced to do to maintain scoring capabilities while being a very strong defensive bot:
-We had to design and run a belt drive from our window motor to get it moving a roller at 400rpms, without a gearbox, because we don’t have the facilities or knowledge to design and fabricate custom gearboxes.
-We had to design and build the entire upper section of our robot(read: non-drive-base) using only 45lbs of weight (note that this includes collection system, hopper, dumping system, electronics, etc…).
-We were forced to compensate for our lack of strong/fast motors by developing systems that functioned without an extremely fast or strong motor.
Additionally, we put alot of time and thought into the drive-train and base, and how to make it do what we wanted, the way we wanted to do it. Perhaps we didn’t create a shooter with adjustments on 3 axes that dynamically tracked the target and determined motor speed & etc… based on trigonometrical distance calculations.
But we didn’t need to- we designed and built a functional robot that will contribute to each and every alliance we are on no matter what the opposing alliance’s strategy is. Our innovation, as valid as yours, was partially rooted in strategy and gameplay, not solely in technological achievements.
Which brings me to my next point: This is a thread about whether or not robots win or lose, and whether or not their gameplay fits with various preconceived notions of what “FIRST intended the game to be like”. Ahhhh, intent, what a word…I’d ask how any of us know FIRSTs intent (other than inspiring individuals to do something bigger and better with their lives than previously planned) in anything, but it would probably create an uproar(the answer is that we don’t; FIRST designs the game, and we interpret that game and create an experience out of it; a robot is a byproduct of the build season). This experience is what really matters; the skills you develop over the 6 weeks, or the competition, or just in thinking about the robot is what really counts; it is the change that each of us experiences, the ability we develop to deal with disappointments and successes, and our relatively amazing ability to adapt our notions of the way things are and enact a positive change based on these refined realities, that really matter in the long run.
My team has never won a regional; hell, we’ve never even seeded high than 30th(I think, and this is in a field of 46 at Drexel). What we have done is learned things. We’ve learned what we want to do with our lives, what a creative mind and some raw materials can create, what the true meaning of teamwork is, how to manage our time effectively, how to multitask, how to write software, how to design & assemble an electronics board, how to use a variety of tools, how to design and complete an engineering project, and, most of all, we have learned how to take what we though was our limit, our top, our best, and exceed them all. We’ve dealt with failure (see our rookie robot that was 40lbs overweight, had a pretty much non-extant dewalt drivetrain, couldn’t turn easily, and our functional arm we were forced to cut to make weight), and success (see our website award in 2005 and our Rookie Inspiration Award for showing up at the regional, awed and inexperienced, and putting our time, effort, sweat, and blood into fixing that robot when we weighed in [no accurate scale at the shop- not enough money] and found out about our weight issue), and each of these experiences has taught us things. On the surface these lessons were about robotics; we learned to weigh our components and final products obsessively, to KISS, and to choose something we could do and do it. When you delve a little, however, you find that these lessons taught us about teamwork, goals, planning, and every members personal abilities in the shop, on the field, and in life.
Chris27, it sounds like you are disappointed in the outcome of this year; you have every right to be so, if you so choose. You built what sounds like an amazing robot that I am very envious of, and you didn’t garner the expected win. I challenge you to look past the disappointment, and to remove it from your thoughts; look beyond the loss of this year (and the win of last year), and ask what the experiences can teach you and your teammates, other than how best to build a winning robot. Once you realize that in the end, while winning is fun and awesome, it isn’t everything, you have realized what FIRST is really all about, and what they intended the competition to do; if even a single person on your team can come away from this experience having learned something they would not have otherwise learned, then you have done well.
There is probably not a single team in FIRST that could not have done better, given more time/thought/money/ideas/sponsors/facilities/luck, but if each of the 40,000 students (and mentors, while we are at it) comes out of the experience having learned some lesson about life, and having developed a broader, more realistic knowledge and experience base, then FIRST, and every team in FIRST, has accomplished what their basest goal should be. To educate, inspire, and drive everyone involved in this amazing program.
Just my $.02
-Dillon Compton
Team 1394
909 fell over in the match due to driver error and not because of the actions of any one team. Our driver did the one thing that would make the robot fall over, which was to yank the controls into full reverse while still rolling forward.
That being said…The match felt as though it were one very large wrestling match. My personal feelings are that there was too much hard hitting, but it was consistent with what had been allowed for the entire regional and so I can’t place any blame on the teams. It wasn’t as evident in previous matches because we never went up against 3 defensive robots.
I really wish all involved could look back at the final rounds and view them as a learning experience. We all went out there to do our best and we all created machines and strategies to do so. Not every machine is perfect and not every strategy is perfect, as clearly shown by watching the 1v8 elims. And even more importantly, it’s a game used as a vehicle to teach so take a deep breath and think of all the fun you had working alongside others.
If only I could have said this. Always graciously professional, sanddrag. 
