Team Update #20/Scoring Examples

FIRST General Forum
1

There once was a Team Update 20.
It had scoring examples a plenty.
It showed how to win,
With stacks made of bins,
That, as Starbucks might say, are quite ‘Venti’!

Team Update #20 is out, and contains the post-build fabrication fules, some updates on [rule=gm31]GM31[/rule], and a number of scoring examples.

My question is about examples 3 through 7: Didn’t team update #3 say that “Any container you touch that is touching any container, etc., will be worth zero points”? In these examples, they say that boxes touching a touched box are not in direct contact, and therefore do count.

Was this an oversight on FIRST’s part, or was it an unannounced change in the scoring rules?

2

Example #3, #4, and #5 seem inconsistent with regard to how continuous chains of contacting bins are scored.

Great.

I think this makes scoring a little too subjective with regard to what ‘supported by’ means.

3

Basically, the very next container touching the red robot is the container that is nullified, whether it is a stack or not. Any connecting containers are not nullified.

Example 5 is semi-inconsistant. It basically says that if containers are on top of your robot, and they are directly touching a “stack”, then that stack is nullified. I guess the containers on top of your robot count as an extension of your robot. That container in Example 5 that is sideways technically

Basic rule:
Vertically (on top of robot): Containers are an extension of your robot. They also do not count as a stack.
Horizontally (directly next to and touching robot): Only the containers directly touching your robot or an extension of your robot do not count as a stack, whether they are a stack or not. Stacks touching those containers (horizonally) are counted normally.

I like this new scoring system. It’s very simplified. Also, stackers are important once again among the sea of bins! Pyramid stacks don’t nullify the entire sea now… So I guess the new strategy is to pick up bins and make one communal bonfire stack.

4

Scoring made easy huh? Well, it was really confusing to me but I thank FIRST for the attempt nonetheless. It’s also good that they cleared up the fabrication issue (I think they were evesdropping on us)

Also, stackers are important once again among the sea of bins!

That sea will become much more shallow than one might expect. Fear 696…

5

Maybe it is just me but it seems that FIRST wrote the second part wrong… The way I read it is unless you can fit under the bar, you run the risk of being DQed. I know that is not what FIRST means, however I was wondering if any one else got that impression? If they would have left it with deployed I would have fully understood, however when they said fixed, I think of a robot’s overall structure and I don’t think them being pushed or accidently(judges call) running into the midfield bar is grounds for being DQed. Your thoughts please!!! My main confusion is in them using the word fixed…

6

Just a very old song that kinda reminds me of this years over abundance of rules, penalties, and dq’s. I agree with Mark that GM31 is now more confusing than it was before - it’s simpler to understand “no interaction with the midfield barriers is allowed” than it is to try and include accidental, incidental or leave it to a referee to determine intent.
As for the rules on scoring - this reminds me of last years CDI where I (as the game developer) failed to realize just how complicated things can get when trying to determine, if and when a robot or game piece is touching or when is a pile considered touching, etc. There are crazy combinations that no one could have anticipated and situations that are beyond pictures. I would suggest to FIRST - the following (which I think they are trying to explain in this last round of updates); ANY BIN directly touching a robot in the scoring zone of that team, does not count. Any bin directly touching a bin that is touching a robot in their scoring zone does count - because THAT bin isn’t directly touching the robot (there is something between it and the robot) Don’t try and determine a combination or chain of bins touching a robot as it is very, very easy to 1) confuse the audience and more importantly 2) miss a single touching condition, especially when there is a jumbled pile (that could change the score alot) My advise - keep it as simple as possible - ANY BIN DIRECTLY TOUCHING A ROBOT IN THEIR SCORING ZONE - DOESN"T COUNT AS A BIN IN THEIR SCORE.
All these rules about human players and robots touching things, and what is legal and what isn’t - is making my head hurt. I feel I’m spending more time obsessing about rules than I am trying to figure out how to play and enjoy, this years game. Just my 2cents worth -
“and the sign said, long haired freaky people need not apply - so I tucked my hair up under my hat and went in to ask them, why?”

7

I think they just mistyped example 5. They state that you take the total bins in the zone (including in the stack) and subtract what is in the stack to get your base score.

In every example except 5, they counted the stack when doing the math. I really think there is just an oversight. There should be no reason that the 3 for the stack doesn’t count as the base score.

As to GM31. I agree with the final clarification and have been stating that was the intent of the rule from the beginning. My question is: Why couldn’t they have just said that in the first place? Maybe the loopholes were not apparent. It also looks as if FIRST definitely reads this site and has targeted specific mechanisms seen on this site.

Update 20 seems to basically say, “Use the HDPE to hold ground and you’re safe. Any other locking means and you are on thin ice.”

We will see how this is enforced.

8

Does anybody have the same feeling I do.

The rules state that you can now build more stuff for your robot up to the Wednesday after your competition.

So lets look at it. If you go to 3 regional you will have 14 more days to work on your robot than a team going to 1.

It is all fair the first round of regional then it stacks up against the robot that have not done any earlier regional.

I say they open this rule up. All team can work on parts to their robot. starting from the first regional.

I know it is not about being fair. But give the small team a chance.( teams that do not have a lot of money to do a lot of regionals.)

9

*Originally posted by Mike Norton *
So lets look at it. If you go to 3 regional you will have 14 more days to work on your robot than a team going to 1.

You have to balance that against need for teams to attend to wear and tear (or more serious damage) from competing at a regional.

I say they open this rule up. All team can work on parts to their robot. starting from the first regional.

So then all you’ve done is tipped the scales in favor of teams that DON’T go to multiple regionals. If this were the case, what would stop a team from only signing up for the Championship (no regionals) and then getting a full 3 weeks extra to work on their robots! Since they’re not competing, there’s no chance that they would have to use that time to repair damage. I think that is the main reason they made this rule in the first place.

BTW, these same rules existed last year. They are not new.

10

Seems like FIRST also ruled against 68s arms blocking the bar.

11

JoesephM,

Yeah, that was basically what I was getting at.

-Paul

12

*Originally posted by Paul Copioli *
As to GM31. I agree with the final clarification and have been stating that was the intent of the rule from the beginning. My question is: Why couldn’t they have just said that in the first place? Maybe the loopholes were not apparent. It also looks as if FIRST definitely reads this site and has targeted specific mechanisms seen on this site.

There were no loopholes in the first place. People just don’t know how to read.

GM31 already established that it is unacceptable to push against multiple barriers. It also established that the field barriers are merely a safety feature, they are not meant to be reacted upon. They chose to ignore this, now they must pay the consequences. Simple as that.

13

Jnadke,

I agree with you entirely. However, if they would have eliminated the extra wording regarding the “top of the barriers” it would have been stone solid.

14

*Originally posted by Paul Copioli *
**Jnadke,

I agree with you entirely. However, if they would have eliminated the extra wording regarding the “top of the barriers” it would have been stone solid. **

Yeah, I understand what you mean. The extra information tends to make it misleading. Mainly the extra examples are to clarify that “functional mechanisms”, and not just “immobility mechanisms”, also apply toward this rule.

Otherwise FIRST would get 300 e-mails from teams asking if it is okay to push against/touch the bar so their robot can flip over it. This would be morely a functional mechanism.

15

*Originally posted by Mike Norton *
**Does anybody have the same feeling I do.

The rules state that you can now build more stuff for your robot up to the Wednesday after your competition.

So lets look at it. If you go to 3 regional you will have 14 more days to work on your robot than a team going to 1.

It is all fair the first round of regional then it stacks up against the robot that have not done any earlier regional.

I say they open this rule up. All team can work on parts to their robot. starting from the first regional.

I know it is not about being fair. But give the small team a chance.( teams that do not have a lot of money to do a lot of regionals.) **

We’re going to one regional.
While I don’t enjoy the thought that teams attending 3 regionals will get triple the time to modify their bot, I also believe that given 3 additional weeks, some engineers could make their bots do almost anything! This is certainly not the solution…
We’d get to nationals, and there’d be clones of the most successful designs. Especially of the successful teams that have released information i.e. Technokats.

