Why I think FIRST should reconsider...

FIRST General Forum
1

I have thought about it and I have come to the conclusion that folks that PLAY the FIRST game can deal with the new rules SC8 & SC9, but the casual spectator cannot.

This rule will be incomprehensible to the folks we are trying to introduce to FIRST.

My intitial reaction to negative scoring, etc. was that my team was very much advantaged by it. In fact, I am convinced that the “power teams” will be very much in control of their own destinies with the rules as currently interpretted.

So… part of me would like to see the rules stay as currently defined.

But… …I have a larger goal in participating in FIRST, specifically, changing the culture of North America and the wider world, by extention.

A viewer friendly game is a key aspect of realizing that goal.

To be honest, I LOVED the game as it was. I could explain it to my mom in with three statement:

Boxes in colored zones: Good
Higher highest stack: Very Good
Robots on top of ramp: Bonus!

I believe that the current game cannot be adequately explained to anyone but those determined to understand it.

Think about it.

Stacks are not stacks.

Sometimes robots can touch a stack and it is good, sometmes they can’t.

Sometimes a high stack is good, sometimes it is very bad.

How many SHU’s (Stack Height Units of course!) is the robot holding that box?

Is that red robot holding that box high enough in the blue zone to counter balance the 50 points those two blue robots get by being on top of the ramp?

I should listen to my wife more. FIRST should too. As I tried to explain the game to her and how it has changed, she said basically this: A stack is a stack not a heap. Only one-on-one-on-one free standing columns of contains should count as a “stack” No points should be given for a stack that is touching a robot period. No points for pyramids, etc. No need for a SHU or anything.

I like it.

Failing that FIRST should at least make it so that a stack can be no higher than the number of actual containers in the stack.

I don’t know exactly how we can get FIRST to change their minds on this one, but I am sure that they should change it.

My fear is that even if they want to they will not be able to change it in time (a change in 2 weeks would be last year’s tether rule all over again).

As always, your thoughts are welcome.

Joe J.

2

Joe,

I agree. A stack is a stack is a stack.

Before Update 3, it was spectator friendly:

The round down rule cleared up what was left of confusion.

Any box touching the highest stack doesn’t count.

Take all the boxes not touching the highest stack and multiply by highest stack (in SHUs).

In trying to clear up the pyramid questions, negatives were born (probably on purpose) and the spectators are now lost.

I hope it changes.

Bottom line: 3 boxes high is 3 boxes high, whether is takes 3 boxes or 6 (pyramid) to build it.

-Paul

3

Option 2:
Any robot touching any stack doesn’t count at all (not in the base score and not as a multiplier) Even easier for the casual observer because those bins essentially can be ignored.
Option 3:
No score can be lower than 0

4

Burn Team Update #3. These updates have switched me from a lover of this year’s game to a hater of it.

5

I agree. Stacks should be made of bins, not robots.

FIRST should extricate themselves from this potential mess with a SIMPLE solution, not a clever, complicated solution.

Ken

6

I think the negative scores are just going to make the scoring and qp’s/ep’s a hellish mess not only for teams and spectators but especially for the poor refs. It will take a lot longer to figure out scores and qp’s now. I hope FIRST decides to be nice and change it.

7

Regarding update #3, we’ve discovered ( as it seems everyone else has as well! ) that it is possible, according to these rules, to end up with a negative point value.

Supposing you have one box, that your opponent is holding 10 SHU in the air ( think the physically-impossible blue robot from the demo simulation =D ) According to the rules, you have -9 boxes in your zone ( this is assuming that one box is the only box in your zone ) -9*10SHU = -90pts. Even with both your bots on the ramp, you still have -40pts.

Here comes the part that sent us all laughing-- with negative 90pts, you probably end up losing. Supposing your opponent has 40 pts at the end of the game, they end up with a final score of **negative** 140pts ( 40+(2*-90)). This just sent us into fits of laughter.

Maybe FIRST didn’t realise this was a possibility?

8

“And the winner with an ASTONISHING -250 points is team 1694.”

Is that what we want to hear? The best score being in negative numbers? i doubt it :slight_smile:

9

So if the elimination rounds are determined by score, a team that wins both matchups could potentially lose due to a lower score.

10

Hey FIRST are you listening?

There are serious problems with the game. All associated with the scoring.

Fix it fast…or wait is this their real intent to:

Have a game scoring system so confusing that no one will understand…
Have a game the media will ignore…
Have a game that will drive teams to other competitions…
Have a game that no one can explain…

Hmmmmmm I wonder, is this the master plan?

11

I completely agree with what is being said by all of you…

But has someone taken the initiative to write FIRST a letter, call them, or notify them in any way about this potential disaster?