[quote=Dillon Compton]Alright…
Few things: First, I think everyone needs to chill a little bit;
Yes I agree, everyone please chill.
My team built and rebuilt and rebuilt a robot that we are actually proud of. It isn’t perfect, neither is anyone elses. There are many things we got done, and several we didn’t We haven’t competed in our regional yet, but will in a few days.
The machines are imperfect, the scoring is imperfect, the judging is imperfect. But in the spirit of ‘gracious professionalism’ we will happily accept the outcome.
This is not a hollow statement that we read in a book. We are proud of what we have accomplished to date. We had a lot of fun, we learned a lot, we expanded the horizons of the team members and the community around us.
We are going to compete this weekend, hopefully our work will deserve some recognizable merit, but if it doesn’t that is okay. It just means that we didn’t deliver the goods, or we failed to convince the world that we delivered the goods. We really feel like that we have already ‘won’.
This is real life engineering. Time/Money/Resource constrained. If someone want to be a great engineer, they need to take the punchs and go with the flow. Take these experiences and learn, enjoy them, take notes.
Real life engineering is great fun, but you have to learn to wear iron pants because some days you are going to get the crap beat out of you.
Relax and enjoy the experience and learn how to emotionally deal with success and failure. Learn to identify and examine your successes and failures and how to laugh at them. You will get a more harmonious outcome in the future.
Our goals for now is to have a good showing, try and get some recognition, and keep the machine in one piece.
Ed[/quote]
I have been involved with FIRST since 1997, when my daughter joined her HS team. I have to admit that over the years my attitude has been adjusted a few times.
One of the most impressive moments in a match Ive ever seen was in '98 at Rutgers, in the playoffs. A robot had tipped itself back onto a rail, and was helpless. The opponent had a sure victory. Instead of racking up more points the opponent came over and gently nudged the bot back on its feet - as if to say “Get up and play the game”. The crowd was on its feet cheering. I dont remember which side won the match.
In the stack attack game 2003 we were well into the scoring mode where the winning team got a multiple of the losing teams score. Throughout the build season I was convinced most teams would try to win by a few points, and that we would see many stacks left standing at the end of matches. That never happened. I dont think I saw a single game end all that year with a stack more than 3 boxes high. If a tall stack did occasionally remain it was because one or more powerfull bots defended it for the whole match. Im sure many teams that build excellent stacking machines that year were dissapointed to see their chosen strategy end up being unusable.
In 2004, in the last match of the finals an opponent rammed our bot, and broke ALL the wheels off on both sides. No penalty was called. At first we were very upset. But we accepted the fact that we had not designed for a rough contact game: our bot had plastic wheels, exposed, with no bumpers.
The game this year has three ways to score. The center goal, the corner goals, and by climbing the ramp at the end. All three are valid ways to score and valid ways to win. If a team decided their primary means of scoring points is to climb the ramp at the end, then they must spend the rest of the match preventing their opponents from scoring more that 25 points. There is nothing wrong with that approach to the game.
And as the last two weeks of competition has shown, if your primary strategy is to shoot the star out of the center goal, then you will have to do so while rugged little dozer-bots are pushing you every way they can. That means you will need to hit the goal from a range of angles and distances, you will need to acquire and lock your shooter on the target quickly, and you will need to fire off multiple shots quickly when you are locked on.
There was only bot I saw at the FLL regional that was unstopable in its primary function. The Falcons - team 1405. They pointed their bot directly at the nearest corner goal, and in auton mode they flew across the floor and dumped all ten balls at once. The laws of physics say you cannot cross the field diagonally and beat them to the goal if both robots are going as fast as the physics of the game and rules allow.
We will find out at the championship which game plan proves to be the best this year.
The Rutgers story is a GREAT story. I’d love to see something like that.
From what I’ve seen many teams are too focused on just point scoring and not enough on the other aspects of FIRST.
We decided early on that we wanted the technical challange of building a robot that could pickup and shoot on the run, what we called the M1A1 approach.
We did this recognizing that there a several ways to become the high scorer. We just felt like it was more important to us to try to build the M1A1 and screw it up than it was to simply be the high score robot. It was a team decision and we are happy with it.
If we go to Atlanta, and it would be a merit-based invitation only, then we are going to have some real fun and almost certainly get beat.
C’mon guys, it’s just like racing, 40 or so near identical cars and all kinds of stuff happens. Sometimes you get a break, sometimes you get broken.
Ed
It seems that many of you guys are dismissing my thread as a childish rant because of a few poorly worded sentences in my post. Many of you don’t even bother to see our point of view
To say that you would not show ANY disapointment if you went through a sitiation like we did then you are flat out lieing to yourself.
Secondly somepeople are being quick to asume that we are whining because we didn’t win and that we think is all that matters. Read my post again you will find out that I have told about many of the ups and downs and great experiences that we have had. NONE of us regrets ever being in FIRST.
