National Competition Reactions & Opinions

FIRST General Forum
1

Posted by Tom McKay, Student on team #65, The Huskie Brigade, from Pontiac Northern High School and GM Powertrain.

Posted on 4/26/99 1:54 PM MST

I hope everyone had lots of fun at the Nationals this past weekend. It was a really exciting competition, despite our low rank. CONGRATULATIONS are in order for the teams that won, especially O-Tech (Team #1). Go Pontiac!!!

I’d also like to congratulate Ken Patton, our lead engineer, on winning the Woodie Flowers Award. Ken, you really deserved it, and we’re all really proud of you.

After some serious robot problems, we placed 204th out of 207. We were all really disappointed, but had fun anyway, and that’s the point.

So what are everyone else’s opinions on the competition? I really hope that they get rid of the whole alliance thing, it’s really bugging me. Let’s turn Dean’s ‘maybe’ into a ‘NO.’

Congratulations again to everyone. Great job in making this a success!

Tom McKay, Team 65 - The Huskie Brigade

P.S. Don’t forget about the Satellite Broadcast! (link below)

2

Posted by Daniel, Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames.

Posted on 4/26/99 6:01 PM MST

In Reply to: National Competition Reactions & Opinions posted by Tom McKay on 4/26/99 1:54 PM MST:

I don’t know about you, but I happen to think the alliance process was the best thing that ever happened to FIRST. While last year my team played continually with the same strategy, this year our strategy was entirely match-dependent. Each match, my team planned three strategies corresponding to the three possible parings. It added a whole new dimension to the competition. My one and only gripe would be the whole rejection issue. Rejections are entirely necessary and if you want, I’ll go through my reasons again. I think I’ve said it enough times though.

Anyway, that’s just my opinion. What is the general consensus?

-Daniel

3

Posted by colleen, Student on team #126, Gael Force, from Clinton High School and Nypro.

Posted on 4/26/99 6:43 PM MST

In Reply to: Say WHAT?? posted by Daniel on 4/26/99 6:01 PM MST:

… i’m still unsure about the alliance concept… we had good and bad experiences with it… and i can see the pros and cons… but i think i’m more in agreement with Tom and a non-alliance concept…

from a strategy viewpoint… every year, i think, a team has ‘their thing’- the main objective their robot is constructed to accomplish, that they try to do every match. some teams are creatures of habit and can’t venture away from that, and often times so are we, but i think the change away from a routine strategy is more a variable of the team than the alliance concept. there are still teams who went out there and only wanted to do that ‘thing’ regardless of their alliance. i think that willingness to break from a set strategy is a mind set and beneficial product of a particular team, not solely because of the creation of alliances…

…if that made sense…

4

Posted by Daniel, Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames.

Posted on 4/26/99 7:32 PM MST

In Reply to: i’d agree with tom posted by colleen on 4/26/99 6:43 PM MST:

Great points Colleen, but I’d hafta disagree with a few of your conclusions. Although I wholeheartedly agree that usage of variable strategies is dependent not only on the game but also on the team itself, I still maintain that this particular competition left much more room for the strategic brand of play. This year, strategy was key in deciding which robots perform which tasks and if one robot plays defense, etc.

In the past, there has been one robot against two, so defense (although an option) is much less plausible. While you’re guarding one team, the third could be happily wandering about scoring all the points. Offence was pretty much the way to go. And with offence, teams tend to find one strategy and go with it (small alterations aside). This year, because your partner always had different capabilities and the opponents similarly had different capabilities, the method of play became much more instance-based than it ever has been. My team’s strategy, for example, ranged everywhere from playing pure defense (i.e. holding baskets down, etc) to playing pure offence (raising multiple floppies above 8 feet while securing a place on the puck). We covered the whole spectrum. And our changing strategy was to our benefit. Our QM record shows it.

Of course, a lot of this could also be attributed to the many methods of scoring this year, but I think that was only possible with the added alliance partner. That way, despite the huge amount of scoring possibilities, teams were still able to obtain a good amount of the points.

Anyway, my basic point is that this game allowed for much more flexibility, and in order to do well, a team really needed to take advantage of that flexibility.

…if that makes sense :wink:

-Daniel

5

Posted by Chris, Student on team #230, MAD, from Shelton High School and Sikorsky.

