Poor Man's Balance

FIRST General Forum
1

Posted by Justin at 03/11/2001 12:07 PM EST

Other on team Blue Lightning Alumni Association from RWU sponsored by FIRST-A-holics Anonymous.

OKAY!!!

I watched the VCU regional…and was alarmed at what they were using as the defintion of balancing. Basically refs were going on the field and if they could stick thier hand under the ramp it was consider off the ground and balanced…I’m sorry but this is NOT BALANCED. I believe that this rule should be modified so that teams truly have to balance and none of this poor man’s balancing act.

Secondly, Let’s get rid of the time multipliers. Sute mid-season…y not!!! They take away a lot from the excitement aspect of this game. Without them teams would be forced to think and to make intelligent plays, balance, stuff that we actually want to see. No one like to watch a match where the power comes on, teams book it to the end zone and turn it off…I’m sorry but that is just plain boring.

Lastly, this is just a personal observation. I watched the finals @ VCU on NASATV and I’ve read that accounts of Michigan and Long Island. And the drastic distirbution amazes me. We have teams consitenly scoring in the 400 range and a 620 in the finals. VCU’s highest score was like 250 and they had a 36 point match in the FINALS!!! Pretty amazing stuff.

Congrats to all the teams out there…and Food 4 thought.

-Justin

2

Posted by Jon - T190 at 03/11/2001 1:55 PM EST

Engineer on team #190, Gompei, from Mass Academy of Math and Science and Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

In Reply to: Poor Man’s Balance
Posted by Justin on 03/11/2001 12:07 PM EST:

balancing… we had a match in the semifinals at SBPLI where the goal was balanced because it was 1/8" off the floor. I think the definition is fine as it is.

Balanced: adj. being supported only by the center beam

It makes the game more interesting i think, the aparatus isn’t from some imaginary world where there is no friction and it wasn’t designed with a hinge of any sort so things are bound to get interesting… i considered that a design parameter.

Time multipliers are fun… they make the game -more- exciting because the game could end at any time… now, i grant this, its only more exciting in the elimination rounds… it makes for boring as hell qualifiers because you don’t have a personal stake in each game, you’re not going to lose because you’re team’s not playing…

As for that point distribution… let’s look at the numbers that matter:

> 68 teams were there
> only 1 (that’s a one, not an I) had competed in a previous event
> only 9 are going to a different event one of the next two weekends
> about 36% of the teams (25) were only playing at VCU

What does this tell us?
This game is all about repeatability… if you’re playing for the first time, you don’t know what to do to get the big points. SBPLI is a great example of this because the first day had low scores because people didn’t know the strategies that delivered points… Friday’s range was 8-176 while saturday’s was 18-358.

As teams learn how to play the game, which of the multipliers are really worth it, their machine’s capabilities, et al, the scores are bound to go up.

Statistics can be used to prove anything (41% of all people know that)

Hm… food for thought…
Tastes like Chicken…

3

Posted by Dave at 03/11/2001 10:51 PM EST

Other on team #308, Robo Stars, from Alumni from Walled Lake Western and TRW.

In Reply to: balance is key, timing is everything, statistics are silly
Posted by Jon - T190 on 03/11/2001 1:55 PM EST:

Actually, statistics don’t prove a thing, they only show a possibility of something happening. :slight_smile:

Sorry, couldn’t help it… darn engineering sadistics class…

Dave

: balancing… we had a match in the semifinals at SBPLI where the goal was balanced because it was 1/8" off the floor. I think the definition is fine as it is.

: Balanced: adj. being supported only by the center beam

: It makes the game more interesting i think, the aparatus isn’t from some imaginary world where there is no friction and it wasn’t designed with a hinge of any sort so things are bound to get interesting… i considered that a design parameter.

: Time multipliers are fun… they make the game -more- exciting because the game could end at any time… now, i grant this, its only more exciting in the elimination rounds… it makes for boring as hell qualifiers because you don’t have a personal stake in each game, you’re not going to lose because you’re team’s not playing…

: As for that point distribution… let’s look at the numbers that matter:

: > 68 teams were there
: > only 1 (that’s a one, not an I) had competed in a previous event
: > only 9 are going to a different event one of the next two weekends
: > about 36% of the teams (25) were only playing at VCU

: What does this tell us?
: This game is all about repeatability… if you’re playing for the first time, you don’t know what to do to get the big points. SBPLI is a great example of this because the first day had low scores because people didn’t know the strategies that delivered points… Friday’s range was 8-176 while saturday’s was 18-358.

: As teams learn how to play the game, which of the multipliers are really worth it, their machine’s capabilities, et al, the scores are bound to go up.

: Statistics can be used to prove anything (41% of all people know that)

: Hm… food for thought…
: Tastes like Chicken…

4

Posted by Peter Krumdieck at 03/12/2001 9:47 AM EST

Engineer on team #353, Pobots, from POB Central School District.

In Reply to: Re: balance is key, timing is everything, statistics are silly
Posted by Dave on 03/11/2001 10:51 PM EST:

: Actually, statistics don’t prove a thing, they only show a possibility of something happening. :slight_smile:

: Sorry, couldn’t help it… darn engineering sadistics class…

: Dave

Actually, Dave, Statistics don’t show possibility. That’s probability. Statistics show what has already hapened. (even less useful in some cases)
-pete

5

Posted by Ken Leung at 03/11/2001 2:45 PM EST

Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M. Gunn Senior High School.

In Reply to: Poor Man’s Balance
Posted by Justin on 03/11/2001 12:07 PM EST:

Well, first of all, the meaning of balancing the bridge means the bridge is manipulated into a position where it is not touching the playing field, supported by any balls, and not supported by any robots touching the playing field.

From the blue print and the kick off, most of the people “assume” the bridge will be so loose that there is only one balanced position. And we also “assume” that the bridge will stay lowered on the ground when it is tipped. All these assumption seems pretty easy to make.

But the fact is, nothing in the rules can confirm the two assumptions. And if the actual bridge decided to act against those assumptions, there is nothing you change about it. Consider it part of the competition. But if you think about it, sticky bridge makes it easier for teams to balance, providing them a chance to practice balancing before the bridge get loosen up by all the usage during competition. I am sure by then, the bridge will have far less balanced position… It might even act like our assumption.

About the time multiplier… I somehow disagree with you… To me, the time multiplier means a lot. It makes the game more and more interesting as each second pass by, and it force people to play the game thinking doing everything fast is the KEY. And part of making an intelligent play is to make sure the game goes by FAST.

And the teams that head into the end zone and shut down is only a few of the robot in the alliance. There are always the others balancing the goal(s) and/or picking up big balls. Overall the game is still pretty interesting to watch, in my opinion anyways.

6

Posted by bill whitley at 03/11/2001 4:23 PM EST

Student on team #70, Auto City Bandits, from Powers Catholic High School and Kettering University.

In Reply to: Re: Poor Man’s Balance
Posted by Ken Leung on 03/11/2001 2:45 PM EST:

We don’t simply assume the bridge will only have 1 balanced position, and we don’t simply assume that the bridge will stay unbalanced. These two tidbits were told to us by Dean (or Woodie or somebody) during the kickoff. It’s too bad that it didnt really work out that way.

Bill
Team #70

7

Posted by Travis Covington at 03/11/2001 5:18 PM EST

Student on team #115, MVRT, from Monta Vista High School and 3com - NASA-Xilinx-Hitachi Data Systems.

In Reply to: we dont assume.
Posted by bill whitley on 03/11/2001 4:23 PM EST:

its all good either way…

for our team it happens that we removed the backdrive pins from the drill motors meaning we can ONLY balance the ramp at its true balanced position…this only means more parctice is needed to nudge it that little bit so that we dont roll off it…

OH WELL…its not the end of the world…dean and woodie did say it had 3 positions but whats really happening is something they didnt predict and have no quick solution so they just call it balanced if its off the ground

no harm there

i think we should all just live with the stuff that happens, if we continually complain about the little things that happen…WE ARENT GOING TO HAVE ANY FUN

so take it as it is, with a laugh if possible and go on playing :slight_smile:

-TC

8

Posted by Jason Morrella at 03/11/2001 8:27 PM EST

Coach on team #254, Cheesy Poofs, from Bellarmine College Prep & others and NASA Ames/Cypress Semiconductor/Unity Care.

In Reply to: Re: we dont assume.
Posted by Travis Covington on 03/11/2001 5:18 PM EST:

9

Posted by Chris Orimoto at 03/11/2001 4:31 PM EST

Student on team #368, Kika Mana, from McKinley High School and Nasa Ames/Hawaiian Electric/Weinberg Foundation.

In Reply to: Poor Man’s Balance
Posted by Justin on 03/11/2001 12:07 PM EST:

I somehow view the “sticky” bridge as another facet of
strategy. For all we know, a team could have built a
practice bridge, found that it can “balance” like 1/4"
off the ground, and then designed their robot to
balance like that. It’s just another part of the
competition.

As for time multipliers, I’ll have to agree that they
do make the rounds “boring” at times. However, the
time factor creates yet ANOTHER part of the strategical
element. Teams have yet another way to raise their
score, which can (and probably has) resulted in even
MORE varied robot designs.

My only point to add is this year’s difficulty. It’s
good that FIRST add difficulty to each year’s game so
that veteran teams do not get bored. However, what
about rookie teams? Has FIRST gone too far with the
difficulty rating of this year’s competition as to
discourage rookie teams from competing again? I guess,
(in the words of Dr. Joe) Time will tell…

Just my personal thoughts

10

Posted by colleen - T190 at 03/12/2001 2:02 AM EST

Engineer on team #190, Gompei, from Massachusetts Academy of Math and Science and WPI.

In Reply to: Re: Poor Man’s Balance
Posted by Chris Orimoto on 03/11/2001 4:31 PM EST:

I can honestly say that I think part of the reason this years game was designed as such was to almost cater to the rookies…

Basically… it is a game where a simple robot can bring you AMAZINGLY far… (i.e. wedgebots… simple, small, but ESSENTIAL to any winning strategy)

Instead of in past years there being a stress for you to build a robot that can do it all by itself (or at least half the game)… this year… you have 3 other parts that can do it… and if you can just drive, you can be a significant contributor to the match outcome… it leaves rookie teams with a much better chance to do well with basic robots… and so they can then focus on making the basics work…

For veterens… it opened up some new design ideas… but also is teaching them (some teams the HARD WAY) that you can’t do it alone… no matter how good of a robot you build… it is to nothing but your benefit to utilize the others (they are worth 30 points getting in the endzone!! multiplied by whatever you get)… and as well… it pushes the strategical limits… because the veterens teams know strategy well…and it’s up the them (most often) to run those two minutes before the match and get everyone organized and happy…

It’s a big difference and learning lesson for all to say the least… and all the dynamics… in different respects… make the game easier and harder…

11

Posted by Chris at 03/11/2001 6:26 PM EST

Student on team #69, HYPER Team 69 Quincy Public Schools Gillette , from North Quincy High and The Gillette Company.

In Reply to: Poor Man’s Balance
Posted by Justin on 03/11/2001 12:07 PM EST:

If you get rid of the time multipliers you get rid of the game!!!

Without the tiem bonus the stratagies are boring and always last two min.

Have fun even though it is tought!

Strategy is the name of this game!!!

They say in the rules anything of the ground and not supported by anything is balanced . I dont agree with it but a rule is a rule!!!

12

Posted by Michael “Special K” Krass at 03/12/2001 9:50 AM EST

Other on team #271, Mechanical Marauders, from Bay Shore High School and Verizon.

In Reply to: Poor Man’s Balance
Posted by Justin on 03/11/2001 12:07 PM EST:

I strongly disagree with this idea of a ‘Poor Man’s Balancing Act’ that you’ve put forth. Balanced is balanced is balanced. If the entire system; that is the goals, robots, and bridge, is in equilibrium, the system is balanced. The bridge may not wind up parallel to the floor, but certainly is balanced.

In think that bridge tips freely enough so as to require some amount of skill to keep both ends off the carpet. It doesn’t automatically balance itself whenever a machine crosses it because of friction. If you can slip a sheet of paper between the bridge and the carpet, it’s balanced. We’re not really dealing with an arbitrary definition here, but a fact of physics. Perhaps stating in the rules that the system need be in equilibrium might’ve been a better way to put things, but in the end, it’s all the same.

~ Michael, who sees little point in complaining about the game now.

>

13

Posted by Andy Baker at 03/12/2001 12:06 PM EST

Engineer on team #45, TechnoKats, from Kokomo High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

In Reply to: Poor Man’s Balance
Posted by Justin on 03/11/2001 12:07 PM EST:

: Secondly, Let’s get rid of the time multipliers. Sute mid-season…y not!!! They take away a lot from the excitement aspect of this game.

You are very, very wrong here. You have no clue what is going on behind the glass, in the alliance stations. It may not be interesting if you are sitting at home, watching it on TV… but if you are in the alliance station, the excitement is incredible. There were some matches that were simply chaotic.

This chaos is mostly attributed to the time multiplier, in my opinion. As far as hindering the strategy, it enhances it. 59 second matches are far different than 1:29 matches, that’s for sure.

I’ll post more on this later, when I find some time.

For now, I’ll just say that my eyes were opened ALOT from seeing what happended behind the glass, and before the match. While everyone is talking about bridge details, you should be talking about how things are handled before the match happens… most mistakes are made then, and then they develop into reality on the playing field.

Andy B.

14

Posted by Paul Copioli at 03/12/2001 1:47 PM EST

Engineer on team #217, Team Macomb - Royal Fusion, from Utica Schools, Fraser Schools, Warren Cons. School and Ford Motor Company.

In Reply to: Getting rid of Time Multiplier? Ridiculus!
Posted by Andy Baker on 03/12/2001 12:06 PM EST:

I have to agree with Andy on this one. I’ll give a couple of examples further down the message. My name is Paul Copioli and I am an engineer with team 217. This is my second year with FIRST and with Team 217 and I have been an anonymous CD reader for 2 years … until now.

Many of you will agree that your rookie year is much more exciting than your 2nd year and, admittedly, I was like many others and skeptical about this years game. I am an athlete at heart and the very thought of getting rid of the competition aspect of the game disappointed me. I have to say that after participating in the Western Michigan Regional, all my concerns are gone.

For those of you who think the game is boring, I’m sorry you feel that way and I would love to change your mind (but realize I can’t). Maybe, with the help of others who feel as I do, I can open your eyes.

First, let’s talk about time. Andy can back me up on this one … time is the single biggest differentiator in the etire competition. Why, you ask? Given time, many good aliances can balance and score base points. The difference is how fast can it be done. O.K. here comes one of the examples I promised: Match 1 of the Western Michigan Regional we were in an alliance with the TechnoCats and two other teams who names I can’t remember. The alliance balanced 2 goals with one goal filled with 13 small balls, the other goal had 1 small ball, and 2 robots in the end zone. We finished with 13 seconds remaining. We lost 68 points because of 3 seconds! I can’t count the number of things the alliance could have done differently to gain the 3 seconds (one being that wee had some difficulty getting that small ball away from the wall), but the point is that time is a big aspect of the game and should definitely not be removed.

Many of you feel that the game is boring. I say that a lot of matches are boring because the scoring is low. I found many matches boring last year, because they didn’t do well in scoring. The game is very complicated this year and it will take some time to figure out the strategy and teamwork angle this year. Once more teams figure out how to work with what they are given (4 robots that can’t limbo and don’t pick up big balls can still score 400 points!!), the game can be very exciting.

For those of you who were not at the Western Michigan Regional, I can tell you first hand that The Team 71 alliance was 3 seconds away from a 700ish game and one Wildstang ramp timing issue away from being runner’s up!

I apologize for this long note, but it is one response to many of the posts I have read today. I will leave everyone with one final comment:

We all complained last year about the fact that the qualification rounds and the elimination rounds were very different. A highly specialized robot would have to sacrifice themselves (last year) in the hope of being noticed for the eliminations. This year, a highly specialized robot can be successful in quals and be a contender in the eliminations.

Please tell me your thoughts.

-Paul

: For now, I’ll just say that my eyes were opened ALOT from seeing what happended behind the glass, and before the match. While everyone is talking about bridge details, you should be talking about how things are handled before the match happens… most mistakes are made then, and then they develop into reality on the playing field.

: Andy B.

15

Posted by Allen Smith at 03/12/2001 2:37 PM EST

Engineer on team #7, Knights, from Parkville High School and Black & Decker/AAI/Raytheon.

In Reply to: Getting rid of Time Multiplier? Ridiculus!
Posted by Andy Baker on 03/12/2001 12:06 PM EST:

One good aspect of the time multiplier is that it ends boring matches in the qualifying rounds more quickly. We no longer have to sit through a minute or more of robots just twitching waiting for time to run out.

But in the finals if the team’s strategy runs into a glitch and goes past the minute mark then you know the team is doomed with no hope of last minute reprieve. In past years you could have dramatic swings of multipliers as one team was knocked off the bar or puck and another team took it’s place in the final seconds.

All in all you have to admit Dean Kamen et al did a good job again with designing and refining a game before one match is ever played. Look at all the pro sports, they have been playing those for over a hundred years and they still tweak the rules almost every year.

16

Posted by Thomas Grupp at 03/12/2001 3:32 PM EST

Engineer on team #378, Circuit Stompers, from Newfane High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

In Reply to: Getting rid of Time Multiplier? Ridiculus!
Posted by Andy Baker on 03/12/2001 12:06 PM EST:

I have to agree with Andy. Although my team #378 has yet to compete in a regional, we are attending the Great lakes regional, I can see by watching on nasa tv and reading all the postings. That the TIME multiplier is critical to having a big score IE: 620 @ Wetsern Michigan.

I agree that watching this competition is like watching golf, Its not very exciting to watch, But it is Very exciting to Play, Im sure I will find this out at The Great lakes Reg.

I also can understand that being behind the Glass is very Chaotic. But that’s what I like, and I LOOK FORWARD TO THE GREAT LAKES REGIONAL.

17

Posted by Carolyn Duncan at 03/14/2001 3:46 PM EST

Student on team #495, The Pack, from Jamestown High School and VBEP/Raytheon/Saic.

In Reply to: Poor Man’s Balance
Posted by Justin on 03/11/2001 12:07 PM EST:

I agree!!! My team,495, was at VCU and felt shafted by this. We designed a manipulator especially for perfect balancing. For us this rule left us a bit unneeded.

18