My disapointment mostly comes from in my opinion too much rough play “battle bots.” I was just hoping that I could explain some of the frustrations that we have had and that next year there will be less “battle bots”
I’m sorry to those that have found any of my posts offensive. It was not my intention.
I read, and considered your post. It is labeled “disappointment”.
We have gone through the same thing, and we always held our heads high and said “we tried our best.” The few poorly
worded sentences that you speak of aren’t poorly worded, they are poorly conceived. In them you said that you do more work than everybody.
you are wrong about it being battle bots, as that is obviously what FIRST intended.
Sorry, but I tried to look at it from your POV, and It just doesn’t work.
Thanks Chris, for coming back again with a calm post.
I had a wonderful post written that was lost when the thread was temporarily closed. Part of it said that while people disagreed with you, they had no reason for the tone of their responses.
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree about appropriate levels of pushing and bumping. When the GDC tells you to play only defense for 40 seconds, and gives you bumpers, you have to expect extra contact this year. At the same time, they reiterate the ban on high-speed and long-distance ramming. There’s a balance there. I think your expectations were not in alignment with the game design - in my opinion.
Unfortunately in your disappointment, your initial post did come across as whiny. With another day to rest and think, this one is much better.
First i would like to say that your bot this year was amazing. We were at the St. Louis competition and we believe that the pushing and shoving of other bots was not only implied by the rules but also a major part of the game. with the assistance of a camera for aiming the matches would have been a joke if pushing or ramming of the bots was not allowed. most teams were able to program their cam but others had now idea how and for them dumping balls, pushing balls and pushing other shooting bots out of range was the only way they could play the game. i personal thing that if it wasn’t for the ability to push other bots around the game this year would not have been any were as fun. it would consist of six bots all facing their respective goals and waiting for the light to turn green again while rookie teams and teams that arn’t as skilled in programing climbed the ramp for the 5 points and did nothing but that. our team may not have done well but we two suffered major difficulty’s such as our turret snapping on Thursday :ahh: our drive train not working all Friday 
and only three matches to regain our dignity on Saturday . but we still had fun. first place or last place or anywere inbetween having fun and learning about enginering and science is what FIRST is all about
I know I gave my opinion earlier in this thread but I would like to now make a post from a different point of view. Chris, I know how you are feeling. I have driven the bot for a few years and have experienced my share of tough calls. It is very often tough to take some of those rulings. The referees, as I’m sure you know, do as good a job as they can to make a fair competition happen. Does this game have defense being played too hard? Maybe, I haven’t seen more than 100 matches so I can’t really say. Our robot was make offensively minded. We have a kitbot transmission and 6 wheels. Pretty simple design. We worked mostly on how to herd balls and shoot, as you seem to have done, Chris. I was terrified of failure when we got to the competition and the offense did not work very well at all. We shot no more than 5 balls in any match (those were the 5 we started with). We shifted strategies and continued. Defense is a big part of the game this year.
“Defense wins championships”
“The best defense is a good offense”
One of these quotes could be applied to almost every robot. I’m sorry that the second quote did not lead you to the goals you wished to achieve. But as so many have said before myself, please realize what a gift your team received these past 2 years. Many teams will not make it that far in a competition for years to come. You have unfortunately been spoiled with success and I am sorry for that (please do not take that as me calling you spoiled. I simply mean that your incredible first year in FIRST made the competition appear easier than it is). I hate to end this post without clearly defining my point of view but I think all of us can agree that no opinion will ever be agreed on by everyone. So Chris and everyone else, I wish you nothing but the best in future competitions whether they may be this year or in years to come. We’re truly all winners already.
First, as several others from the St. Louis regional have pointed out, 1625 did have an outstanding 'bot. Exciting to watch, a great team to work with, and a little scary to look across the field at (as I did after you scored 99 points against us).
I can also understand the disappointment, as we thought we had a pretty good 'bot this year. Going in to the box the camera worked great, we had varying angles for our launcher, could climb the ramp in practice, and had a very reliable shooter. It turns out, though, that a mistake in the shop had us 5 pounds heavy when we thought we were right on. Long story short–we eventually pulled out the camera and pneumatics and had problems with a chain that was only completely fixed by Saturday morning. 33 out of 40 teams in a previously mentioned “weak” regional probably wouldn’t cut it in Atlanta. And yet one of our students, when asked by a local camera crew if she was disappointed by the results, replied “No. That’s just what happens. If something breaks, you try to figure out how to fix it. It’s about playing the game as best you can.”
And while I think they may have gone a bit overboard, the very agressive defensive team was also facing their own problems. They did not arrive in St. Louis with a defensive game plan. Their practice rounds showed that their scoring mechanism wasn’t working properly, so they changed tactics and used their incredibly strong drive train to push people wherever they wanted.
Remeber, there can be only one winner (well, OK, three, but you get the point), so most of us will probably feel some disappointment during the course of a FIRST competition. Hopefully the sense of accomplishment, the great people, the thrill of competing, and many more positive experiences are what you finally walk away with once you get past the disappointment.