What do you think of this year's game?

[JV2073]

The middle bridge was the main thing that I personal thought was bad. It gave to much prority than the main part of the game. Other than this I loved another season of robotics.

[LedLover96]

Another thing that I have to say about this year's game, the robot is GREAT for PR. We recently took the robot to an elementary school's math night. It was loved by both kids and adults when we ramped up the power so that it could shoot into a 10ft basket. We got many questions and many opportunities to talk about FIRST. This is a game that many people can relate to, making PR and game description easy.

[Gregor]

Lets pull this thread back now that competition season is over.

[JonathanZur1836]

Over all I think that this year's game was good. My only two complaints are the feeder stations and the big emphasis on coopertition. Nobody really went up to the station to get balls, they were just thrown through the opening for the most part and thrown over the station in the last 30 seconds. Also, it caused a lot of unnecessary penalties that not many teams understood. In terms of the coopertition bridge, I like that coopertition was incorporated as an actual element of the game instead of last year where to get coop points you had to share minibots. However, I do not think that balancing on the coop bridge should be just as important as winning. I think it would be fine if you got two qualification points for winning, and one for cooping, because then people would still think that it is important but at the same time the rankings would be more fair.

What I liked most is that the game was easy to understand; scoring points and balancing bridges is easy to see. Can't wait to see what FIRST does next year

[whattsheorder]

Great game, very active, aside from the coopertition bridges of course. They wouldn't be bad if it didn't carry so much weight in the rankings. I also think they should have tried to make more room for defensive play. I didn't see too much until running into the fifth week.

[JonathanZur1836]

Originally Posted by whattsheorder

I also think they should have tried to make more room for defensive play. I didn't see too much until running into the fifth week.

I agree that defense was tough to play this year, and that was mainly because of the key; but as long as you stayed near the fender you could still play some good defense. I think that there was a good amount of defense in elims, as is true in most years.

[pfreivald]

I think that the lack of defense was largely a strategy issue, not a game-play issue. From ball denial to good old pushing and shoving, we played a lot of effective defense this year.

[Astrokid248]

Defense ended up being more vital to bridge play than anything else. Especially if there was a triple balance threat. The game was way more fun for spectators this time, it was way easier to get non-FIRSTers cheering along.

[JonathanZur1836]

Originally Posted by Astrokid248

The game was way more fun for spectators this time, it was way easier to get non-FIRSTers cheering along.

Completely agree, I think that's where FIRST is going, and I'm fine with that

[Andrew Lawrence]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

I think that the lack of defense was largely a strategy issue, not a game-play issue. From ball denial to good old pushing and shoving, we played a lot of effective defense this year.

Originally Posted by Astrokid248

Defense ended up being more vital to bridge play than anything else. Especially if there was a triple balance threat. The game was way more fun for spectators this time, it was way easier to get non-FIRSTers cheering along.

As a mainly defensive robot this year, I can agree with both statements. If a single robot played an effective starvation tactic, stealing balls from the opponents and feeding them to their team, and ended the game blocking the opposing side's bridge while their partners doubled would effectively shut down most any alliance.

[stundt1]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

I think that the lack of defense was largely a strategy issue, not a game-play issue. From ball denial to good old pushing and shoving, we played a lot of effective defense this year.

Dont forget your sniper ball shooting from across the field

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by stundt1

Dont forget your sniper ball shooting from across the field

A slight exaggeration. They were in their key, we were against their fender. But yeah, that was awesome.

[IKE]

I was really impressed with the bridge bonus this year as usually it is very frustrating to watch a team struggle to do a bonus. This year, struggling on the bridges was quite entertaining and spectator friendly. This is a bonus I would not mind seeing additional future variants of.

[Ekcrbe]

Originally Posted by JonathanZur1836

My only two complaints are the feeder stations and the big emphasis on coopertition. Nobody really went up to the station to get balls, they were just thrown through the opening for the most part and thrown over the station in the last 30 seconds. Also, it caused a lot of unnecessary penalties that not many teams understood.

I have to disagree here. Having a good inbounder was just the right importance for the game. It could take a good team and move them up a notch, but the inbounders didn't control the game. I did see teams going to the slot, and taking it out wouldn't have been challenging enough. I think penalties at the inbounding station were limited and fairly obvious: don't have more than six balls, don't step over the line when inbounding.

Originally Posted by JonathanZur1836

I do not think that balancing on the coop bridge should be just as important as winning. I think it would be fine if you got two qualification points for winning, and one for cooping, because then people would still think that it is important but at the same time the rankings would be more fair.

What many people are neglecting to consider is that making coopertition as valuable as winning was not just because the GDC thought it was that important, but because it forces teams to make the tough call: do you risk it to win and spend less time balancing, or ensure the coop and jeopardize your chances of winning? By making them equals, the game encourages teams to find the balance (no pun intended) between winning and co-oping, instead of everyone playing only to win and making the co-op a secondary goal.

[LeelandS]

I think Rebound Rumble played out quite well.

It was a simple game with an easy-to-follow scoring system (even for spectators who hadn't read the rules), left for a multitude of robot designs and attributes, and presented an interesting design challenge for the end-game, which was also sufficiently suspenseful and difficult so as not to just award free points.

I'd say even the coopertition bridge played out exceedingly well, though I was skeptic at the start of the season.

I personally preferred Logomotion, but on a scale of 10, I'd score Rebound Rumble an 8.5 on the FRCGame-o-meter.