The Big Question

FIRST General Forum
1

Posted by Mike.

Student on team #175, Buzz, from Enrico Fermi High School and UTC - Hamilton Standard Space Systems.

Posted on 7/15/99 11:23 PM MST

The 1999 FIRST season has pretty much come to a close. But there’s still one big question: what do we
think of alliances? I think ‘alliances’ are a big deal because it is very possible they will be added to next
years game. As Dean would say ‘maybe they will or maybe they won’t.’ What would you prefer?

I personally would not like to see alliances included next year. I don’t think the ability of another robot
should take away from your rank. I noticed during the competitions many people would look at our robot,
ask where we ranked and then walk away shaking their head. This year Buzz could do it all, pick-up
floppies, lift 10 floppies above 8ft, climb on the puck, grab the pole and pull itself up… but there’s one
thing Buzz couldn’t do and that’s decide our alliances. We were graced with much misfortune when it
came to alliances. During three seeding matches at The Rumble at the Rock our partners flipped over
and disabled themselves. This made it very difficult for us to do well, and quite frankly took the fun out of
the game. I can only speak for myself but I became very frustrated with the game. Which is too bad
because I love the idea of FIRST. I guess I’m done rambling now…but, what do you think?

2

Posted by David Kelso.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Coach on team #131, C.H.A.O.S.-, from Central High School and OSRAM SYLVANIA/ Fleet Bank.

Posted on 7/16/99 5:33 AM MST

In Reply to: The Big Question posted by Mike on 7/15/99 11:23 PM MST:

:AT the River Rage competition in Manchester, NH this fall, we may experiment with
with an ‘‘early announcement’’ of all alliances for the matches. This would
really have some great benefits. It would also help build team friendships
throughout the country. At present, with 6 seeding matches, you have 18 other
possible alliances. You look at their machine while scouting and talk to them
a little but that is it. If you knew who you were with from the beginning,
some real strategy and new friendships would develop.

The 1999 FIRST season has pretty much come to a close. But there’s still one big question: what do we
: think of alliances? I think ‘alliances’ are a big deal because it is very possible they will be added to next
: years game. As Dean would say ‘maybe they will or maybe they won’t.’ What would you prefer?

: I personally would not like to see alliances included next year. I don’t think the ability of another robot
: should take away from your rank. I noticed during the competitions many people would look at our robot,
: ask where we ranked and then walk away shaking their head. This year Buzz could do it all, pick-up
: floppies, lift 10 floppies above 8ft, climb on the puck, grab the pole and pull itself up… but there’s one
: thing Buzz couldn’t do and that’s decide our alliances. We were graced with much misfortune when it
: came to alliances. During three seeding matches at The Rumble at the Rock our partners flipped over
: and disabled themselves. This made it very difficult for us to do well, and quite frankly took the fun out of
: the game. I can only speak for myself but I became very frustrated with the game. Which is too bad
: because I love the idea of FIRST. I guess I’m done rambling now…but, what do you think?

3

Posted by Jon.

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

Posted on 7/16/99 9:03 AM MST

In Reply to: The Big Question posted by Mike on 7/15/99 11:23 PM MST:

–start rant
I liked alliances because they helped create a friendly atmosphere. People were willing to share technical details about their machines. Granted, the system isn’t perfect but anyone who knows the game has to know that there are plenty of good machines that due to circumstances outside their control get low ranks. One shouldn’t rely solely on the ranks, the ranks will only tell you who can choose and can be picked. You have to look at the machine’s features to see if they compliment your machine and strategy.

We were picked at the 2 regionals we went to (by Buzz at Hartford) and our rank wasn’t exactly spectacular. At nationals we got to pick and (yea we picked buzz) we feel that our alliance could have gone all the way if we hadn’t suffered a metal fatigue problem.
–end rant

i like alliances, i like the newly-formed-comradery, i like the impromptu alliances, i like the fact that the game takes on a more strategic element that requires several What-If scenarios per match (creating Scouting and Intelligence Gathering jobs for people who otherwise wouldn’t have much to do), i like the fact more people get a shot at playing in the elimination matches. I’d like to see them next year.

4

Posted by Daniel.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

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

Posted on 7/16/99 11:57 AM MST

In Reply to: The Big Question posted by Mike on 7/15/99 11:23 PM MST:

I agree with Jon on this one. Although it’s possible to get unlucky with partners, there’s a catch that allows a good robot who had that misfortune to get called up into the finals. Perhaps more matches would eliminate the effects of luck? I’ve always been a fan of that change. Other than that, this is a great system. Matches were thick with strategy and outlined by teamwork. It was a great thing to see, and really fun to be tangled up in.

