Posted by Joe Ross at 05/01/2001 3:43 AM EST
College Student on team #330, Beach Bot, from Hope Chapel Academy and NASA/JPL , J&F Machine, and Raytheon.
I have been reading all the posts recently, and I would like to remind everyone that FIRST DOES listen to what you want.
I decided to look over the results of the Team Forum from last year. What I found is that FIRST implemented most of the comments about the game. As a reminder, the most interesting part of the minutes are pasted below (with my comments). The link to the full set of minutes is below.
>De-emphasize the Human Player - most agreed maybe
>60% - 40% split in favor
>Don’t get rid of completely.
>Some like last minute outcome with Human player involvement
>HP by itself couldn’t score, but very effective to load robot for scoring
>Gets more kids to participate.
>Don’t necessarily want sports type person as HP.
>try to get others involved that may not be sports oriented
We didn’t see the demise of the human player, but the sports role was definetly deemphasized. It didn’t take much to load the near goal. There was still the last minute shot, as evidenced in a few regionals
>Gate mechanism for enter/exit for field
>Many teams hurt due to lifting 130 - 140 lbs. over bar
>Don’t make robot any heavier. Would make too difficult to lift over bar.
I wasn’t on the field, so I don’t know how this was implemented, but I remember reading a post or two saying that it had.
>Most teams built partial field. Too expensive for complete field. Only major players build complete field and usually due to planning smaller event on their own.
>Alliance concept - Stroke of genius. Go to new level - require all to work together
OK, who was the idiot/genius who suggested this?
>Referee’s need to be consistent at all events
This will always be a problem, with as many events as there are. The only major problem I saw was the confusion about whether student coaches could press the stop button. This was cleared up by nationals, with the yellow dot.
>“Push” only in 10 second rule
>Very difficult to enforce from referee standpoint
>maybe standardize places on robot for pulling
This wasn’t an issue this year
>Adhere to system of penalties
>Most liked 3x losing score. Suggestion - maybe make 2x or 3x + losing score
>Structure better in 2000 vs. 1999
>Want more interaction with goal as in previous years
I’d say there was more interaction, can anyone say bridge?
>Everyone start on one side - GREAT !!! Made throughput much faster
We had this again, and it seems like it will stay
>Want more obstacles on field
Is the bridge a good enough obstacle? what about the goals and 2 sizes of balls
>Air conditioned fields at Nationals were wonderful but very crowded
I wasn’t there last year, but the indoor fields seemed crowded to me.
>Keep field same size - NO Larger
>Finding facility big enough to leave field standing for 6 weeks, never mind finding place big enough height wise.
>Much more room for interaction in 2000
>Actually got to drive machine this year not just maneuver for scoring purpose
>Maybe have “Safety or Neutral Zone” on field with no robot to robot contact.
>Liked amount of contact
>Lots of spectators due to damage factor
>Just like Auto Racing - Fans go for the crashes.
>Staging area at Nationals for teams competing was great.
>Adopt for Regionals
>Some robots are built by school/students, some built by corporation. Should standardize percentage built by students
>Maybe have “Rookie” leg to whole competition. Sometimes difficult to tell if “true” rookie or not.
I have a hard time beleiving that either of these will be implemented in the near future, but they do bring up interesting points for discussion.
Overall, I think FIRST did a very good job listening to the teams. All I can say is that if you have a problem (or liked something) about the game, make sure you have a representative at the forum and FIRST will listen.