Posted on 4/26/99 11:36 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: i’d agree with daniel (oh wait, that’s me) posted by Daniel on 4/26/99 7:32 PM MST:

While the alliance idea did force teams to come up with several strategy
plans, it also left teams vulnerable. For example, my team used the concept
of beaching ourselves on the puck, which wasn’t a very good system because
it left us exposed and open to any team who could push us off the puck.
Because the wasn’t a very good system, we often agreed to gather floppies,
while our ally took the puck. This plan worked very well in the regionals,
but not in the nationals. Many times our allies would not perform as
expected, or have mechanical difficulty and leave us holding the floppies
while the puck was getting pushed and mounted by another team. This also
happened to us once, when our arm suddenly stopped working.

Even though the ally system was random, I still think that there should be
a different way to choose them. Many times the teams were to top ranked
teams against two low ranked ones, making the poor poorer and the rich richer.
Instead of this, I thought that the top team should be paired with the
bottom-most team, and the second highest with the second lowest for each match.
I dunno, just a thought. Chris

6

Posted by Andrew Trax, Coach on team #180, S.P.A.M., from Southfork,Martin Co. High and UTC.

Posted on 4/27/99 4:21 AM MST

In Reply to: also agreeing with tom posted by Chris on 4/26/99 11:36 PM MST:

Working in alliances was great for teaching strategy, but this format
left too much to chance. I work for a company that designs and builds
aircraft engines. Nothing is left to chance. Everything must work as
designed or planes, profits and, most importantly, lives are lost.
Luck-of-the-draw sucks! It was demoralizing to know that teams who had
built fantastic robots lost matches based on other teams efforts.
My suggestion is that they keep the competition reflective of real world
situations. If alliances are to be made, we should be paired up at
Kick-off and know which of our partners need advice, technical expertise,
tools… In the real world, a partnership of corporations shares information
to produced a winning, marketable product.
Maybe if we had know earlier who we’d be paired with we might have helped
make repairs, diagnose problems, etc.

Mrs. Trax

7

Posted by Al Mandell, Engineer on team #145, T-Rx, from Norwich HS/Sherburne-Earlville HS and Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals.

Posted on 4/27/99 8:49 AM MST

In Reply to: i’d agree with tom posted by colleen on 4/26/99 6:43 PM MST:

Alliances teach students a great deal regarding working with
diverse groups to ahcieve a common, desired goal. This is something
that is essential for success in the workplace and really provides
for very interesting matches during FIRST competitions. I think a
quick look into the business world clearly shows how common ‘alliances’
have become. Just look @ the pharmaceutical industry or the automotive
industry and one can see that ‘alliances’ are here to stay. So for the
students, since this will surely be present during your tenure in the
business world, why not make it a regular part of FIRST. Could you
imagine 5 on 5’s.

8

Posted by Jeff Burch, Engineer on team #45, TechnoKats, from Kokomo High School and Delphi Delco Electronics Systems.

Posted on 4/27/99 10:20 AM MST

In Reply to: i’d agree with tom posted by colleen on 4/26/99 6:43 PM MST:

I agree there are some kinks to worked out in the qualification process, but I think the alliance concept is the best thing to happen to the competition since it moved to Epcot. The alliances really emphasize the importance of scouting and our students took it much more seriously this year than in the past. In previous years we pretty much had a strategy and tried to stick to it in each match; the scout sheets rarely forced a change to this strategy.

This year it was extremely important to know the capabilities of other teams, and not just the ones you’ll play with/against in the matches. To win, your strategy needs to adapt to match the capabilities of your alliance partner and opponents. You also need to find alliance partners to pick or that will pick you. We got to know other teams better and made more friends on other teams this year than ever before and it’s all because of having alliances.

Several of my team members have been talking about one change we would really like to see next year that would make the qualifying matches a little more fair. I think there should be minimum functionality requirements of every robot before they are allowed to compete. This would prevent teams from getting paired with robots that can’t even leave the starting gate.

This minimum functionality would be checked during inspection. Teams that meet these requirements at a regional would not have to be re-tested. Minimum requirements could be things like the ability to move at a minimum rate for a minimum distance, ability to turn, and at least one additional function related to the competition requirements (for this year: climb puck, grab post, hold a minimum number of floppies, etc.). I don’t think this list is too demanding, but it would force teams to focus on having some basic functionality first and building from that rather than trying to build the ultimate robot right from the start and ending up with a box on wheels.

Comments?

9

Posted by Elaine Anselm, Engineer on team #191, X-Cats, from Jos Wilson High School and Xerox.

Posted on 4/27/99 11:37 AM MST

In Reply to: Let’s fix alliance problems, not give it up. posted by Jeff Burch on 4/27/99 10:20 AM MST:

We loved the alliance concept and really want to see it continue. I agree wholeheartedly with Jeff’s comments regarding minimum standards for robots. I was talking with Joe Johnson at the competition and learned about one team that was paired with a machine that did nothing. I’m sure there were others. It certainly makes people who have put so much into their robots feel helpless.
The one thing I loved about the alliance was the opportunity for students to interact with other teams. I know that FIRST has wanted that to happen and used the scholarships as a means to that end (which I don’t care for but that is another story). I was really worried about how to keep our kids engaged during the long hours, but having teams of kids work on looking at other robots and talking with other teams was a wonderful thing.

