The New Endgame

[Zylviij]

Will the endgame return for the 2015 season? It seems as if FIRST wishes to create a more sport-like game that focuses on teamwork, driver skill, action, and exciting matches. For spectators this year was especially interesting because even if one didn't know all of the rules they could equally understand the gravity of each play which was made.

The addition of an endgame next year would get rid of buzzer-beaters and seemingly counteract what the FIRST game-makers new vision. Will they (should they) add an endgame?

[thatprogrammer]

I think a more balanced end-game would work! Something like a special ball to get extra points in the last 30 seconds would be wonderful.

[Sparkyshires]

So I'm going to say this as a personal opinion of a two year spectator and a now driver with one year of experience - I think an end-game adds more flavor to the robots and game, but no end-game adds more to the spectator-sport part of FRC that FIRST is really trying to push.

However, I do think it should come back. You still get buzzer beaters with the end-games, albeit not as exciting, but they're still there. So long as they don't repeat logomotion and have it impossible to understand whats going on unless your a dedicated FRC-er, I think an end-game will appease the masses without disrupting the spectator aspect too much.

[Harman341]

I think a more balanced end-game would work! Something like a special ball to get extra points in the last 30 seconds would be wonderful.

I'm not a fan of the special game piece end game such as 2009's super cell. I think it makes the game more confusing, and it doesn't add the challenge of the end game. Deciding when to change to endgame strategy, adding an extra function, and giving teams another outlet to come up with crazy designs is all the fun. I really liked the mini-bots, and I feel like a race is really easy to understand if you're someone new to FIRST. I think FIRST will add an end game next year, but I hope they leave team work to the middle of the match and allow individual robots to show off to spectators in the end game.

- I showed my friend (non-firster) the video of 254's climb last year and his jaw dropped

[David8696]

I personally hope they don't add an endgame. I liked the feel of this year's game much better than any previous: if you look at the world's most popular sports, they're all one relatively simple in concept and explanation. Baseball: "Hit the ball and run around the bases. Repeat for 9 innings." Football: "Throw or run the ball into the end zone. Repeat for 4 15-minute quarters." Basketball: "Put the ball through the hoop. Repeat for 4 12-minute quarters." Soccer: "Kick the ball into the goal. Repeat for 2 45-minute halves." The addition of a dedicated endgame seems, to me, to add too many built-in, GDC-designed complications.

What's great about sports is the fact that incredibly complex situations come from incredibly simple concepts. They all have very straightforward gameplay, but evolve quickly into complicated strategic scenarios. In my opinion, attempting to artificially overcomplicate things draws from the watchability and spectator-friendliness of the game.

[pmangels17]

It may be cool to add an endgame that involves some sort of scoring risk. For example, this year, some scoring bonus (perhaps doubling the points for that cycle or something along those lines) for scoring (only high goal) in the last five seconds of the game.

This would make it a strategic decision for an alliance to hold the ball and wait to try and score, and risk missing. On one hand, you could swing a match to win if you made the shot and otherwise would've been down. You also have to consider that you may miss, and the five second time will not give you a second chance. It could be a good way for an alliance to come back from behind, and force a strategic decision with conditions that would have to be worked out pre-match.

[Dantvman27]

After reflecting upon this weeks matches, I am officially in favor of the end game being retired. I came to this conclusion for several reasons.

I personally have never enjoyed watching the finish of a tight match than this year. I realized that the end game split the match really into two different challenges and now seeing a game with no separate challenge, I realize how much the end game takes away from the flow of a good match.

One of my biggest platforms has always been making FIRST spectator friendly, and most mainstream sports don't have anything related to an endgame. 9th inning home runs aren't worth more. Consistent rules leads to ease of watch. This game effectively made the game more spectator friendly without losing an ounce of the challenge of any other FRC game.

Having something completely unrelated to the rest of the game that can dramatically shift the outcome of said game is actually kind of off putting now that I see a game without it.

