Disappointment (long)

FIRST General Forum
#47

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.

#48

If only I could have said this. Always graciously professional, sanddrag. :smiley:

#49

[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]

#50

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.

#51

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. :smiley:

Ed

#52

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.

#53

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.

#54

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.

#55

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 :confused: and only three matches to regain our dignity on Saturday :frowning: . 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 :smiley:

#56

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.

#57

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.

#58

I was a member of one of the teams that beat them that round. I’m sorry that you’re dissapointed, but that’s how the game played out. We had a team of three defensive robots, and were paired against the top shooter of the regional, how did you expect us to play?

None of our teams had any intention of pushing any of your robots over. I was there for the strategy discussions, it never came up. I’m sorry you lost, but attacking us won’t regain you the win. The destruction of 650’s flyers was also uncalled for, I don’t know what team did it, but it happened, and was quite against the spirit of FIRST.

In short, good luck next year, too bad about this year.

#59

You, my furry little friend, seem rather disappointed.

#60

I really see no problem with the contact. If we didn’t have all of the hitting, the game would be boring. It makes for a much more fun game, and it makes it much more difficult to win because you have to be reliable no matter what. At the peachtree regional, we (1683) ended up being a major defensive player mainly because we had to stop some very good shooters. Sure we would flip over robots, but that was never our intention. I know how you feel dissapointed, as we just lost the regional in the finals also, but FIRST is about so much more than just winning.

#61

For those who have complaints about either this year’s rules or head refs who are reluctant to make robot-robot contact calls, I refer you to this post. Refs should be very hesitant to call penalties in robot contact situations unless they are almost completely certain the contact is intentional and only then when it falls under the guidelines listed in G22.

#62

I just finished my first FIRST event as an engineering mentor. We ( 1311 ) just lost to you guys ( 1683 ), but we had a blast, it was great fun. You guys have a lot to be proud of. Our machine was not fast, nor nimble, nor really designed for combat, but we had absolutely no complaints from anyone on my team about the contact. We designed for stable long distance autonomous shooting. We had a software problem and blew our first three matchs. At lunch we were last in standings. At the end it we were halfway up the chart. If it hadn’t been for the bug, it would have been 8-2-0 or 9-1-0 but we did 5-5-0 and thats okay. The only hardware failure was 3 loosened set screws. Keep your machine together, scuttlebut is we are going to do a scrimmage in the near future in this area, and we will do it again. We will be in Atl as observers in a few weeks.

Ed

#63

This was my first year as a mentor/parent, so from the perspective of a newbie:

When we got the ‘game plan’ in Jan, we had to figure out what our small team could/couldn’t do - we knew we couldn’t get the camera and a shooting device working in 6 weeks, but we could figure out a way to pick up balls…we decided to make ours short so we wouldn’t be tipped over.

I thought all the teams built something that they should be proud of - some teams had to build a defensive robot as that’s the skill set they have.

I walked out of the Family Arena every day just pumped with energy - how could you not with teams like the Kinigits? (for those who weren’t there, think Monty Python’s Holy Grail, complete with fuzzy bunny strapped to the top of the robot, and the cast from the movie, complete with a dedicated coconut clapper) Or the rookie team next to us - 1776, wearing the George Washington wigs (don’t those itch?) Anyway, we had an awesome time, our kids stuck to the game plan, the robot worked exactly as planned.

Can’t wait for next year. I see how you can get addicted to FIRST. :slight_smile:

DeAnnaC

#64

Hang in there! Things can be tough but thats what being in FIRST is all about! We (team 135) were undefeated until the last few final rounds which landed us at 3rd place at Purdue. But I am so happy that our team did so well and I havenever been happier with our outcome. WInning awards is cool and we were unhappy to leave two events with no awards at all, but earning the respect of other teams and working together to achieve a greater goal is so much better!

#65

While I dislike targetting FIRST programmers, who in the world put a “third option” in the FIRST field programming? When the computer uses a random process with two options (red or blue) for determining which side goes on offense or defense first, there should not be a third option (no lights). I am going to guess that there is a >= or <= somewhere in that random string. I was seeing that occur many times at SVR and truthfully, as a viewer, it was kind of annoying, especially if one of those occurred in the final matches. What is probably occurring is that the field lights when it hits that “=” rather than a simple “<” or “>”, it tries to activate both lights but runs into an error and activates none.

#66