10

Posted by Tom McKay, Student on team #65, The Huskie Brigade, from Pontiac Northern High School and GM Powertrain.

Posted on 4/27/99 1:52 PM MST

In Reply to: Let’s fix alliance problems, not give it up. posted by Jeff Burch on 4/27/99 10:20 AM MST:

If we were still to have alliances next year, I would definitely support this plan. Allies that didn’t do anything was one of the reasons that we did so poorly. One question on your idea: what would happen if your ally didn’t make inspection? Who would take their place? If they took another robot, that would make for some monster scheduling problems.

Ultimately, I’d like to see the number of regionals a team can go to limited to 2, and take the top 15 teams from each of those regionals to go to the Nationals. That way they could keep the number of teams down, thus eliminating the need for alliances altogether. I know I’ve seen this idea here before, but I really like it. I know it puts pressure on teams that might not put together the best robot, but that’s just more of a challenge to build a better one. Thoughts?

Tom McKay, Team 65

11

Posted by Dale, Engineer on team #191, X-Cats`, from Wilson and Xerox.

Posted on 4/27/99 2:00 PM MST

In Reply to: Let’s fix alliance problems, not give it up. posted by Jeff Burch on 4/27/99 10:20 AM MST:

:
: I agree there are some kinks to worked out in the qualification process, but I think the alliance concept is the best thing to happen to the competition since it moved to Epcot. The alliances really emphasize the importance of scouting and our students took it much more seriously this year than in the past. In previous years we pretty much had a strategy and tried to stick to it in each match; the scout sheets rarely forced a change to this strategy.

: This year it was extremely important to know the capabilities of other teams, and not just the ones you’ll play with/against in the matches. To win, your strategy needs to adapt to match the capabilities of your alliance partner and opponents. You also need to find alliance partners to pick or that will pick you. We got to know other teams better and made more friends on other teams this year than ever before and it’s all because of having alliances.

: Several of my team members have been talking about one change we would really like to see next year that would make the qualifying matches a little more fair. I think there should be minimum functionality requirements of every robot before they are allowed to compete. This would prevent teams from getting paired with robots that can’t even leave the starting gate.

: This minimum functionality would be checked during inspection. Teams that meet these requirements at a regional would not have to be re-tested. Minimum requirements could be things like the ability to move at a minimum rate for a minimum distance, ability to turn, and at least one additional function related to the competition requirements (for this year: climb puck, grab post, hold a minimum number of floppies, etc.). I don’t think this list is too demanding, but it would force teams to focus on having some basic functionality first and building from that rather than trying to build the ultimate robot right from the start and ending up with a box on wheels.

: Comments?

I have to agree with your opinion on the alliances. They were an OUTSTANDING addition to the game. Admittedly, we were not prepared for how to deal with having two allies in the finals, but now we have something to learn for next year (hopefully). I have to say, though, that I think that there should be no minimum qualification other than those already in place. I think, as with any competitive sport, the best teams find a way to overcome adversity and bad breaks. We had our share, as did most teams. Having one ally that was non-functional is not going to keep the top teams out of the finals, and once you get to the finals, you know all the machines are ready to play the game. The negative consequence of filtering out machines that don’t work is you will discourage teams that are
trying to get started: the very expansion teams FIRST is coveting. Additionally, those teams who have some experience under their belts might even help a startup team win a match. To me, this is a no-lose propostition.
The worst-case scenario is you take a loss, slip in the rankings, and make the playoffs anyway. I LOVE good, clean competition as much as anyone, but we have to keep our eye on the prize. At the end of the day, we ended up showing about 10,000 kids just how good it can get.

12

Posted by Joe Johnson, Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 4/29/99 5:08 AM MST

In Reply to: Let’s fix alliance problems, not give it up. posted by Jeff Burch on 4/27/99 10:20 AM MST:

What do you think about the idea of having 3 team alliances always?

In addition to dividing the teams into 2 groups of 3, randomly designate a team leader team for each alliance.

In this way, teams would have practice for the finals in negotiating not only the strategy but the robot choices as well.

In addition to this, it would help to even up 2 on 1 problem created by non-functional or barely functional robots.

It could cause a problem or two also, not the least of which is that a team may NEVER have their robot play a match, but perhaps this could be worked out.

Thoughts?

Joe J.