This year's "game" is a job, not a game

[nixiebunny]

I'm getting a bit burned out by this year's competition. The game a couple years ago was Ultimate Frisbee; this year's is stacking bins in a warehouse. The winning robots all look like racks of bread in a bakery.

My engineering day job is more fun.

Thoughts?

[angusg]

I'm getting a bit burned out by this year's competition. The game a couple years ago was Ultimate Frisbee; this year's is stacking bins in a warehouse. The winning robots all look like racks of bread in a bakery.


I couldn't disagree more!

This year's game results in intense, fast-paced action - at the Australia regional last week we had crowds and teams watching on the edge of their seats as the teams playing tried to reach the maximum points they could.

It's all about playing the game to the limit.

Also the fact that it's hard to build a robot to do everything, it makes strategically selecting complementary alliance partners incredibly important.

Without wishing to be negative, I think all this complaint (this isn't the first post of this type) about the 2015 game is completely misplaced. If you build a great robot, you will have heaps of fun trying to win.

[Sperkowsky]

I'm tired of these negative threads about this year's game. Go complain somewhere else the gdc tries their best. I'm not a big fan of the game but I'm not going to complain on the Internet when there's no way the game is going to change.

[mrnoble]

I'm tired of all the negative comments about negative comments about the game. If you are upset because you think people shouldn't get upset about the game, well, I for one don't want to hear it.

Wait, no. Actually, I'm sick of all the negativity toward people who say that they are sick of the negativity. Quit picking on people who pick on people who pick on people who pick on the GDC!

No, wait

[mrnoble]

Seriously, the game isn't my favorite. It has problems. But, it's still fun and worthwhile, and I very much appreciate the effort of all the folks who continue to challenge me and my students each year, including this time.

[orangemoore]

I disagree. This game has made a lot of changes to rules that have been complained about for a really long time.


No Bumpers
No Size Limitations*
Less ambiguous rules
Progressive and Responsive GDC/Q&A

*Other than height and transport configuration.

Basically everyone should enjoy the game for what it is. There will be a new game next year. It will be different.

I think I have gotten tired of listening to people complain about the game every year. The game will never be perfect.

[String]

Every game in FRC history has had flaws, and every game in FRC history has had people that hated the game. Look at last year. People said the game was terrible right at kickoff. After Einstein everybody agreed that Aerial Assist was an incredibly fun game despite all the negatives. Every game has its pros and cons. It's up to us to focus on the pros and enjoy the games that GDC gives us.

[JesseK]

This game isn't my favorite. The meta-game has a bit of a gaping hole in mid-range bots, and so many of the upper-echelon bots do the exact same concept to score lots of points. It's also every bot for itself. Probably the most interesting moments of a good match happen before the match during the driver discussion.

But even with a half-way decent working robot, it's fun-ish to play (maybe I'm biased, I'm a driver coach). It was (is?) a very tough challenge to design and build for given the square game pieces after years of round game pieces (maybe I'm biased, I'm the team's CAD mentor). All of our build kids had a lot of fun with it. Our drivers have been a bit stressed about it, but that's life as a driver with a multi-function robot.

I wouldn't say I'm burned out by it, not yet at least. If we were out of weight budget and couldn't improve further, then maybe it'd be different.

[Katie_UPS]

I'm tired of these negative threads about this year's game. Go complain somewhere else the gdc tries their best.
I'm not really sure where else you expect them to "complain". A more helpful comment would be directing OP to threads that exist already pertaining to this subject, or a "somewhere else" for them to continue this conversation.

[TimTheGreat]

Go complain somewhere else the gdc tries their best.

The GDC has had some pretty exciting games in the past. Basketball was great, especially with the End Game, and Aerial Assist was very fast-paced game, but this year is sub-par. This is definitely not the best GDC has/can come up with.

That being said, I don't think this years game was specifically meant to be the greatest game ever, but designed to raise awareness about the environment.

[James1902]

I'm tired of these negative threads about this year's game. Go complain somewhere else the gdc tries their best. I'm not a big fan of the game but I'm not going to complain on the Internet when there's no way the game is going to change.

If I pay 5,000 dollars expecting a certain experience and that experience does not live up to my expectations I will complain about that experience, regardless of how much effort was put into creating it in the first place.

I'm not a fan of the game and I think that certain aspects of it, if adopted long term, could harm the FIRST program. I think a game that (in my opinion) doesn't engage an audience of non-engineers in the same way that a sporting event does is contrary to FIRST's goals. Because of this, and because I want FIRST to continue to inspire and engage students, I will make my opinions known.

[g_sawchuk]

The GDC has had some pretty exciting games in the past. Basketball was great, especially with the End Game, and Aerial Assist was very fast-paced game, but this year is sub-par. This is definitely not the best GDC has/can come up with.

That being said, I don't think this years game was specifically meant to be the greatest game ever, but designed to raise awareness about the environment.
Suitable to the conversation of who likes what, you like end games. I strongly dislike them. Who likes what game is all based on personal taste.

[mrnoble]

I loved last year's game, in spite of (not because of) the violence and refereeing difficulties. Never had so much much fun. This year's unexpected turn was difficult to swallow, but FRC is still the best thing going.

[Sperkowsky]

If I pay 5,000 dollars expecting a certain experience and that experience does not live up to my expectations I will complain about that experience, regardless of how much effort was put into creating it in the first place.

I'm not a fan of the game and I think that certain aspects of it, if adopted long term, could harm the FIRST program. I think a game that (in my opinion) doesn't engage an audience of non-engineers in the same way that a sporting event does is contrary to FIRST's goals. Because of this, and because I want FIRST to continue to inspire and engage students, I will make my opinions known.

you paying 5k....

You are not the team you dont personally spend 5k on the game therefore you didnt pay 5k. We all pay the same entry fee and we all play the same game. I dont love the game but theres nothing we can do about it. Give the gdc a break because I am sure you wouldnt want their job (I Know i wouldnt) they make a solid game every year and all everyone ever does is complain. Its not a sports themed game and a lot of people like sports themed games. But it doesnt mean its not a fun game to play. The GDC doesnt need your opinion to help them. Throughout build season they have heard thousands of the same opinions; and I hate to break it to you they are moest likely deep in development of next years game.

Im not wanting to start a war I simply want to drop the atomic bomb to end it.

[mrnoble]

you paying 5k....

You are not the team you dont personally spend 5k on the game therefore you didnt pay 5k.

Ask my students how many hours I spend with them in robotics that I could have used to earn money.

Also, I would have the same reaction to spending my school's money on a defective $5000 machine, or software package, or whatever. It's the school's money, but I'm still not gonna say "oh well".

Notice the extremely positive outcome to the cheesecake incident just today from the folks at FIRST. Would that have happened without strong feedback?

[Sperkowsky]

Ask my students how many hours I spend with them in robotics that I could have used to earn money.

Also, I would have the same reaction to spending my school's money on a defective $5000 machine, or software package, or whatever. It's the school's money, but I'm still not gonna say "oh well".

Notice the extremely positive outcome to the cheesecake incident just today from the folks at FIRST. Would that have happened without strong feedback?
I have no problem with strong feedback but this is a week 1 conversation not something to complain about week 4.

[KushP384]

While I don't completely agree with the opinion that this years game is unexciting, it's definitely not as fast paced as Ultimate Ascent or as violent as Aerial Assault.*

Personally, any game with an objective is thrilling when the bot your team has put blood, sweat, and tears into is on the field and [hopefully] moving.

[dradel]

Granted the sports based games are more prone to get the non robot folks in the stands attention, but is first trying to make robot basketball teams, or frisbee teams?? I don't think so. It is about getting the students to get their minds out of the proverbial box and to think. This game may not have the extreme fast pace, or the defense that some like to see, but it was a good challenge to see what the teams could and did come up with.
To all the complainers you have two choices......1: take the games for what they are and learn all you can learn, and build the "best" bot you can. 2: don't signup for next year cause you will probably find something to complain about then as well.

