What do you think of this year's game?

[Robert Cawthon]

Now that we have had some regionals, for those who have played, what part of this year's game do you like and what turned out to be 'not so good'? My regional was in the first week and the only thing I really saw was that the balls got stuck under the bridge too easily and didn't want to come out. I understand they tried a fix. Other than that, I enjoyed the game. Easy to understand for the uninitiated audience and it moves fast enough to keep it exciting for the experienced watcher.

Anyone else have any comments or kudos? ;)

[hammerhead_399]

I really enjoy this year's game. The only concept of the game I do not like is the Coopertition bridge being somewhat over powered in the ranking system. The concept of the bridge is incredible, being that you have to work together with the opposing alliance. I just feel it pushes teams up the rankings too much.

[Jack Jones]

I really enjoy this year's game. The only concept of the game I do not like is the Coopertition bridge being somewhat over powered in the ranking system. The concept of the bridge is incredible, being that you have to work together with the opposing alliance. I just feel it pushes teams up the rankings too much.

Then try to be one of those teams. If every match ends with a coop ballance, then it will be worth nothing.

[bduddy]

This game is hard - there's no easy scoring task like there have been in years past. This results in qualifying matches, at least in the first 2 weeks, that could probably be sold as an effective cure for insomnia. But in eliminations and hopefully in later weeks, I think this is the most exciting game in several years. The only downside I can really think of are the G28/etc. penalties, which I'm not sure were really necessary (Aim High did fine without them...)

[Koko Ed]

I really like this game-alot. It is exciting. Suspenseful. Intriguing and most of all fun to watch. The first game in a long time that could surpass 2004.

[Steven Donow]

Having seen the game in action as both a spectator and player, I'm a lot more excited to watch this game play out over the season, in contrast to the initial, "It'll be cool on Einstein".

It's such a dynamic game, it's great to watch at both the highest and lowest levels of competition. The fact that FIRST made bridge balancing not directly an endgame(ie. you can, in theory, do it whenever you want during a match) contributes to this. Just watching a robot try to balance is great, and even if it goes on for a whole minute, it's just a fun thing to watch. Hybrid feels quick-paced and exciting (high-scoring too), and teleop is just competitive and fun. While an initial read-through of the rules told me that defense wasn't going to be such a major element/such a common thing for teams to be great at, I was proved dead wrong.

The coop bridge was something that on the morning of kickoff, I thought was absolutely ridiculous and crazy and a terrible, lame idea of FIRST's that no one would use or care about. Week 1, I saw teams doing it and thought, "Wow, it's out of hand how this is being used to launch teams up the ranks". However, I did find it interesting that it was being used so much. Week 2, as a player of the game, I fell in love with the bridge (and not just because it helped our seeding). It is just plain fun. Talking to your opponents before a match about the match itself (versus just talking technical stuff about your robots) was such a delight and an awesome experience, as was attempting to communicate across the field. FIRST made an excellent call on adding the coopertition bridge, it just adds a dynamic to an already great game.

Overall, this game is awesome. Will.I.Am. might have said Logomotion was dope, but regardless of whether or not it's a word, this game is even doper, and one of the best in a while.


*For the record, the only other games I've been actively involved in where Breakaway and Logomotion, and somewhat a spectator for Rack N' Roll, Overdrive, and Lunacy(which I absolutely love)

[Squillo]

Having just returned from our first (and only) competition, I have to say I *love* this year's game. It was challenging to all the teams - the more advanced teams could use camera tracking to auto-shoot those high hoops, work on brakes and auto-balancers (and strategies for the triple balance), and build mechanisms to go over the 'bump', while less sophisticated teams could do things like feed balls, build a ball gobbler and some kind of shooter or 'dumper' (ours actually worked pretty well, and the "robot of awesomeness" at the Hawaii regional was definitely 1056's gorgeous - and VERY successful - dumper - deserving of the awards they won and truly inspiring), and balance on the bridges, sometimes with help from others. Even a rookiebot without any shooter or gobbler or anything fancy (or a bot having technical issues with the fancier mechanisms) could be valuable as a balancer.

