Team Update #18

FIRST General Forum
#92

Liz,

There is currently no rule against using sprockets, gears, COTS transmissions, etc. Specifically in the Q&As, the GDC has said:
There is no rule limiting the number of spike relays
There is no rule against using IR LEDs on the OI

The set containing all rules for a given season is far, far smaller than the set of all rules not for a given season. Do you think it would be right for the GDC to then, in the middle of the competition season, declare a rule that outlaws sprockets, gears, or COTS transmissions? Limits the number of spikes you may use to 3? Outlaw your nifty IR OI system? Outlaws the use of black paint? Decrees that sans serif fonts are unacceptable for robot team numbers? Mandates that 2 wheel robots suck and won’t pass inspection?

Just because there wasn’t a rule against something shouldn’t give the GDC license to make up a rule that could seriously impact a team’s robot and strategy in the middle of the competition season 5+ weeks after a teams has finished building their robot.

#93

That’s where you are mistaken. Given the right circumstances, it can still be worth 30 points. There is no rule that says an alliance partner can’t push little 'ol boxy up another partners ramp. In fact, I’ve seen several teams help each other up ramps, I’m sure we all have. Why not set up boxy in the home zone next to where the ramps/platforms will be deployed so he can be pushed up before the end of a match? Sure, it’ll take a few more seconds, but it’ll be worth 30 points.
A somewhat similar display of teamwork can be found in this thread:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/27817

#94

Definition of supported from the 2007 manual? There’s a YMTC about that one.

#95

C’mon Kevin … There is NO WAY this rule has seriously impacted any team’s strategy …

It is clear that the intent of the game is for the bonus points to be scored by the action of the robots, not by humans stacking them before the match begins.

IMO this rule change is mostly benign, and only serves to preserve the “intent” of the game.

Most here are upset only because their feathers were first ruffled by the TU#16 fiasco. I would agree that was a serious mistake by FIRST which would have had a devastating impact on many teams … but fortunately has now also been corrected.

We should all let this go, and MOVE ON …

#96

190 said they were considering this and only passed on complication issues. I submit that there aren’t 1000+ teams represented in this thread so we don’t actually know if this has affected someone. However, this is beside the point. Saying it’s okay for the GDC to change rules and make up rules mid competition to “preserve the intent of the game” invites bad things. What if the GDC hadn’t outlawed tube herding and then decided that wasn’t how they wanted the game to be played? I submit that it is NOT the GDC’s perogative to define the way the game can be played during the build season and then change the way the game can be played after the build season. Teams at GLR were highly upset that a ref changed the way the game was played to “preserve the intent of the game”. Why is it somehow okay for the GDC to do this? I’m honestly confused how one is significantly different from the other, except that this affects a much smaller, much much less represented portion of teams. I do understand that this is unlikely to affect more than a few teams, but I remain unconvinced that that makes it okay.

#97

IMO… if all you have is the “wooden box” then you need to rethink even coming to the field. Your pride in yourself should keep your dead bot off the field.
I agree with this rule change!
To the builders of the “wooden box” well think of it as a learning experience.

Just cause you drive a car don’t mean your ready for NASCAR.

#98

Yeah, yeah… I’ve seen the YMTC. :rolleyes: Poor choice in phrasing on my part. What I meant to say was, just because it is in contact with a game piece, wouldn’t necessarily negate the end game bonus.

#99

Sometimes, you need to swallow your pride and do what’s best for your teammates.

Nothing frustrates me more than when a team has simply accepted that their robot is broken or doesn’t work well and makes no more effort toward improving it. There are people at these events who’re relying on you and have some expectation that you’ll do everything that you can to field a robot – and when you’ve done all that you can, you ought to go find someone else who can do more.

#100

There is no rule against having tube manipulators either. So you are saying it would be OK for the GDC next week to outlaw those? And ramps the week after?

The GDC is setting a dangerous precident here by stating in the Q&A that there is no rule against it (therefore tacidly accepting the strategy) and then outlawing it 3 weeks into the competition AFTER a team successfully used the strategy.

Personally, I think Wildsatg and their alliance partners should share the Xerox creativity award for useing such a unorthodox strategy successfully.

But thats JMHO.

#101

This should only be considered after all other options have been exhausted. There should never be any distinction based on robot design that should keep a robot from taking the field. Every team should make it one of their top priorities to make sure every team can play and have an enjoyable weekend. That goes double for rookies. An event should be a learning experience coupled with fun or this won’t work. We must say to ourselves “leaving a robot in the pit is not an option”.
One thing that the GDC has designed into the game is the ability for any robot design to have a function in this game. Whether it be purely defensive, purely offensive or a full up, does everything, robot. No robot can win alone for the majority of the matches. The GDC has made a good game for all robots and human players alike, and I think we have to applaud them on this account. Once the game is chosen, modifying it for all of these factors is the real challenge.

#102

Whats next?
[SARCASM]
Team Update # 19: No defense allowed. You must get out of anyone’s way to let them score. The game isn’t going how we wanted it, so we are changing things half way through so people will play the game the way we want.
[/SARCASM]
Oh, wait, that almost happened in 2005.

#103

Most probably true.

It is clear that the intent of the game is for the bonus points to be scored by the action of the robots, not by humans stacking them before the match begins.

IMO this rule change is mostly benign, and only serves to preserve the “intent” of the game.
Then why didn’t they preserve this intent of the game back in January when the question was asked?

Most here are upset only because their feathers were first ruffled by the TU#16 fiasco. I would agree that was a serious mistake by FIRST which would have had a devastating impact on many teams … but fortunately has now also been corrected.
You’re right. Without the uproar from a couple weeks ago, this would be only a small tempest in a teacup.

We should all let this go, and MOVE ON …
Unfortunately, if we just move on, it will be business as usual. Others have pointed out absurd rulings that the GDC could make at any time - and I don’t believe they ever would make such rulings. The point is that they can, any time they want. And issue it without any explanation except, “Because I said so.”

Rules can be tweaked to make them consistent with other rules. Updates can be issued for important issues - Banebots, IFI radio. Teams can be reminded of best-practice issues, such as how your ramp contacts the floor in Update 11, which didn’t change a rule but amplified the existing rule. They can correct obvious misprints (parts lists) or unclear wording (ringer direction through the chute). Even in the first half of build season, I’d be accepting of a new rule that changes game strategy or robot build, due to an oversight that created a huge loophole.

The argument everyone is having is that FIRST is making these arbitrary decisions so late in the season. FIRST isn’t big enough to be a bureaucracy - why do they act like one?

#104

Most probably true.

It is clear that the intent of the game is for the bonus points to be scored by the action of the robots, not by humans stacking them before the match begins.

IMO this rule change is mostly benign, and only serves to preserve the “intent” of the game.

Then why didn’t they preserve this intent of the game back in January when the question was asked?[/quote]

I can’t argue with that logic, however I feel that was the mistake … TU#18 is how it was fixed.

Remember, it is explicitly stated that the Q&A is NOT official. I will concede there is a problem with that since all answers are signed “GDC”. I fully agree with those who would ask what good the Q&A system is if the teams can’t rely on the GDC answers. But that is a completely separate issue.

[quote]Most here are upset only because their feathers were first ruffled by the TU#16 fiasco. I would agree that was a serious mistake by FIRST which would have had a devastating impact on many teams … but fortunately has now also been corrected.

You’re right. Without the uproar from a couple weeks ago, this would be only a small tempest in a teacup.

We should all let this go, and MOVE ON …

Unfortunately, if we just move on, it will be business as usual. Others have pointed out absurd rulings that the GDC could make at any time - and I don’t believe they ever would make such rulings. The point is that they can, any time they want. And issue it without any explanation except, "Because I said so."

Rules can be tweaked to make them consistent with other rules. Updates can be issued for important issues - Banebots, IFI radio. Teams can be reminded of best-practice issues, such as how your ramp contacts the floor in Update 11, which didn’t change a rule but amplified the existing rule. They can correct obvious misprints (parts lists) or unclear wording (ringer direction through the chute). Even in the first half of build season, I’d be accepting of a new rule that changes game strategy or robot build, due to an oversight that created a huge loophole.

The argument everyone is having is that FIRST is making these arbitrary decisions so late in the season. FIRST isn’t big enough to be a bureaucracy - why do they act like one?[/quote]

Unfortunately, as with many situations in life, that is entirely true. The only real recourse we have is to pack up our toys and go home. I prefer to play …

We can debate “principle” and offer “what-if’s” all day long. I know that any decision to publish a rules change is NOT taken lightly by the GDC. These are NOT “arbitrary” changes … Every imaginable scenario is discussed and hashed out in an attempt to understand the full impact of the proposed change. The problem is, as Dave has stated numerous times (paraphrased), it’s 10 brains (defining the game) vs. 30,000 (dissecting it for “loopholes”) … and 30,000 will always win …

I often think I would like to be part of the GDC … but then something like this comes along and I see how ungrateful some people are. I believe most of us share a real passion for this program … for the RIGHT REASONS. Let’s keep the big picture in focus and not forget why we are all here.

#105

Ok, in my opinion (emphasis on the opinion part… don’t hurt me), I believe the main difference between these counter examples, and the issue at hand is that this update in all likeliness is not going to affect any team’s main strategy. Outlawing manipulators? Over 1/2 the teams would be out of commission… same goes for the other examples.

I understand that the timing of this update seems a little ‘after the fact’, but once again, I really don’t think it will affect the game play very much. I’m pretty sure the GDC is not out to get you… they just want to make sure the game is fair and interesting for you, the players and also the spectators.

I applaud Wildstang for their creativity, and any other team that attempted this strategy, but I do not thing that outlawing it will seriously impact any team’s personal strategy. Hopefully they will not be stuck in a similar position again, and if they are, perhaps they will come up with an equally creative solution.

#106

Now i’ve kept up with most of what has been going on since this update was released. A lot of people are talking about it disrupting a teams strategy, however that is not the biggest concern here.

Everyone should be concerned with the GDC committee creating rules halfway through the season that affects teams that cannot compete in a certain match. I must once again bring up the issue of the Wildstang match. Both of their partners were ‘broken’ (i use that loosely because i do not know exactly what was wrong with them). However Wildstang and that alliance decided to place the 2 robots that could not operate onto the field in an orientation that would eventually give their alliance a 30 point bonus. Now this is not a garunteed bonus, because a robot may enter the opponents homezone at anytime before the last 15 seconds. Given that this team disabled themselves to make sure they would not move and cost them the 30 point bonus, one of the 3 teams could have easily driven over to the homezone and push them out, causing the 30 point bonus to disappear.

As far as i can see there should not be an issue of where or how a robot starts the match. FIRST is about inspiring, and if you spend one match just sitting on top of a robot and helping your alliance win just 1 match, that is more inspiring than sitting in the pits unable to fix the problems you are experienceing with your robot. (believe me i have seen it all in FIRST both as a mentor and as a high school student)

But come on, I must reitterate this once more. This is not about winning or losing, its about the GDC creating rules that a formal representative of theirs said in the FIRST Q&A did not exist. The rules need to be set up, and clarified within the first couple of weeks of the build to prevent issues such as this from happening. Rules should not be changed after Regional Competition starts.

And a note for those that think we should let this go.

We are the customer, it is our responsiblity to voice our concerns when we see something that we do not like.

#107

This situation is nothing new to many of you folks who have been involved with FIRST for more then a few years. So why the “uproar” if you could even call it that? I could see much more of a legit gripe with Update 16 issues, but this just seems to be nit picking. Its an almost non-existent strategy that has seen use in less then 5 matches in the “1500” that have been played already this year. So why can’t people seem to drop the whole discussion?

Also, their was only 1 known phone call made to FIRST about the previous update 16 issue. If it was such a hot button, why such a lackluster response from teams?

#108

Please give some benefit of a doubt to the GDC in the Q and A. At least when I read the Q and A I assumed that a robot would be placed a reasonable distance above the ground. Say …a little over 12 inches to get 30 points, wouldn’t that be OK? What happens when a 6’ high robot sits on top of a 6’ high robot? If that combination was pushed to the side and the upper robot fell off, how far into the isles would it land? Judges table? TV camera operator? Ref? What if the upper robot were to fall over the 6’6" alliance station wall while a defending robot was trying to push 230lbs + out of the end zone? For me it comes down to basic safety. I applaud 111, 1755, 1850 for thinking outside the box. I also applaud the GDC for recognizing what could be a safety factor IMO and preventing it before something bad happens. Besides, how many teams out there said hey, we want to build a robot that sits on top of another robot for 30 points? No body is realistically going to be hurt (pun intended) by making this change.

#109

Chief Delphi is a wonderful place for discussions regarding topics pertaining to FIRST but it isn’t FIRST. I would think that if folks want to voice complaints regarding updates, that they would contact FIRST directly.

#110

There is nothing more depressing than finsihing below a team in the standings that never came out of the pits like what happened to us in 2002.
It was very clever to discover the loophole but it needed to be changed.Have a little pride and put some effort into your points.

#111

It may be depressing, but its part of the game. I know i wouldn’t like finishing below nonfunctional teams, but obviously this wouldn’t even be a factor. The thing is, if at this point another update came out saying that stacking is ok, then it should never be used. So many people on CD and amongst each other have discussed the fact that this strategy is RIDICULOUSLY EASY TO STOP. You slide them out. Or even better, you drag them across the full field into your home zone, thus incurring 60 points of penalties against the opposing alliance. That, in many matches, will guarantee you at least a tie, if not a win. It’s not something to be legislated. its not required that teams have a drive train, but its something that people realize is fairly necessary. Teams will realize that stacking is not practical. It’s a last ditch effort.