12

I admit it took me a bit to understand the actual wording but now that I see it…

Yikes! This is almost impossible to explain. What happened to the one page explanation? The elevator ride up? My grandmother in 3 minutes?

But I also see it as a positive for strong teams. Those that can adjust how high to put a single empty bin and can count really fast!

I have no problem with a pile being a stack but only so far as it follows the same rules. SHU as the measuring device. Any box in that stack does not get counted as a 1 pointer.

As I play more with the bins I have images of piles of bins right at the ramps, robots trying to break thru, I said ‘trying’ , that wire mesh was selected for a reason.

I still like the game but now , as Joe pointed out, need to start looking at the game differently. If we design to this rule to have it change later it will sound familiar.

Lets see what awaits us in the next update be fore we get too excited.

I guess one more cardboard model wouldn’t hurt…

13

As I play more with the bins I have images of piles of bins right at the ramps, robots trying to break thru, I said ‘trying’ , that wire mesh was selected for a reason.

Believe it or not those wheels that first provided us (nine inch ones) are quite good at gripping the wire meshing once a modifcation is made to them.

14

Yea the wheels do OK on the mesh.(after you take a Dremel to them :slight_smile: ) But the bins hang up on it too. Try pushing two or three up the ramp with the tops facing you. They catch on the wire.

15

Sorry but I am confused… Please can some one explain in simple English. How can a team win with a negative # wouldnt the other team have to have a larger negative #to loose or is that a higher lower negative #!!!
Are you saying that if the opposition lifts “one” bin 10 feet in the air on your side it would count as a 10 stack multiplier for your team as its the highest bin off the carpet and if you only had 1 other bin on your side you would end up with a multiplier of 10 x 1 = 10 how can it be -9
Help im confused…

16

*Originally posted by Useless member *
**Sorry but I am confused… Please can some one explain in simple English. How can a team win with a negative # wouldnt the other team have to have a larger negative #to loose or is that a higher lower negative #!!!
Are you saying that if the opposition lifts “one” bin 10 feet in the air on your side it would count as a 10 stack multiplier for your team as its the highest bin off the carpet and if you only had 1 other bin on your side you would end up with a multiplier of 10 x 1 = 10 how can it be -9
Help im confused… **

No negitive scores. Read my post in D.J.'s Unofficial Clarification

17

Negative scores won’t happen. Teams that THINK won’t allow it. Wondering why? See my post in this thread.

-dave

18

There are many problems with the scoring in this game. Of course, right around this time, FIRST gets bombarded with questions, and they make some snap decisions. I assume that they realize that the negative scoring won’t really be a great idea, and my instinct leans towards them just saying that a negative score will be considered zero. Although this doesn’t make it too much more spectator friendly, it will help the people behind the lexan figure out how they stand in a couple seconds.

Either that, or it really will come down to what Dean said - “Take the smallest prime number and multiply that by the reciprocal…”

19

**I highly doubt a team will give up 25 king of the hill points, just to get negative QP!!! **

A more likely situation is that a team will be a team getting less then 3 boxes in their scoring zone. lemme breake it down.

3 box = 2-1 = 1
2 box = 1-1 = 0
1box = 0-1 = -1
0 box = 0-0 = 0

my sugestion - very easy

the stack* with the most boxes in it is multiplied by the TOTAL number of boxes in the scoring zone. PERIOD, NO MATER WHAT!

*definition of stack

dictionary.com “An orderly pile, especially one arranged in layers.”

Legalese / Mattsk=peak
"A group of boxes supported by 1 and only 1 box, or any nonbox item. each box can only directly support 1other box.

any stack not fitting this description is not elegible for the high stack.THATS IT; The boxes in it are just regular boxes!!!

**high points (pun intended;)) in this plan **

  • NO NEGATIVES!!!
  • VERY SIMPLE!!!
  • tallest stack possable = good!!
  • why shouldnt I get points i my bot is holding a stack?
  • Why should i rais my oponents score if my bot cant steal a stack in time?
  • did i say NO NEGATIVES!?! :wink:

ps. this exact same message will be posted in all negative point threads, and in its own poll thread in the rules forum. any updates/replies should be posted in poll thread, so please make sticky. goto the poll thread and lets make it a petitition!!!

pps. sorry bout the speling, gammer, too many !'s and bouts of RAGE; its 3:45 AM!!

-Matt Stearn
CUL8R

20

If I remember the rules correctly, please tell me if I’m wrong, that FIRST has not specified to whether or not they start the measure of the multiplier stack from the bottom of the bottom container or from the playing field. I remember reading a thread about someone asking this and I don’t think they found out either.

-Food for thought.

-BigLuke:confused: