IN Plainfield: World High Score (1080 points - 785 fouls)

FIRST General Forum
#52

Who are you arguing with? 1747 is one of the teams that can “do the scale auto just fine”, until something unexpected happens and they don’t. I’d wager that the bulk of teams this side of 254 are similar in this regard. You’re proving my point here—teams can quite easily wreck the entire game by getting stuck on the field element, potentially in autonomous. When it happens so often that we all can tell our respective stories about when we saw it, that’s a major flaw in the game. (You might also note that I trod carefully around disagreeing with the referee or FTA’s decision. I merely said that they shouldn’t be put in the situation to make the disablement call without guidelines more specific than S01 which cover robots entangled with the scale in particular.)

You cannot possibly believe that POWER UP as designed is supposed to involve teams getting stuck. Of course we can nitpick and break down many instances and find some blame to put on the offending team through driver error, or mechanical failure, or a lack of software failsafes, but at what point does it become clear that the design of the challenge is not well suited to the program we’re trying to run?

I don’t understand what the point of this is. If you see me as merely whining, fine. But I’m bringing these things up for two reasons. First, I think there should be a team update or directive sent out to referees about how to handle these situations in a way that preserves the integrity of the match outcome but doesn’t embarrass anyone, and second, I think this should be POWER UP’s contribution to the list of lessons learned for the GDC.

Also, of course we don’t want our partners committing fouls. But that’s a far cry from saying 1747 shouldn’t play the scale because one fluke accident happened.

Are you suggesting I’m advocating anything that allows teams to hold the scale in their favor for the duration of the match and not be punished for it? I’d encourage you to be a little more fair in your reading. Remember that updates continue to come out throughout the competition season; there’s no reason something can’t be done to ensure a repeat scenario has a more reasonable outcome.

#53

I wish we allowed teams to use an “E-stop” during autonomous mode. Not the current big red button that does not let you re-enable without a hard reset, but a “soft” E-stop akin to clicking “Disable” in the DS software when not under FMS control. You get re-enabled upon the transition to teleop.

I really hate it when teams are disincentivized from being ambitious because of fear of fouls or unmitigatable robot damage. Especially because most teams don’t have a way to develop and test auto modes at home (lack of a field/unbagging time/practice robot).

#54

Wow. It was clearly a tough moment for the team. But to argue it was a bad decision or the rules are at fault?

I think the match was appropriately called, based on what we can see in the video. The ref and FTA have to make a choice whether to disable. While it’s easy to question it after watching the video, when you are there making the call you don’t have the benefit of the knowledge that nothing bad happened later. You have to make a call as it happened.

It is a risk that any team is taking in this game, to do a scale auto. The matches are not for software or hardware debugging - they are the time for the game to be played as per the rules that we all know. Sometimes things don’t work out as expected. Gracious Professionalism says we learn from that and move on.

#55

I think this idea is amazing.

#56

We would have loved this button, but I can’t speak for 125 & 238. :wink:

#57

What doesn’t make sense to me is to e-stop a robot when you think its “damaging” a part of the field but to continue the match. If the force of the robot pushing down on the scale was in fact damaging the scale, letting that robot apply that force for the remainder of the match just subjects the field element to undue wear and tear. On top of that add the risk of that robot being interacted with by another robot and the interactions between the opposing alliance and the raised side and again it just doesn’t make sense to me. Where they really running behind on matches or something?
So I suppose I get the intent, but not the execution.

#58

So where in the rules is it allowed to stop a match and rerun it for a robot software glitch?

By the rules, the HR and FTA made the correct call. That being said, I feel for the drive team. being in that position sucks.

#59

We had the same idea in response to our issues. Under the current rules pressing a button to stop autonomous would violate A02 and result in both a yellow card and foul. One thing that is unclear in the current rules is the definition of an “E-Stop”, i’d argue that a button that stops the robot for the rest of auto is an E-Stop button. Regardless we will have a BIG RED BUTTON on our drive station. I think FIRST adding an autonomous mode E-Stop button to each drive station, possibly with an accompanying foul, would be a great move. Until then i’ll take my foul and a yellow card every time.

We will also be adding more software features to detect faulty sensors, replacing electronics panels with anti-static polycarb, and bringing lots of dryer sheets to our event this weekend.