Frankly, even as the rule stands now, I’m scared we’re going to arrive in Houston and see similar versions of our now (I believe currently) unique approach to holding the ramp. I guess that will depend on the Gracious Prof of other teams… and whether or not we suck royally at UTC… :smiley: I guess, imitation is the highest form of flattery… :stuck_out_tongue:

Also… while I know FIRST intends the rule for robot repair… There ARE teams who would take advantage of said rule (as they should!) and use it to rebuild an entire robot. I’m reminded of TRIBE in 2001 completely rebuilding thier bot in the 3 days between UTC and Nats. This is certainly allowed within the current rule, and I think anyone who believes teams wont take advantage of it, is nuts.
The more time they have, the more technically complex the robot will be.

I guess it all boils down to what Deano said during kickoff:
This game is not fair.

Those that can… can. Those that can’t… well… deal with it.

Unfortunately we fall into the second category… so I guess we’ll do the best we can this year, with what we have, and hopefully do well enough that next year we have more resources, and can attend 3 regionals. :frowning:

The “small teams” need to get bigger, or do the best they can with what they have. As much as I don’t like it sometimes… this competition ISNT fair, and there really isnt anyway to make it fair…

Just another rant from the Clarkson kid… sorry
throws $.02

16

this competition ISN’T fair, and there really isn’t anyway to make it fair…

I was trying to show how to make it fair.

Don’t you think that teams are changing their robot during the week they have it.

I believe if everybody has the same time than that would be fair and in line with the spirit of the rules. By saying if you have money then you get to have more time with your robot that is not.

So to make it fair when the first robot is open up all teams then can start making pieces for there robot even if they do not have the robot in front of them.

If teams do make big changes they only have the regionals to touch there robot.

That would be more fair than for the team to sit there not improving there robot not like everybody else who is fixing theirs at the regionals.

17

*Originally posted by Jnadke *
**There were no loopholes in the first place. People just don’t know how to read.

GM31 already established that it is unacceptable to push against multiple barriers. It also established that the field barriers are merely a safety feature, they are not meant to be reacted upon. They chose to ignore this, now they must pay the consequences. Simple as that. **

It’s not that simple. I’m quite proficient with reading, see, as I’ve been doing it since before Kindergarten.

Rule GM31, as it was originally published, certainly has no loop holes. It prohibits contacting multiple surfaces with the intent of wedging your robot in place, making it immovable. It prohibits robots from supporting themselves on the top outer field barrier and on the top of midfield barrier (not a safety feature, but a field feature, in my opinion). It says, specifically, “Contact with all of the barriers is acceptable.”

Saying that the “extra wording” confuses things is patently false. It changes the rule. Reading the rule would reveal that.

FIRST didn’t patch loopholes with regard to this rule. They’ve changed it, multiple times, and without any real consistency. The wording is not misleading, however your interpretation is incorrect; at least as the rule existed at kickoff.

So, with all due respect, don’t tell others they don’t know how to read because you fancy yourself to be so important as to be able define what words in a rule are superfluous or poorly chosen. Those words aren’t confusing, misleading, or unnecessary. They define the rule by elucidating, specifically, what it means to ‘react’ against the playing field.

FIRST, clearly, wasn’t happy with this rule, or they themselves didn’t know what it was intended to do, as it has changed many, many times. Where contacting multiple surfaces at a single time is concerned, I think it has remained clear. Where interfacing with the midfield barrier is concerned, FIRST’s later use of wording like ‘incidental contact’ and allowing mechanisms that lower the light mechanically by hitting the barrier, while seemingly making other, similar mechanisms illegal leaves a lot to be desired.

18

Well I think that there wasn’t a meeting of the minds by many teams with regard to this rule, I do agree that I believe FIRST has changed its mind slight through the process of making update 20.