Seeing that last second ball fly over the truss, or bounce out of a goal, made the end of every tight match so much more dramatic. After watching a couple of matches, I feel anyone could have understood this game, with maybe the concept of the assist needing to be explained to them. That's a very good thing. It was also easy to follow with less game pieces. I know it's a big change, but I think it's the right change.

If you really need an "end game" to make you enjoy the game, just think of the concept of keep playing the game as the end game

[safiq10]

Now I did originally not like the idea of no endgame but I am now a fan of the endgame. It really does make it more like a sporting event because you are on your feet during the last few seconds of the match. I think if they introduced a risk mechanic during endgame it would have really gotten me on my feet.

Example: Team A Vs Team B; The score is 150-190 its the last 30 seconds of the match and the golden ball has been brought into play for both teams if the team can score it they will get 60 pts.

Or if you want to get really daring have the bonus ball come into play at last 30 seconds for the losing team only, but pin times are extended to 7 seconds. That would be interesting to watch.

[pmangels17]

I'm still not sure that you need a new game piece, I think it'd be a cool option to make an alliance take a risk with their current game piece. Then you don't need special rules for the game piece. It's less confusing for the spectators and still adds that level of suspense that doesn't necessarily confuse people. Also, it wouldn't require teams to build additional mechanisms. It seems to be a perfect blend of the two schools of thought, if I do say so myself.

As a side note, I personally did miss the endgame as a way to swing matches, it just wasn't always a very exciting endgame.

[Chris Endres]

End games are what gave the last six years of spectating that I undertook exciting. The end game requires teams to add another function to their robot to acquire extra points in a small amount of time. Without an end game, previous spectators would most likely get bored, and/or teams won't get the true feeling of accomplishing huge tasks. End game of 2013: climb, 2012: balance, 2011: minibot, 2010: hang, just to name a few.

[Zylviij]

So far I have heard three options for next year:

1) Active Endgame - intends to add new rules and new objectives in the end of the game to score massive points. The robot would need to implement a new function to overcome a greater challenge.

2) Passive Endgame - intends to change the rules so that new strategies need to be developed but does not need a change on the mechanical robot.

3) No Endgame - keep the excitement to the sport-like rules where the game is governed by the same rules for the entirety of the game.

What type do you like?

[DanielPlotas]

why not both? how about an endgame that only one robot from an alliance can be a part of, while the other robots would continue playing the game.

[DohertyBilly]

I think that FIRST did not include an endgame this year because they introduced a concept that would already heavily influence the design of the robots: catching. Catching was something that was very rarely seen this year because it was incredibly hard to pull off consistently with a potentially disastrous consequence (a free ball on Einstein may have kept the curse alive), and was really not worth that much point wise. People were already sacrificing the 9 points after a missed shot to take the safe low goal; that and not catching were similar sacrifices in order to reduce time spent setting up for the right shot. The only robot I can think of that showed catching consistency was 25, and they decided to completely forego a shooter. Catching and shooting were almost mutually exclusive; adding on a further complexity would have been ridiculous. And it would have reduced the effectiveness of younger teams, as veterans may have seen more opportunity in that than I think many saw in catching. To condense all that: the endgame was replaced by catching, and we didn't see much of it because of the point value. If FIRST wants to promote innovative design by encouraging the accomplishment of multiple tasks, they have to make them appealing enough point wise, and for that there has to be an endgame.

[wasayanwer97]

I'm not sure it should come back, considering the model FIRST seems to be trying to follow.

This year's end of match cycles and last second truss shots arguably brought more people to the edge of their seat than the pyramids did last year. The lack of an endgame also allows spectators to focus on core gameplay, which this year has proven, can be extremely exciting in itself when done well. Having more match time dedicated to core gameplay was also really nice.

I'm admittedly biased towards this match, but the ending there was more exciting than any endgame in my competition years. (The roar from the crowd was INSANE.)
http://youtu.be/THMerdGMBxQ?t=2m21s

In addition, no endgame means less mechanisms. (At least in the case of an active endgame as mentioned above). Fewer mechanisms allow teams to focus on designing the core game play, hopefully resulting in better robots on average. (not always going to happen, I know...) While some will argue that removing complexity from the games simplifies designs, I think this year is proof enough that we will always see ingenious solutions to tasks that seemingly look simple at first.

[donald_pinckney]

Long post incoming on my analysis of the uses of an endgame and what makes them exciting:

I don't think its quite fair to say that this year's end of match is more thrilling than 2013's endgame, and then extend that statement to endgames in general. The consensus seems to be that it was far more gripping to see last minute truss shots, high goal shots under CRAZY defense, or misses in the last 5 seconds than the 2013 endgame, which consisted of 2 or 3 robots that would simply latch onto the pyramid. The 2013 endgame was un-entertaining because it interrupted the play of the match simply so that both alliances would almost automatically get an extra 20-30 points, which very rarely swung any matches. Of course some teams were quite inspirational with the pyramid (254, 148!) but in reality those teams seemed almost non-existent. Even the final match of Einstein ended in 5 robots hanging, which really only padded the scores, and had no element of suspense.

That being said, I don't think this is necessarily true for all endgames. I particularly enjoyed the 2012 bridge balancing endgame, as it added a significant amount of suspense via an action that was significantly more challenging than hanging on the pyramid, required fantastic interaction between alliance members, and was worth enough points relative to the rest of the game to be significant in outcomes.

Finally, I would also say that the need for an endgame depends on the rest of the game: I think an endgame in 2012 was a necessity to break from very routine collection and shooting of balls. For example, without the endgame the blue alliance in the 2012 Einstein final match (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K84uckmXg_c#t=1122) would have had very little hope once they missed shots in auto and were behind. However, the 2012 endgame gave the blue alliance a reasonable chance to win the match by balancing: it seems plausible that the red alliance could have messed up the balance.
In contrast, the 2014 game in my opinion has absolutely no need for an endgame, because a 3 assist cycle ball is worth so many points that any given alliance can jump into the lead by scoring a 3 assist cycle and preventing the opponents from. Last second completed cycles and trusses were game changers this year.

I suppose I come to 2 conclusions:
1) The question of whether an endgame should return is dependent on the rest of the game, and I don't think it makes sense to talk about it out of context.

2) When an endgame is implemented the GDC needs to make sure to balance many factors of it: the difficulty of doing it (you don't want it to be free points like 2013, but it shouldn't be too hard to do, like a 30 point climb); cooperation necessary between alliance members to complete the endgame (if one team failed to hang on the pyramid, you only missed 10 points. If one team messed up on the bridge, you would lose the match); and the relative point value of the endgame (it needs to be enough to swing some matches, but shouldn't be overly domineering).

[Zebra_Fact_Man]

My thought as brief as possible:

If you heavily restrict defensive play as 2013, 2012, 2011, and 2008 did, you absolutely need an end game, as there is no feasible way for the loosing alliance to catch up baring a series of mistakes/misses by the winning alliance.

But if you allow scoring defense like 2014, 2010, 2009, 2007, 2006, and 2005, you really don't NEED an endgame to catchup or keep it interesting, and in some instances, it can become rather distracting. Simply a well-placed tube or well-timed block can make all the difference.

Solid, clean defensive play is not only what wins championships, but it's naturally what keeps contact sports (robots) exciting. Can the offense overcome the other team's defense in the clutch?

[rich2202]

With 20-20 hindsight, I think an interesting end game twist would have been:

During the final 30 seconds, all catches are worth 10 points (ball tossed either way over the truss). Basically, let two robots volley between each other to rack up points. That would have put more value in adding catching to the design of robots.

[dubiousSwain]

I think an important point to consider when weighing the question of the endgame is the flow of the match

In 2013, when the robots hung (most only for 10 pts), the game just stopped. Sometimes there was 10 seconds when the robots weren't doing anything.
In 2011, the robots stopped in front of the poles, and deployed the minibots. now, there was a lot less time then, but they still stopped. In 2012, unless they were having a hard time balancing, the robots stopped and waited for the buzzer

In this game, the robots are fighting to swing the score up until the buzzer. The buzzer cues the screaming from the crowd. I personally think that, as a spectator, this year has been the most exciting game. There aren't a ton of game pieces to follow, and when a team isn't scoring, they are giving defense to the robot with the ball. The driving is more intense, and when you are down by 20 in the last 10 seconds of the finals, I would rather see robots make a buzzer beater than stop in a certain position to win. I don't want to see a endgame if next year's game is as exciting as this one.

[Tem1514 Mentor]

I would be all to happy to never see an end game again after all the problems with minibots :(

Like the sensors not working and or having a game decided by a endgame. I would like to see FIRST continue with the team work idea for so many reasons.

[StillDefective]

The end game in FTC this year was actually very exciting at least to me, because by raising your alliance flag and hanging, you could COMPLETELY swing a match, and getting a double hang or a two alliance double hang kept you on the edge of your seat for the last 30 seconds, but the Tele-Op was not very exciting.

On the other end, AA was only exciting at the very high levels, but when it was at those high levels, it made probably the most exciting and almost the best game FRC has had. I like the idea of having an endgame for only one robot so the other two have to keep playing the normal game, but the match can still be swung.

[Pault]

Completely depends on the game. Personally I think the reason there was no endgame this year was because a single score could create a giant point swing, often changing the match. That is honestly one of the biggest reasons for having an endgame in the first place: making it so that most matches aren't over until the buzzer rings. Imagine if there was no endgame for the last 3 years. Matches would get pretty boring once one alliance started to gain a significant lead, and there would be no excitement leading up to the end of all but the closest matches.

I honestly don't care whether there is an end game or not, so long as the point swing is still possible. I think the GDC should be making this decision based on the game, not basing the game around this decision.

[CADKnight334]

Personally, I think FIRST has an opportunity to switch things up next year for the endgame. I think that the reintroduction of minibots will not only be challenging to design, but it will make the game more entertaining to think about. Your robot is deploying a smaller bot to complete a task. I think FIRST could even start making an endgame that involved minibots that flew and landed somewhere for points. Nothing too complicated like going through hoops and rings of fire but something to watch that introduces that wow factor. I do agree with the fact that it could also be a way for an alliance to come back from behind in a match. Endgames present a challenge that is unique and solvable in many ways and I think that has value in showing off different designs at competition.

[BBray_T1296]

Who says buzzer beaters don't happen with end games? (http://youtu.be/KBT4zK_zniU?t=1m5s)


(though this wasn't a buzzer beater, it could have been)

[Nathan Rossi]

Who says buzzer beaters don't happen with end games? (http://youtu.be/KBT4zK_zniU?t=1m5s)


(though this wasn't a buzzer beater, it could have been)

Here's a real buzzer balance!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk5YOeSMKLQ

[AlexD744]

Does no one remember 67's after the buzzer hang that won them Einstein in 2010? Forget the last second, those matches were down to the wire until after the buzzer!

The endgame is not what makes the matches boring/exciting, the caliber of teams on both sides of the field is what makes it exciting.

That being said, I do agree this year had some of the most exciting elim matches. When it was close you knew anything could tip the balance.

[Taylor]

I think the idea of endgame is completely game-dependent. In most, if not all, of the previous years, there were two very clear tasks - the gameplay and the endgame. 2005: Put tetras up high, then run back. 2006: Put poofs up high, then climb a ramp. 2007: Put pool tubes up high, then climb another robot. 2008: Put ridiculously large balls up high, then leave them there. And so on.
As Frank mentioned in his Frank Answers Friday Live at CHP, this game was designed to more closely approximate traditional sports. Much like traditional sports, this required teams to specialize (every team sport has individual players that excel at a certain aspect of the game). With the specialization that comes with AA, there wasn't a need to add a secondary challenge - especially since there were three ways to score points instantly.
Given the way Mother Nature treated us this year, I'm glad there wasn't an additional challenge.
I also think it's interesting that VEX Skyrise doesn't have an endgame this year.

[Foster]

In this game, the robots are fighting to swing the score up until the buzzer. The buzzer cues the screaming from the crowd. I personally think that, as a spectator, this year has been the most exciting game. There aren't a ton of game pieces to follow, and when a team isn't scoring, they are giving defense to the robot with the ball. The driving is more intense, and when you are down by 20 in the last 10 seconds of the finals, I would rather see robots make a buzzer beater than stop in a certain position to win.

This. Last second action. And while I like the idea of multifunction robots (shoot and hang) the Hail Mary at the end of regular play is great.

I did most of my match watching via the computer and it was much easier to follow the action with only two balls in play.

[mwtidd]

With the massive growth in FTC, I hope this is a sign that FIRST is strategically using the two organizations to bring about cultural change. I for one hope that some of the elements of the games we love will move to FTC, where as elements of the game spectators love will be emphasized in FRC. We've done a great job of convincing the choir that this is cool, now we need to convince the Atheists outside.

It's my belief that having only one "game" lowers the barrier to entry for casual (elimination) spectators.

[Gregor]

As Frank mentioned in his Frank Answers Friday Live at CHP, this game was designed to more closely approximate traditional sports. Much like traditional sports, this required teams to specialize (every team sport has individual players that excel at a certain aspect of the game). With the specialization that comes with AA, there wasn't a need to add a secondary challenge - especially since there were three ways to score points instantly.


I think that's interesting that Frank said that. I would argue that last year was much more important to specialize.

This year every elite team had to be able to do everything in the game, ground pickup, trussing, high goal scoring, low goal scoring, inbounding, and defence.

Last year there was no single team that accomplished every task in the game. Floor pickup, 30 pt climbing, 20 pt dumping, and full court shooting were all relatively rare, and they were never seen all together by the one robot. On top of that, you had to pick teams that were different from yours. Two floor pickups were a bit much. 2 dumpers? Diminishing returns.

The most difference you got this year was trusser vs. finisher, and elite teams still had to be able to do both.

[Matt17]

I get where FIRST was coming from when they took out the endgame this year. It evened out the playing field especially for newer teams and also allowed more time for the alliance to really work as a team to score rather than one robot's endgame. The pyramid from Ultimate Ascent was only used by some teams due to the difficulty of the task. Overall, I think they should bring it back with something like the bridges from Rebound Rumble which were the best.

[jvriezen]

If you consider end-games, they typically have major point levels --- 1,2,3 bots balancing in '12, 1,2,3 level climb in '13, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th place in 2011. 1 or 1+1 bots hanging in '10.

In my mind, every cycle in '14 is like an 'end-game' activity. The point level depends upon the number of assists and low/high goal you are able to attain.

In prior games (for the most part, except '11) the mid-game scoring had a very narrow range of points earned for each score (and most competitive bots all went for the high scoring option, effectively narrowing the range further) This made the progression of the match mostly predictable until the point swinging end game.

Granted the top '14 alliances had fairly consistent points per cycle, but one slip up missing a truss or an assist or settling for low goal and the tide can turn. And a lot of matches flip-flopped on the lead when teams were evenly matched as each side completed a cycle.

So think of '14 as continuous end games. Which team can complete the 'end-game' activities more times (with more earned points) ?

[AndrewPospeshil]

Personally I think the necessity of an endgame depends on the game itself. The "New" type of FRC game that more closely resembles a sport doesn't need an endgame. Matches could end in a very tense manner with last second scores for big points, putting them over the other alliance (or assuring their victory). Plus that's one less element to follow, one less mechanism to build, and a slightly more level playing field for rookies/vets. Games like UA kind of needed an endgame, otherwise they ended up being relatively stale and repetitive, even if hangs were generally only a few points. If we get more games like we saw this year, I would love for the elimination of an entirely new endgame like we saw with UA, and instead introduce a risk-oriented or strategy-oriented endgame, that didn't require any other game pieces or mechanisms, but smart plays and good strategy. One that was suggested in this thread was bonus points for balls scored in the last few seconds of a match. If the ball was scored, it could win the game for the alliance. If, however, they missed, the opponent may overtake the other alliance's score. This would lead to clutch plays and quick decision making, placing a little more power in the drivers' hands so that better robots wouldn't always win by default and rookie teams with skilled drivers/coaches would have more of a chance.