In regards to the strategy, I thought the alliances provided a wonderful opportunity for teams such as 177, 45, and my own 192 to roll up their sleeves, forget about floppies, and play some D. Every spectator sport has people on defense. Defense is exciting. What’s the fun of watching a whole bunch of robots wander around and gather floppies? The excitement is lacking. There needs to be someone blocking, someone stealing, or someone getting lifted off the puck (watch match 40 of the NASA Ames regional). Without a partner, teams would be too busy gathering floppies of their own to worry about their opponents.

My one complaint about the game this year would be the basis for ranking the teams. In the finals, a robot does well by winning its matches. In the qualifiers, robots that win won’t necessarily make the top 16. Robots need to have high scores to move up in the ranks. So lets say a robot looses 4 out of 6 of it’s matches, but one of those wins is a 540 (lets say they had a stroke of luck with a good partner). If rating was based on wins, this robot wouldn’t have done quite so well. Ratings aren’t based on wins though, they’re based on points. Therefore, that 540 averaged a 1620 into their total. This robot is going to end up picking. Should they be? Or are there others who may deserve that position much more. Teams that had a better than 50% win to loss ratio. Perhaps there is some other in-between that takes wins into account a little more than this year’s system did. Any ideas?

-Daniel

5

Posted by Tony.

Student on team #292, PantherTech, from Western High School and DaimlerChrysler.

Posted on 7/16/99 12:51 PM MST

In Reply to: The Big Question posted by Mike on 7/15/99 11:23 PM MST:

If it was up to me, I’d eliminate alliances next year. The outcome
(or possible outcome, I should say) of the preliminary matches is
decided purely on luck. When we play with alliances, a team’s
ability to communicate and its robot’s abilities to do various things
have a lesser effect on the outcome of the match because you have to
‘pool’ the abilities of both teams on an alliance. If you have a string
of bad luck, you could have the best robot on the face of the earth
(in terms of capabilities) but still lose the match, because the
criteria of the match make it very hard for one robot to accomplish what
two can do in two minutes. If we do away with alliances, I feel it would
allow teams to independently show what their team has accomplished and
what their robot can do. I feel it’s more fair this way

–Tony

6

Posted by Andy Baker.

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

Posted on 7/16/99 1:15 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: The Big Question posted by Tony on 7/16/99 12:51 PM MST:

: If we do away with alliances, I feel it would
: allow teams to independently show what their team has accomplished and
: what their robot can do. I feel it’s more fair this way

: --Tony

Tony,

Good to see a post from PantherTech!!!

I agree with you about the fairness. Robots and teams should be able to show their stuff without depending on the capability of another robot and team.

BUT, I’m 100% in favor of alliances for 3 reasons:

  1. This is how the real world (business) is. In engineering, you always have to depend on co-workers as teammates, and also customers a suppliers as alliances. This year’s alliance setup is much like a real world situation where you HAVE to depend on another company to be successful. You cannot only count on yourself in business, and things are not always ‘fair’.

  2. Many teams came together this year and got real friendly with each other. Teams were much more open about their designs and strategies this year compared to years past. Since this openness was there, we’ve all made good friends on other teams. Students have made more contacts with other teams, opening up future employment opportunities. If students only work with and look up to the teachers and engineers on their own team, then they are really limiting themselves. I can honestly say that I’ve met many students on other teams who I would like to work with in the future.

  3. Students can now brag openly about their robot and all that they did on it to whoever came by their pit. Tony, I’m guessing that you were comfortable with telling whoever came by 292’s pit about how Sgt. Joe’s control system worked, and how your software controlled the mechanisms of your 'bot. In years past, you probably wouldn’t have been so open and able to discuss the things that you did, due to the nature of the competition. In the past, designs and strategies were much more secretive, and the openness that we witnessed this year was not present.

Anyway… myself and the rest of the TechnoKats will be looking forward to working with PantherTech in 2000! Keep up the good work!

Andy B.

7

Posted by Mike.

Student on team #175, Buzz, from Enrico Fermi High School and UTC - Hamilton Standard Space Systems.

Posted on 7/17/99 11:57 AM MST

In Reply to: Independence: fair, but unrealistic and unfriendly posted by Andy Baker on 7/16/99 1:15 PM MST:

: 1. This is how the real world (business) is. In engineering, you always have to depend on co-workers as teammates,
and also customers a suppliers as alliances. This year’s alliance setup is much like a real world situation where you
HAVE to depend on another company to be successful. You cannot only count on yourself in business, and things are
not always ‘fair’.