Update 20:
Teams should take careful note on this:
FIRST will enforce GM31 thoroughly. Assemblies/appendages, which straddle the midfield barrier, will be thoroughly reviewed and likely disallowed as they clearly are intended to react with the field. Robot devices which are deployed or in a fixed position in order to avoid being pushed under the midfield barrier are designed to react with the field and will likely be disallowed.

Devices, which “lock” onto the platform, ramps, carpet, etc., and are subsequently pushed by another robot so as to cause/potentially cause field damage, must then be disengaged. The potential for damage rests with the deployer of mechanisms.

I understand what FIRST is saying here, however they are saying it in a way that is open to interpretation. I don’t think FIRST is being clear enough when they write these “rule changes”! What I get from this is no matter what kind of arm or device you have that leaves the original configuration of the robot, if FIRST considers it to be locking (definition left unknown), and if another robot pushing that portion into any part of the field, you can be disqualified. My question is what if you design yourself to dig into the carpet, using legal materials and methods, upon another robot running on top of you. To try and clear that up, what if you have an arm that digs into the carpet upon another robot running into you (I envision a ramp, where weight is then transferred to your arm)? Maybe dig-in is the wrong word, maybe I should use the word lock or limit the amount of movement. I don’t see why you should be DQed if you are the team that has the arm when it is the result of the other robot doing the action. No field damage is done; you simple can’t be moved easily. I argue this is not locking because they could simple left the robot straight up. I would define locking as not being able to travel in any direction without damage of any degree to the playing field.

Also when they say “cause/potential” damage what degree of potential are they meaning? I guess that is just open ended and up to the referees to decide.

I am however confused on what they mean by deployer. Please help with this? Are they meaning a device that is strong enough to destroy the field on its own? If that is the case, I have never seen a competition robot able to do this. Robots try to react with the playing field (i.e. carpet), not destroy the carpet. An example is Beatty last year, they weren’t destroying the carpet, it was the result of others spinning them.

Well the rule change has been hard to handle, something needed to be done to address issues like this. Although I still don’t believe FIRST is all that clear on this subject…

19

Originally posted by Mark G *
** My question is what if you design yourself to dig into the carpet, using legal materials and methods, upon another robot running on top of you. To try and clear that up, what if you have an arm that digs into the carpet upon another robot running into you (I envision a ramp, where weight is then transferred to your arm*

edited

**No field damage is done; you simple can’t be moved easily. I argue this is not locking because they could simple left the robot straight up. **

more editing

**I am however confused on what they mean by deployer. Please help with this? Are they meaning a device that is strong enough to destroy the field on its own? If that is the case, I have never seen a competition robot able to do this. Robots try to react with the playing field (i.e. carpet), not destroy the carpet. An example is Beatty last year, they weren’t destroying the carpet, it was the result of others spinning them. **

I believe this is quite clear. If you have a robot that digs into the carpet, someone else rams into you, and this results in damage to the carpet, you (the deployer of the digging device) are at fault. In this context, if you had a robot that reacted with the playing field with an incredibly tractive device, and someone spun your robot and this destroyed the carpet, you (the deployer of the amazingly tractive device)would be at fault.

If no damage is done, then there is no issue.

20

*Originally posted by Mike Norton *
Don’t you think that teams are changing their robot during the week they have it.

I’m not sure what you mean by “changing their robot during the week they have it”. Teams only have their robot for the 3 days of the event, and even then they’re constrained to the hours that the pits are open. And, a good portion of those three days is spent actually competing. Why should a team who is not at a regional get all that time to make whatever they want? The teams who are at a regional have a very limited set of equipment, time, and other resources. No solution is completely fair here, but like Dean and Woodie said at the beginning of the year, this is not a fair competition and it’s not meant to be. It seems to me the rules they’ve made are more reasonable than allowing any team to work on a robot whenever a regional is happening.

As a side note, our team is attending two regionals, so we’re still losing out on time from this rule like you are, although not as badly.

That would be more fair than for the team to sit there not improving there robot not like everybody else who is fixing theirs at the regionals.

You’ve summed it up right here. Teams at regionals are mostly fixing their robots. Teams at home would be doing nothing but improving their robots. How is that better than the current system?