[BBray_T1296]

Here's a real buzzer balance!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk5YOeSMKLQ

I was referring to the ball we scored while balanced, but yeah that would have been exciting to watch (the crowd's reaction)

[BBray_T1296]

As others have pointed out, the endgame definitely depends on the full game itself.

-For Aerial Assist, there was no need for the end game. The pressure of last second large points was enough.
-For UA, yeah the endgame was needed. With so many pieces and a lack of real strategy (more cycles!), there needed to be some kind of quick decision on the part of the players as to finish that last cycle, or to go for the 10 point hang. However, I feel that the 10 point hangs were too easy. It was way to simple for a robot to just ram the pyramid at the last second and get 10 points.
-For Rebound Rumble, the bridge balancing hit the nail on the proverbial head. They were worth big points, but if you got 1 less robot than the other team, it was not the end of the world if you could score fast enough earlier. There was tons of excitement and it was really simple to grasp that balancing was the objective, and more robots=more points. I think RR had the best endgame of the 5 years I have been a part of FRC
-For Logomotion, despite the overpowered-ness of the point values, this was my favorite endgame to date. The concept was simple, although the rules were not restrictive enough. There was a significant challenge to teams and played a large part in the success of the best teams.
-For Breakaway, the end game was scored perfectly. There was an unpredictably (to us, apparently not the GDC) low number of balls scored every game, and the 2 point hang was just right to make robots design something tough but could really pay off as 2 points could sway the match very often. The 3 point double hang was never done (to my knowledge) but I believe it was due to the incapability of teams to design with other teams systems in mind.


I think the ideal endgame is one where you must design a system hardly related to the main challenge, with the included diversion of weight from the main manipulator. A task that is rewarding to both see from a spectator point of view, and from the win/loss point of view. The point value and nature of the challenge/risk must be set up carefully, so as to make the endgame worth attempting, but not making it impossible to defeat, to discourage robots solely dedicated to the endgame, but also discourage robots without endgame mechanisms. The task must be tough from an engineering standpoint, such that it is advantageous to have a portion of your team entirely dedicated to just the endgame device, but again not so tough to require too much weight or complexity, so as to discourage doing it.
That being said, if the endgame is sufficiently spectacular (Read: RR) simplicity is OK.

just my $0.03

[dgsav24]

There can be endgame-ish rules that are also spectator friendly. For example, this year they could have made a shot over the truss in the last 5 seconds be worth double the points. This way, it adds even more motivation to get the last second buzzer beater. It could add even more suspense and anticipation as a spectator, knowing a 20 point truss shot could be scored. This could also bring in new strategies. Should I shoot now for 10 points and attempt a shot on the end goal, or wait a little and get the last second truss shot to score 20 points?

[sgreco]

Having never really understood a casual viewer's perspective, I think the endgame adds a lot to strategy and to the excitement of the game.

The best mix between keeping the game like a spectator sport and not eliminating the endgame altogether would be to create an endgame like the one in 2008. Capping the track ball used the same game pieces that had been used all along, it just used them in a slightly different way. Climbing, balancing, Minibot races etc. may seem too arbitrary to make sense in the mind of a casual spectator.

[E_puello]

My idea for a cool endgame would:

30 seconds before the match a single white ball worth double points when scored is placed on top of the truss. The only way to get it down is to hit it with you own alliance colored ball. since there is only one it the alliances would have to be quick to gain possession.

[Navid Shafa]

My idea for a cool endgame would:

30 seconds before the match a single white ball worth double points when scored is placed on top of the truss. The only way to get it down is to hit it with you own alliance colored ball. since there is only one it the alliances would have to be quick to gain possession.

Really creative, and feasible. The point values might have to be played with a bit, but I like the flair!

[asid61]

Endgames are good for faster games such as Ultimate Ascent where points were scored constantly. Then the hang was an unrelated thing that could swing the match, and had different point levels. It really added to the suspense if you weren't sure how many points a team would get, especially waiting for the official score to pop up.
However, for this year there was no need. Teams only made a few cycles each match anyway (3-4), so the last cycle was really the endgame.