I don’t think that alliances are a good comparison to the real world. Because in the real world if your alliance wasn’t holding up his
end of the bargain (Real World Situation: a supply of gaskets will not make it to its destination on time. FIRST Situation: your
alliance can not get on the puck), then you would get a new alliance. In this years game you were stuck with a random partner… in
business you take the time to choose your alliances carefully. Much like you would during this years game when you were picking
an alliance for the finals. However, most teams do not make it to the top 16, nor do they get picked. So the only real world situation
in FIRST happens to 32 (possibly 48, if you’re playing nationals rules) teams when they are choosing alliances for the finals. Is that
enough impact on all the teams to warrant the declaration of alliances showing real world situations? I don’t think so.

8

Posted by Jacob Etter.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Student on team #177, Bobcats, from South Windsor High Schoool and IFC & Onsi.

Posted on 7/17/99 10:03 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: Independence: fair, but unrealistic and unfriendly posted by Mike on 7/17/99 11:57 AM MST:

good call mike

9

Posted by Andy Baker.

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

Posted on 7/18/99 9:13 AM MST

In Reply to: Re: Independence: fair, but unrealistic and unfriendly posted by Mike on 7/17/99 11:57 AM MST:

: (Real World Situation: a supply of gaskets will not make it to its destination on time. FIRST Situation: your
: alliance can not get on the puck), then you would get a new alliance.

No, you wouldn’t. Purchasing picked the supplier, and they are the lowest bidder of these gaskets. Your project is already late and over budget, so you gotta deal with that supplier. You don’t just go out and get a new supplier… maybe for the next project, but not this one.

: In this years game you were stuck with a random partner… in
: business you take the time to choose your alliances carefully.

I don’t choose many of my suppliers. They go through a quoting process, and the lowest bidder usually wins. If they are bidding low, and they are still trying to make money.

YOur idea of the real world is not like mine.

Andy B.

10

Posted by Joe Johnson.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

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

Posted on 7/19/99 8:07 PM MST

In Reply to: no, not really posted by Andy Baker on 7/18/99 9:13 AM MST:

I don’t know whether the REAL WORLD is getting more like FIRST or FIRST is getting more like the REAL WORLD, but at least from my vantage point, they are definitely getting closer to eachother all the time.

As to random alliances, consider my two major projects. On one of them the OEM (in this case Ford) called up Delphi and told it to be ‘tier 2’ to one of our biggest competitor (in this case Magna) on a particular high profile job. While we don’t really like working with a major competitor, we are forced to if we want the business (and we do so we do).

On another job, we and about 4 others suppliers all have to work together to make a major new feature for automotive applications come together. Some of the suppliers we have control over, others we have to work with because they are our customer’s preferred supplier of XXX.

The fact is, we are being judged by our customers not only by the quality of our products and services, but by the extent to which we work and play well with others. Sometimes we carry our ‘partners’ sometimes they carry us.

Another area where FIRST and the REAL WORLD are colliding is on the OEM ‘design competition’ front. It is getting more and more common for automotive OEM’s to have a design competition to determine who will be their next supplier of XXX.

These design competitions are like FIRST in many ways.

Good partners in the design competition are often the difference between winning and watching. Often the design competition is for a system that is too complex for any one supplier to be able to supply the entire system (even for a company a big and diverse as Delphi).

Another way that these design competitions are like FIRST is that they are usually a short time span (typically 6-8 weeks) and the time frame is insane.

There are other important ways FIRST and the REAL WORLD are converging, but they will have to wait for another day.

Joe J.

11

Posted by Tony.

Student on team #292, PantherTech, from Western High School and DaimlerChrysler.

Posted on 7/20/99 2:17 PM MST

In Reply to: Independence: fair, but unrealistic and unfriendly posted by Andy Baker on 7/16/99 1:15 PM MST:

>Students can now brag openly about their robot and all that they did
>on it to whoever came by their pit. Tony, I’m guessing that you were
comfortable with telling whoever came by 292’s pit about how Sgt. Joe’s
>control system worked, and how your software controlled the mechanisms
>of your 'bot. In years past, you probably wouldn’t have been so open and
>able to discuss the things that you did, due to the nature of the
competition. In the past, designs and strategies were much more secretive,
>and the openness that we witnessed this year was not present.

Thanks for giving me another perspective. I wasn’t there last year,
so I can’t base my opinion on how it was without alliances.
But I see your point. I agree that the alliances help to form closer
bonds between the teams.

>Anyway… myself and the rest of the TechnoKats will be looking forward
>to working with PantherTech in 2000! Keep up the good work!

Me too. You guys were a great help to us this year. Thanks. :^)

–Tony

12

Posted by P.J. Baker.

Engineer on team #177, Bobcat Robotics, from South Windsor High School and International Fuel Cells.

Posted on 7/16/99 1:41 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: The Big Question posted by Tony on 7/16/99 12:51 PM MST:

This was my first year doing this, so I can’t compare to the way things
were, but I really liked the alliances. It gave the matches a lot more
intrigue, and it was great to work with another team to prepare for
matches in the elimination rounds.