And, it was REALLY exciting and fun to watch as a spectator. Almost always something going on, and lots of suspense over the balancing. Even a balanced bridge could tip... or a robot could jump off of it (like ours did in one practice match - oops - I think it was suicidal for a minute, but fortunately it got some counseling and didn't try that again).

And once the balance was made, if it was still early, there was usually shooting going on to watch. The scoring was intuitive (except for the coop bridge, but that was cool on its own, see below). I feel that the field elements were well designed so that the challenges were there but not too hard to overcome. There were tradeoffs - a dumper was possible and a more 'sure thing' for scoring, but not into the high baskets. A "fender shooter" might have been easier than a key shooter, but there was the risk of defense. Defense was possible but had risks, so that it kept the game interesting but didn't turn it into battlebots or damage a lot of our expensive hardware.

The coop bridge was genius. It did get some 'meh' robots into alliance captain slots (which can always happen when you play in alliances), but mostly it rewarded teams that won AND then did something even more. It celebrated cooperating with the opposition in true FIRST style.

Another thing I liked was the weight given to hybrid/autonomous. A nice reward for the programmers, not only the extra points but also using it as the second-level ranking.

My hat is off to the GDC on this one. Einstein will be awesome, I think.

[Hawiian Cadder]

I love every part of this game except for a few parts

1) The steel beam across the field, we chose early on that we would not be crossing the bump, that crossing the bridges would suffice. I think that crossing the bump consistently carries the risk of tipping or becoming damaged as a trade off to bridge only crossing, but was too difficult for teams without the capability to cross the bridge. I think that something that took longer to cross while being easier on the robots, with less risk of damage involved would have been better.

2) The lowest basket saw almost no use from lower level robots, I think the entire basket rack should be higher by 18 - 36 inches, thus forcing a noticeable trade off between accurate 2 point shots from the fender, or longer range 3 point shots from the key.

3) While most teams didn't play any real D-fence it would have made a HUGE difference this year, with more robots able to cross the field reliably and quickly I hope to see more D-fence played at CMP as it becomes clear that triple and double balances are fairly easy to defend against. I think that the danger and dificulty involved in crossing the bump caused a dis-proportional amount of scoring robots this year. If the bump were for example a 12 inch tall triangular prism, I think more robots would be able to cross, and the game would be more balanced at a regional level.

[pfreivald]

I love this game. The engineering challenges are difficult*, the game is fun to strategerize** about, fun to play, fun to watch, and easy for observers to understand.

Oh, and they eliminated the 'brick on wheels' defense -- you had to be able to complete at least one of the engineering tasks besides driving around in order to play any defense.

*I'm surprised to see no rookies go for the 1-point basket. It would have made the difference in quite a few games.

**not actually a word

[Taylor]

I've seen Triple Play, Aim High, Rack 'n Roll, Overdrive, Lunacy, Breakaway, Logomotion, and Rebound Rumble. RR is by far the most exciting to watch, and quite high in game strategy / robot design. No matter the score of the match, the endgame is always edge-of-your-seat exciting.

Arguably, Friday morning matches tend to drag a bit, but that's the case with every game.

[Koko Ed]

I really like this game-alot. It is exciting. Suspenseful. Intriguing and most of all fun to watch. The first game in a long time that could surpass 2004.
At the halfway point of the season I think it's safe to say: we have a winner.
I am practically shaking with excitement of the prospect of what I will see at events like MSC, the Championships, Battlecry, MARC and obviously IRI.
I can't wait!

[sgreco]

I have mixed feelings about the game. I like defense, I miss games like 2007 where the scoring was centralized and the robots really had to work together against the opposite team rather than just competing on opposite sides of the field with minimal defense. That said, the problem I mentioned is prevalent in qual matches, but not so much in elims.

[pfreivald]

I have mixed feelings about the game. I like defense, I miss games like 2007 where the scoring was centralized and the robots really had to work together against the opposite team rather than just competing on opposite sides of the field with minimal defense. That said, the problem I mentioned is prevalent in qual matches, but not so much in elims.

I think minimal defense is a strategy problem, not a game problem. We played lots and lots of defense at both of our regionals, and did so effectively. From direct defense of fenderbots (pushing and shoving) to ball denial (pick 'em up before they can and feed them forward and/or knock them into your alley; block their inbounder bounce-shots) to bridge denial (more pushing and shoving), we never had a dull moment in-game.

[Jared Russell]

I think minimal defense is a strategy problem, not a game problem. We played lots and lots of defense at both of our regionals, and did so effectively. From direct defense of fenderbots (pushing and shoving) to ball denial (pick 'em up before they can and feed them forward and/or knock them into your alley; block their inbounder bounce-shots) to bridge denial (more pushing and shoving), we never had a dull moment in-game.

Agreed, I have seen a lot of defense in Rebound Rumble! In many cases, it is very effective.

I simply love this game. It has given me more "OH MY GOD!" moments than any other game I can remember. Seeing a triple balance win a match by one point. Watching balls scored so rapidly they jam into a net. Seemingly every match has a dramatic last second "will it or won't it" balance moment. Human player hail mary's that turn a tied match.

So far it has already pulled to the front of my "all time" list, and that's before District/World Championships/IRI season.

[ZeroGAdam]

Well, I have known about FIRST because of my Dad for about 10 years now... He was a mentor for team 381 back from 2002-2008 and brought me along to the competitions. Since 2004's FIRST Frenzy, I have not seen another game that has been comparable to it because of the diverse challenges and fast paced really large spectacles (kickballs dropping from above the driver station, 4 on the bar, multiplier ball shoved in a "netbot," etc.) that would occur. I mean it was amazing, and ever since then, no game IMO has ever topped that. That is until I saw this game in person.....

The rewards for Hybrid, Coopertition, and Cooperation among your alliance (which is always important) is now even more critical because of the nerve racking bridges. The basketball theme tied into it also makes it one of those 30 seconds or less games that you can explain to a spectator who really isn't associated with a team. The only small complaint that I have is that the triple balance is worth maybe a little too much....

But defense can prevent it from happening and the challenge of it alone just sways me to say, that is why it is worth so much. The only reason I'm saying this is because of the fact that when an alliance pulls it off, they will most likely go on to win their rest matches, but I'm sure there have been matches where and alliance has tripled, but lost some ways down the road.

Overall, I think this is a great game to watch and will be very interesting to see how it evolves even more so at MSC, MAR Champs, and Nats!!!

[Walter Deitzler]

This game is my favorite of all time. This year was the FIRST year since 3397's conception that we didn't make elims, and it was soooooooo fun to watch. Getting to see 1986 and 1985 on an alliance at the same time didn't hurt either. The scoring is easy to understand and the bridge add a big air of exitment near the end of the game, especially with a triple balance attempt (or success). Hybrid is fun to watch. Overall, the GDC did a really good job on this one.

[coldfusion1279]

The game is fun. I have no problem with the coopertition bridge. As more teams use it, it becomes more fair and an additional challenge.

However, a decent autonomous and triple balance combo is really difficult to defeat from what I have seen. A team can spend the entire match for a triple balance and it would still be worth it. The game in the middle is almost not required if you can triple balance unless your team is a 2056 or 16.

It would be nice if balancing were not allowed until the last minute. But then you would probably need to get rid of the bump so that teams could travel without the bridges.

Also, the penalties for touching the opposing alliance's bridge (9 points!) makes and breaks too many matches. I think you should be allowed to touch it if there is no opposing alliance member on it.

[smurfgirl]

I didn't really expect much of this game when I saw it at Kickoff - I didn't think it would be one I particularly loved or hated. But after two regionals so far, I can say I've been pleasantly surprised. Rebound Rumble is awesome, the GDC did a great job with it. It's fun to watch, and easy for new people to follow. Most teams can score in at least one of the baskets, and most teams are attempting the bridges as well. I do have a few criticisms of it though - I don't like that foul point add points to the opposing alliance score this year, because it is artificially inflating scores. I also think the Kinect could have been worked into the game better - right now it really doesn't add any value or functionality to hybrid mode, so there's no incentive for teams to use it. Overall, a great game though.

[JaneYoung]

It's a game that is showing us what we're made of. I'm ok with that.

I still love the use of the word, bridge, and how it can apply.

Jane

[vhcook]

I really like this game. It's easy to explain to the uninitiated, it's fun to watch, it's relatively easy to scout (as opposed to something like Lunacy), and there are a fairly wide variety of successful designs.

[HumblePie]

I really like this year's game. It has all the elements: high scoring, easily understood, real-time scoring, opportunity for varied approaches to the game, ability for rookies to really compete, and an interesting risk/reward in the end game. Just a couple criticisms, however:

1) I think 2 Coopertition Points for a middle balance is too many. If it was worth just 1, teams would have to evaluate whether to take the middle bridge, or the 10 additional points to balance on their own bridge and secure a win. I saw many teams build for balance only, and head straight for the bridge in teleop. A rookie team in our regional seeded #5 by balancing only with no shooter. Not sour grapes, as we seeded #3 (tied for the best record at 9-2), but well-rounded robots should seed higher and be able to choose specialists as their alliance partners.

2) Defense is almost legislated out of existence. I used to tell my students the old axiom that "Defense wins championships". I don't know that I can say that this year. I appreciate that it's hard to make baskets while being bumped, but initiating contact with a defender anywhere near the key results in a 3pt. bonus, the same as the most difficult goal, way too much IMHO. We collected 4 fouls in rapid succession one match when a defender got within reach, then we made our shot anyway. Why not give the defender a chance to draw a "charging" foul just like the real game? It seems that the only scorers that can be defended are the dumper bots.

I know nobody asked for suggestions, just my $0.02.

Even with my criticisms included, all in all a very good game, and probably my favorite since 2008.

[MichaelBick]

Something that other people have not mentioned, that I really like about this years game, is the high scoring in hybrid. It allows teams that are not "top tier" to still score on that level. While it was a given that top teams were going to get large amounts of autonomous points, teams that have trouble with consistency, speed, or defense still made a difference.

[pfreivald]

2) Defense is almost legislated out of existence.

That's just not true. Watch our qualifiers at FLR and any of our games at Buckeye, and you'll see a lot of defense doing a lot of good for alliances.

[bduddy]

2) Defense is almost legislated out of existence. I used to tell my students the old axiom that "Defense wins championships". I don't know that I can say that this year. I appreciate that it's hard to make baskets while being bumped, but initiating contact with a defender anywhere near the key results in a 3pt. bonus, the same as the most difficult goal, way too much IMHO. We collected 4 fouls in rapid succession one match when a defender got within reach, then we made our shot anyway. Why not give the defender a chance to draw a "charging" foul just like the real game? It seems that the only scorers that can be defended are the dumper bots.
If a robot is shooting from the key, then the best way to play "defense" is to not let them get any balls to shoot. There are other ways to defend in this game than hitting other robots, although of course at times that can be the best way.

[pyroslev]

I'll call this game the better and more evolved version of 2006. It has all the good elements plus some better ones. If the field had been just as over the top as 2004 was with all the structures, then it would be the winner.

The one thing I love this year and the way it should be from now on is the ranking system. Love how it's not clear cut. A zero team can just coop and end up a number 7 seed, then go as far as the semi-finals.

Just a great game, FIRST GDC. Now it's time to super game it.

Edit: Could have done something with the middle bridge for the tournament play rather than just leaving it out there.

[i3randon]

My short answer is the game was great but the ranking system and coopertition was not.

We were the only team to go undefeated going into our 11th match at the Wisconsin Regional. We finished up 10-1 but only got 8th place. I understand why, I just feel that there wasn't any glory in winning. For this reason I dislike the coopertition idea since it was so easy to help/hurt your opponents as the qualifying score was so close.

Changing gears a bit, I have noticed some aspects of the game that presented different challenges. When I joined FIRST in 2006, for Aim High, there were no safe zones or barriers to cross over. There was defense, true pushing and shoving defense. This year it was so difficult to play defense many teams didn't try. I like to show students that being an offensive player can be as important as defense but that simply wasn't the case this year.

Also in 2006 the goals to shoot into were not as hard to shoot for. I really liked the baskets as this required a great deal of accuracy in terms of power and trajectory. This provided students a look into one of the most basic physics/calculus problems, simple 2D trajectory.

One thing that has been mentioned was balls under the bridges. We anticipated this and could actually get up and onto a bridge that had a ball stuck under it. However, not all teams could. This was interesting because we had to change our strategy a bit because balancing alone wasn't worth nearly as much as with another robot, same team or not.

Overall, how can anyone not have fun with FIRST? As always it is a blast!

[Andrew Lawrence]

I like the coopertition bridge. For those who smartly play the game, they get rewarded with a high ranking score. For those who pass it off as negligible, you get the consequences.

EDIT: This is in no relation to the post above mine. Just my personal feelings.

[pendragoner]

My only problem with the years game is I feel the middle bridge is over powered. Maybe i see this because it went against me but still. My teams robot had the most bridge points at our regional event but we were ranked very low because we didn't get a chance to go for the middle bridge. this is my only problem with this years game.

[pendragoner]

Id agree that the ranking system was a little off it mattered more how every team did but not you as an individual team. We did well but our alliance
members did not do as well which caused us to lose.

[DominickC]

Something I've noticed (and other teams as well) is the inconsistencies in the wear and subsequent replacement on the balls. At Suffield Shakedown, the balls were replaced quite frequently. However, at the WPI Regional balls were replaced far less frequently. This caused issues with most teams shooters.

Despite the issue with the balls, I loved the bridges and barrier aspect of the game.

[Mike Rush]

Not much. Shades of Diabolical Dynamics in terms of the lack of defense possibilities. After having competed in the both heavily offensive games and heavily defensive games, I prefer the latter. "Can't we all just get along" doesn't make for very exciting spectator sports (and this is one of the challenges for FIRST if it is to become more than just a High School activity).

Lets get back to hockey... Checking is OK but High Sticking is not.

[bduddy]

My only problem with the years game is I feel the middle bridge is over powered. Maybe i see this because it went against me but still. My teams robot had the most bridge points at our regional event but we were ranked very low because we didn't get a chance to go for the middle bridge. this is my only problem with this years game.If you were so good at balancing on your alliance bridge, how is it you "didn't get a chance" to get coopertition points?

[Wildcats1378]

Being pretty much a brand new team, I thought that the game was pretty good. Quite challenging and exiting. The one thing I disliked was the barrier though. It seemed like in all the matches but the final matches, the team were just sitting on their own side scoring. Not much a game until the final matches came up.

[372 lives on]

so bill was at the seattle regionals. and he spoke and mentioned how water games arent to crazy of an idea to be thrown straight out the window!1!!!!!!1

[Taylor1023]

This is only my 2nd year in FRC (though I have seen videos of other years) and I have to say I liked Logomotion just a little bit more.

From what I've gathered from my teachers, who got to watch some matches from last year and some from this year, they understood last year's game better. My teachers commented that they were confused as to whether we were trying to balance with a team on another alliance on the coopertition bridge or we were trying to tip each other over to get points or something like that (I immediately told them that it would not be very gracious professional of either team to try to tip another robot over). Last year's game was a better spectator game.

I liked last year's "endgame" more. Although watching robots try to balance on the bridge is exciting I prefered watching minibots race up poles. It seems like playing defense is harder this year than last year. For teams that do not have a shooter the only way they can really help their alliance is to try to balance on one of the bridges, which can be hard if that robot also does not have an arm. The barrier makes it even harder for robots to play defense.

I'm not trying to be completely negative here. There are many things I like about this game. I like the theme this year (basketball) and the scoring system. I like how the coopertition bridge help teams in the rankings and let alliances work together. I like watching three teams try to balance on one bridge in the eliminations and love it when they succeed.

I'm not saying Rebound Rumble is bad; I'm just saying I liked Logomotion a little more. They're both good, well thought out games that get me cheering my head off.

[Jin Hayashi]

Now that our team has finished competing in a regional, I would like to say this game is one of the best that I have seen. I have to agree with some of the posters about the weighting of coopertition bridge. It is a great idea, however, I found that some teams climbed the rankings by purely spending the whole teleop focused on balancing and then parking on a balanced bridge for the remainder of the match. My perhaps biased opinion is that balancing could have been more dramatic by allowing interference of the balancing until the endgame where alliance bridges could then be protected.

[HumblePie]

That's just not true. Watch our qualifiers at FLR and any of our games at Buckeye, and you'll see a lot of defense doing a lot of good for alliances.

Sounds like your regionals were different, but in the 2 regionals we've attended (Orlando and Palmetto), I've seen maybe 3 robots play effective defense, and they were only able to stymie robots intent on dumping or shooting from close range. In a perfect game, IMHO, the rules would provide for equal value from defensive or offensive design concepts. Typically, most teams will design for scoring, but I really enjoy the out-of-the box designs that utilize a defensive strategy that make scoring difficult (but still possible). I think this year's rules are a little too restrictive on defense. BTW, I really enjoyed the video of your team sniping the ball out of the air. Maybe if the offensive bot couldn't reach out and tap you for 3 pts, your team could have come a little closer and blocked a few more shots?

[cire]

Other then the balls driving me insane, this game has been my favorite since i began in 2003. I like how the game is balanced between the different tasks - there is no useless task (besides the kinect) that was presented as a challenge to us this year.

[pfreivald]

Maybe if the offensive bot couldn't reach out and tap you for 3 pts, your team could have come a little closer and blocked a few more shots?

We actually did quite a bit of camera interference by skirting the edge of the key... No key fouls at FLR, and I believe only two at Buckeye, in spite of very aggressive driving on Adam's part.

[badger3.14]

This is only my 2nd year in FRC (though I have seen videos of other years) and I have to say I liked Logomotion just a little bit more.

From what I've gathered from my teachers, who got to watch some matches from last year and some from this year, they understood last year's game better. My teachers commented that they were confused as to whether we were trying to balance with a team on another alliance on the coopertition bridge or we were trying to tip each other over to get points or something like that (I immediately told them that it would not be very gracious professional of either team to try to tip another robot over). Last year's game was a better spectator game.

I liked last year's "endgame" more. Although watching robots try to balance on the bridge is exciting I prefered watching minibots race up poles. It seems like playing defense is harder this year than last year. For teams that do not have a shooter the only way they can really help their alliance is to try to balance on one of the bridges, which can be hard if that robot also does not have an arm. The barrier makes it even harder for robots to play defense.

I'm not trying to be completely negative here. There are many things I like about this game. I like the theme this year (basketball) and the scoring system. I like how the coopertition bridge help teams in the rankings and let alliances work together. I like watching three teams try to balance on one bridge in the eliminations and love it when they succeed.

I'm not saying Rebound Rumble is bad; I'm just saying I liked Logomotion a little more. They're both good, well thought out games that get me cheering my head off.

I completely agree except I think the coopertition bridge is overpowered. it leads to mediocre teams being in the top 8, which is not the way it should be.

just my opinion.

[Gregor]

As this is my first year, I have no other games to base this upon, but I do like the fact that this game almost enforces you to meet with your alliance AND the opposing alliance to talk strategy and (mainly) coopertition bridge balancing.

+$0.02

[aldowyn]

I was very "meh" when it was announced at kickoff (well, relatively), especially since I'm not a huge basketball fan, but I was pleasantly surprised. It was MUCH harder to be completely dominant. Last year I saw robots that could double auto, fill both top rows, and get a minibot up first, in OKC and Dallas - not especially competitive regionals. This year, there was much more diversity, although there were a LOT of "meh" robots that could TECHNICALLY accomplish the task, but weren't good - at all. The top robots had a lot of completely different designs.

The end game was much easier to understand, and it rewarded good drivers (last year was almost completely design and manufacture. Lining up isn't hard with a camera). The autonomous was much more intuitive, though it gave a HUGE bonus to good teams (we got 34 at one point, I have no idea how. I think that was the highest at OKC or KC, and we were the 5th alliance. Most alliances tended to be 1 key shooter and 1 or 2 dumpers, maybe a 2-pt shooter instead).

The biggest issue I had, like many others, was the co-op bridge. Someone else suggested it only be worth 1 pt, and that seems like a good idea to me. The bridge isn't that difficult a task that it should be worth as much as a win. (Of course, we only got it 3 times in two competitions, and it cost us big time in the seeding at OKC. 8-2, with THE most teleoperated points, and we were 12th.)

[kmusa]

I've been really impressed with Rebound Rumble. It's clear that the GDC put a lot of thought into it, including how the different components interact. I haven't been involved long enough to claim "Best Ever", but RR is up there.

I also think the Kinect could have been worked into the game better - right now it really doesn't add any value or functionality to hybrid mode, so there's no incentive for teams to use it.

It may be that the Kinect interface isn't efficient enough for effective use during the 15 seconds of hybrid, but there are plenty of opinions like the above, as well as the fact that few (at FLR), if any (at DC, if I remember correctly), robots actually used the kinect interface, that I just don't understand.

With the Kinect interface, you basically have human control of the robot during the bonus phase of the match, and situations that aren't trivial to code for autonomous (to wit, collecting missed shots or getting and shooting balls from the co-op bridge) that can benefit from that human control.

[Steve-Man]

Compared to Logomotion, Rebound Rumble is (In my opinion anyway) a little easier to understand and explain to people as far as the main scoring goes, and it's a lot more fun to watch.

With that said, the game is a lot harder to play than Logomotion and definitely a LOT harder than Breakaway. I'm going to hop on the Co-op bridge bandwagon and say that it could have been worth less and people still would've used it. It's a very neat concept however and I hope to see more "Coopertition" game elements in future games.

@Kmusa, I agree with your point about human control. The kinect sensor seemed like a neat gimmick, something fun to try, but autonomous movement/shooting is going to win out over human interaction. (That and the kinect hasn't worked very well for games as is, I wouldn't trust it to drive my robot. Though that's personal bias on my part.)

[CyberEagle9416]

I enjoyed the fact that you can shoot uninterupted on the key. but it proved difficult for the defending bot. the fender in front of the hoops also was a good part of the game. the coop bridge however did not help. it gives both teams the same points and doesn't really effect the match or any of the teams except by ranking.

[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.

[Walter Deitzler]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

[jon-s]

Defense is almost legislated out of existence.

Defense wasn't as easy or simple as last year, but nowhere near negligible. Defense this year pretty much consisted of guarding the fender, occassionally tagging robots in your lane, slowing down other teams from getting balls, or possibly pushing robots back over the barrier, but the best defensive bots I saw typically stole balls from the opponent's side of the field (eg. team 16).

I like the overall game, my only gripes (the same as other peoples)

1. I think both alliances should have been able to use any of the bridges without penalty until the last 30 seconds (at which point they can be fouled).

2. The Co-op bridge was worth too much I think.

[HumblePie]

Defense wasn't as easy or simple as last year, but nowhere near negligible. Defense this year pretty much consisted of guarding the fender, occassionally tagging robots in your lane, slowing down other teams from getting balls, or possibly pushing robots back over the barrier, but the best defensive bots I saw typically stole balls from the opponent's side of the field (eg. team 16).

I like the overall game, my only gripes (the same as other peoples)

1. I think both alliances should have been able to use any of the bridges without penalty until the last 30 seconds (at which point they can be fouled).

2. The Co-op bridge was worth too much I think.

Just 1 line from a lengthy old post, but I'll expound. Overall, I LOVE this game, my only minor issue was that I would have preferred a little more balance between offense and defense. Think NBA Finals versus the NBA All-Star game. Limiting the defensive strategy primarily to the fender doesn't provide that balance IMHO. A pure defensive robot didn't seem to provide the value to an alliance that a shooter or balancer could. Think of how many times you saw robots balancing inside of the first 1:00 when they could have been defending?

From a Demo Day standpoint, this year has been AWESOME. We've had 2 STEM Day events so far. We bring our portable hoop and let our visitors see if they can make more baskets than Hugo. Very few did, but they get a little something for trying. Our booth was the busiest at both events, allowing us to spread the word of FIRST and get a leg up on recruiting down the road, as well.

[loudpipes]

This was my team's first year, so I can't really compare Rebound Rumble to any of the previous games... but I'd definitely say that this was a great one to kick off our FRC careers with. I absolutely loved it.

The comparability with an actual sport made watching fun and strategizing addicting. The whole coopertition aspect--though it did seem to have a few faults--really placed importance on interacting with other teams and their drivers, which was nice.

...and let me tell you, having this be our rookie year game made the whole idea of FRC incredibly easy to market to our community. My team did a ton of demos (especially with younger kids); everything flowed well and grabbed attention.

[Robogineer1649]

I really liked the game this year. I found the game this year to be a good year for a rookie member. I found both the bridges and the shooting enjoyable. I really liked that you where able to cooperate with either your team (bridge) or your opponent (co-op bridge).
What I didn't like was how often the balls got stuck underneath the bridge. Since our game strategy was all about crossing the bridge the balls where irritating. Another point about the bridges that I didn't enjoy was that the KOP wheels had a low friction on the bridge and this caused us to slip a lot. To reiterate this was very unenjoyable because we needed to cross the bridge.
Overall I loved the game it was extremely fun there is a few things they could have improved on but I can't wait for next year.

[ttldomination]

...and let me tell you, having this be our rookie year game made the whole idea of FRC incredibly easy to market to our community. My team did a ton of demos (especially with younger kids); everything flowed well and grabbed attention.

+1 to this. Shooting robots are almost infinitely more exciting to demo.

- Sunny G.

[KrazyCarl92]

...and let me tell you, having this be our rookie year game made the whole idea of FRC incredibly easy to market to our community. My team did a ton of demos (especially with younger kids); everything flowed well and grabbed attention.

+1 to this for getting the word out to your community! It's great to hear of rookie teams with a presence like this. Keep it up!

It certainly does make a difference trying to market a robot that shoots hoops as compared one thats rather obscure and hangs inner tubes on a wall.

[Zebra_Fact_Man]

From my perspective, considering all things, this was a good game. It is unfortunate all the field problems that plagued FIRST at competitions throughout the year, especially at the Championship, but the game itself was complex to play but still easy for spectators to follow. Also a very easy year to talk to non-FIRSTers about the competitions; robots playing 3on3 basketball. i.e. improved marketability.

Being from a class that got to experience the last true year of solid, unrestricted defensive play (2007), I once again am disappointed that defense kind of takes a massive back burner to putting up points, but it was basketball after all, so I kind of expected it from the start. Not to mention that with how expensive and intricate the hardware is on these bots nowadays, much of the defense limitations are certainly helpful in extending the usage-lifetime on key parts, such as the cRIO. No longer can you frisbee your RC across the room and still have it work like nothing happened.

I liked the Coop Bridge and it's associated worth. It added an interesting facet to gameplay, giving a few underdogs a chance at a legit playoff run. Still don't like the lane restrictions that carried over from last year. I kind of felt that the Kinect was completely worthless, but it didn't bother me any since I wasn't forced to use to it.

One thing I'd like to see improved upon by next season is the speed and reliability of field connectivity. Generally, it took WAY too long for robots to linkup and even when green, we still had problems. But I have faith HQ has bright minds working on this.

[Brandon Zalinsky]

I would like for there to never EVER be co-op points like what were given for middle bridge balances. The rankings system is supposed to rank teams from best to worst, not from who has the best alliances to the team that is the most unlucky. Case in point: we were 3-6 on Archimedes this year ranked 93. There was another team that was 3-6, and they were ranked in the low 30's (32 or 34 I believe). There were teams below them that were better than them. It all boiled down to luck of the draw.

[Ekcrbe]

I don't think coop points necessarily have to be luck of the draw. It usually only takes one good balancing robot/driver to complete a double. Look at teams like 67 or 2337, who consistently balanced very well, and seeded well as a result. Teams that had high coop scores often did because they took it upon themselves to represent their alliances on the coop bridge almost every match, and succeeded nearly as often.

I thought the coopertition was one of the best facets of this year's game. As our drive coach said, it was a difficult moral dilemma, trying to both win and keep your word by getting to the bridge on time. That was what made the coopertition points frustrating, but also very intriguing.

[AlecMataloni]

I think that random qualification alliances are already enough Coopertiton. A team has to come up with a completely new strategy depending on whatever partners they are matched up with, and those very same partners could end up playing against them later. Why do we need the bridge at all? The only thing that the Coopertition bridge did was add useless baggage to the game.

Just my $0.02.

[ttldomination]

See, we can argue this over and over again, but bottom line is that FIRST games will always a part of the game where your opponents performance factors into your rankings.

This year, it appears that the overall reaction was position, so I feel like we're going to see similar types of tools in the future.

I'm not really saying that I choose a side, I'm just saying that if we need to have a system that factors in our opponents, this system works kind of well.

- Sunny G.