#60

That match is not a slow count. The head referee there decided to escalate to a yellow card and stop issuing tech fouls.

I think that is something being missed - after 31 tech fouls a yellow card wasn’t issued in this match. As out of whack as 1080 looks, 680 and a yellow card is worse.

#61

A fluke can happen thats the point of a riskier auto. I don’t look at what team did what, more the fact that the game itself is designed with scale auto potentially being a high foul event. I don’t think I suggested the latter either. Its just a game that could possibly have accounted for this in its design.

Even so the event described in this thread is rare. Most of the time when I see auto fail its at the beginning not end.

#62

Fouls are meant to be given for foul play, not as a challenge to avoid. There is no reason a game challenge should be designed “with risk of fouls”. This is why folks are saying there should be some sort of mitigating rule change. No auto mode in past years has ever had conditions that lead to fouls so easily.

#63

Nor has the field delivered data on plate assignment either. This is a game design issue / alliance choice issue and nothing more

#64

I like this idea, but I’d put some conditions on it. Auton-Stop would void any points or bonuses that robot scores in autonomous mode, or maybe penalty points for the other team. Wouldn’t give a yellow card. Just there has to be a (small) disincentive to interacting with the robot in auton mode. Great when you absolutely need it, but not something a team should be using as a crutch.

#65

I thought you were arguing it wasn’t a game design issue…?

#66

Can you point where I stated that? I did say don’t blame the rules and something to the effect tall bots low scale don’t mix.

#67

I’m not saying re-run the match because of a software glitch, I’m saying if the ref is disabling the robot because he thinks its damaging the field or because its dangerous why not stop the match and follow up on said damage and said danger? Why keep the match going, and let blue alliance put cubes onto the opposite side of the scale to make matters worse?

#68

On the occasions where you said don’t blame the rules, the implications, as far as I could tell, were that the team is to blame for taking risks, and therefore the rules are not part of the issue. That’s my interpretation; maybe I’m wrong. But that’s the stance you appear to be taking.

We know rules are rules. We know the refs made choices in accordance with the rules. Saying that a rule is problematic isn’t a scapegoat for an unfortunate penalized team to avoid “blame”, rather we are debating whether FIRST should make rule changes to prevent situations like these from happening in the future (or at least changing the way the situation is handled to give everyone a fair and enjoyable experience). Sorry if there’s been a misunderstanding.

#69

As the lead programmer for Team 135, I’d like to add on to my fellow teammate in saying that I personally did not hear anyone say “kill” from our section of the stands. What I did hear was a lot of excited people wanting to post the new high score to Snapchat, Facebook, etc., and the incredulous voice of our most enthusiastic scouter about a new FRC world record. I was overjoyed at the opportunity to be able to see an FRC world record being set in person. By no means did I mean any offense to team 1747. Their auto program is simply fabulous and something I look up to every day.

Anyone who may have said “kill” does not represent the values of Team 135. I myself usually make a point of trying to take some time every competition to console and help other teams that are having trouble and try to make friends. During this competition, however, I was unfortunately tied up very much with my own programming issues (haha). Although I probably would not have been able to help much with your godly homebrew motion profiles with PID loops within PID loops, I want to let 1747 know they had and still have my best wishes.

A message to 1747:
As a programmer, I feel every bit of your pain at that match and the likely PTSD that probably ensued. But hey, I’ll be seeing you again at State. 135’s got another shot at auto and so do you. Here’s to a fair competition when the time comes again. Who knows, maybe we’ll have a good auto this time too :wink:

Good luck and stay awesome!

#70

Because under the rules the HR is only allowed to stop the match for a arcade fault. There is no provision for stopping the match because of a robot software failure.

There was no arcade fault. There was a robot that was out of control with the ability to damage the field. And the HR in that instance is allowed (required?) to disable them.

HR got it right, under the rules.

Now if the GDC wants to change the rules … (well, lets not go there)

#71

The one thing I’m a bit confused about is that there have been 3? robots disabled in autonomous over the course of 2 events in Indiana. I don’t mean to imply wrongdoing by the refs or ftas just that it may be indicative of the rules needing more clarification.

Are Indiana teams just more out of control than teams in any other region? Or is there some disparity in the enforcement of the rules and the balance between the field staffs obligation to keep the field safe and provide teams with a good experience?