As far as the ‘luck factor’ in the elimination rounds, I really must
disagree with the idea that making it into the top 8 or 16 was based
entirely on luck. So far this year, we have taken the Bobcat to 4
different competitions. We have seeded in all of them. There are
several other teams out there that can make this claim as well. I do
think that ‘bad luck’ could keep a team out of the top 8/16, but that
what the draft is for. Eventhough there was an overwhelming number of
teams to choose from at EPCOT, I felt that the draft did a good job of
ensuring that most of the best 'bots made it into the elimination rounds.
This was even more true at the regionals, where a much higher percentage
of the teams made it to the eliminations.

To back up my thoughts on the the importance of luck in the seeding rounds
I’m reposting some stats that I put up when this topic first came up, just
after EPCOT.

Stats for the top 16 seeds at EPCOT:

15 of the 16 appeared in the elimination round of at least 1 regional

10 of the 16 were among the top 8 seeds in at least 1 regional

7 of the 16 appeared in the elimination round of at least two regionals

4 of the 16 were among the top 8 seeds in 2 regionals

2 of the 16 appeared in the elimination round of three regionals

13

Posted by Susanne Krussell.

Coach on team #163, The Quantum Mechanics, from International Academy and Quantum Consultants/Eaton/ITT.

Posted on 7/16/99 2:34 PM MST

In Reply to: The Big Question posted by Mike on 7/15/99 11:23 PM MST:

Good question to bring up again, after mulling it over for a few months. I have very mixed feelings about the alliances. They were a great learning experience, but it was painful as well. My team’s robot just didn’t work, which was a horrifying experience after the astonishing year we had the year before (I coached Rochester High School that year) Yeah, so real-life is painful too, but when you’re losing, it is much worse knowing that you’re bringing another team down with you. I must say that the learning curve is huge, maybe even more so when things don’t work out. We are so determined to not make the same mistakes. Alliances may have been a plus in one regard, but I still don’t want to do them again.
We want to be responsible for ourselves. As we all know, there is already a lot of collaboration and team building in the whole FIRST process. We don’t need alliances to make collaboration happen. If Dean and Woodie decide to go with alliances again, I hope they would consider doing it every other year. Vary the intensity, eh?

14

Posted by Jacob Etter.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Student on team #177, Bobcats, from South Windsor High Schoool and IFC & Onsi.

Posted on 7/17/99 11:46 AM MST

In Reply to: The Big Question posted by Mike on 7/15/99 11:23 PM MST:

i agree completely, get rid of the robots, all they do is add luck into the compition which makes it harder to tell what robots are trully good and which were just lucky, i understand first is into that whole being friends wiht everyone thing but i say hold more dances than. don’t bring that crap into the game.

15

Posted by Bethany Dunning.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Coach on team #163, Quantum Mechanics, from International Academy and Quantum Consultants/EATON/ITT Industries.

Posted on 7/17/99 1:21 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: The Big Question posted by Jacob Etter on 7/17/99 11:46 AM MST:

I’m assuming you mean get rid of the alliances, not the robots, or else you are being sarcastic. :slight_smile:
:
: i agree completely, get rid of the robots, all they do is add luck…

16

Posted by Jacob Etter.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Student on team #177, Bobcats, from South Windsor High Schoool and IFC & Onsi.

Posted on 7/17/99 10:02 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: The Big Question posted by Jacob Etter on 7/17/99 11:46 AM MST:

sorry i made a mistake the first line should read: i agree completely, get rid of the alliances. guess i should pay more attention.

17

Posted by Daniel.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

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

Posted on 7/17/99 3:01 PM MST

In Reply to: The Big Question posted by Mike on 7/15/99 11:23 PM MST:

The only complaint I seem to be hearing about alliances, is that it adds a lot of luck to the game. This is true.

However…

There are SO MANY advantages to having a partner! By eliminating the alliance system completely, we would be giving up on something with a whole lot of potential. During week three of production when your robot doesn’t work, do you start over or do you fix it? You fix it. So…lets try to fix this. I hate giving up.

I know I’ve said this before but bare with me. Statistically, the best way to eliminate luck is to increase the trials. The more matches you have, the less likely you are to get all good or all bad alliances. So here’s one way. I’m sure there are others…let’s hear ‘em!

Here’s another! We can have multiple tournaments and then have the top 4 alliances from each tournament play together in the finals. All of these involve making nationals bigger, but I don’t see why this can’t happen. Disney said that as long as FIRST keeps bringing in more people, they would build a bigger arena. Let’s take them up on that offer!

I just think we’d be throwing away something great if we got rid of alliances. Because no matter what kind of luck you have, the game is a WHOLE LOT MORE FUN to play this way! I was lovin’ it even when we lost.

Let’s not lose hope here…
-Daniel