Personally I am more into watching my students take what they are given and running with it ! Watching the strategy change and unfold as they work with different teams. And most importantly watching them get comfortable outside the box!

[who716]

im gonna be honest and say this game sucks. Worst game in the history of FRC. So boring to watch there are people sleeping in the stands myself included. Frankly it makes me not wanna participate at all. This whole everyone wins, no one loses is what So many people reach for, I heard Woodie talking about it at our first event and it makes for a rather terrible game.

1. this game is the most unfair Job, that has yet to be played, there is no strategic challenge to it and its purely offense. the good robots win uncontested. Our team is a team that never builds a robot like 1114 or 254 that dominates the whole competition if we had to go head to head in an offensive game against any of these "top team" we would lose. we just don't have the resources, people and money to build a robot like that. What makes are team competitive is being able to slow down the opponent so that they are on our level. Last year you could do this. This year not at all your a sitting duck.

2. There are alliances telling there 3rd partner to "sit out or stay on the sidelines" because they will get in the way to me this sounds like the exact opposite of what the GDC was shooting for and what Woodie was preaching at the event. im sure if there were alliances sitting out there 3rd robot last year they didn't make it to far.

3. coopertition ABSOLUTELY SUCKS. another one of the EVERYONE WINS philosophy, obviously this only helps the teams the arnt considered top. looking at the score board you can see 1114 2056 254 they don't score coopertition why would they help the other team score points when they can score more points then a 3 robot alliance can together. Just like in 2012 coopertition makes for an unfair playing field. our team went undefeated in 2012 and was ranked 3rd when we were the only team undefeated, because of this we had to settle with different alliance partners costing us the win. looks to me like advantage

4. EVERYONE WINS PHILOSOPHY what is the GDC woodie and DEAN trying to say when they come up with games and speak of this. I'm sure there aware in the real world people do in fact lose, sports teams lose, people lose there jobs. Life is a competition your always trying to be better then the person your competing with whether its for a job or getting accepted to a collage. I don't understand why they switched from win lose. To no more losing there are teams that are ranked in the top then that really shouldn't be ranked there not to be mean, but got carried through by other teams, yes this happens every year but it is soo much worse this year.

This game takes the C out of FRC it should be called FRG first robotics game cause that's all it is to me now. They went from an AMAZING COMPETITION a year ago where you could make up for a bad robot through a good drive team to a GAME where your pretty much stuck with what you got and you just go out there match after match scoring as many points as you can hoping and praying you get picked by the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd, seed. because if your not you go out there in eliminations knowing you cant do anything to stop the other team from scoring massive points and that your only chance of moving on is if the opponent robot breaks.

Sounds like a pretty horrible game to me, and boy do i hope they never ever ever ever go back to a game like this again. I don't know how many more matches i can take of knowing there is nothing we can do to prevent our-self's from losing besides praying we get lucky with our alliances.

Am i being inconsiderate overly aggressive mean and rude maybe but its america and I am aloud to voice my opinion, and i know im not alone out there in these feelings.This was a major regression step in the direction i believe FIRST wants to proceed towards.

Rant over.

[Akash Rastogi]

you paying 5k....

You are not the team you dont personally spend 5k on the game therefore you didnt pay 5k. We all pay the same entry fee and we all play the same game. I dont love the game but theres nothing we can do about it. Give the gdc a break because I am sure you wouldnt want their job (I Know i wouldnt) they make a solid game every year and all everyone ever does is complain. Its not a sports themed game and a lot of people like sports themed games. But it doesnt mean its not a fun game to play. The GDC doesnt need your opinion to help them. Throughout build season they have heard thousands of the same opinions; and I hate to break it to you they are moest likely deep in development of next years game.

Im not wanting to start a war I simply want to drop the atomic bomb to end it.

Wow, you have much to learn about FRC, and the world in general.

Check out a basic structure of consumer markets - we are the customers, they are the developers - we supply feedback - they iterate - we supply feedback - we like their product after iterations (or are satisfied enough to come back for more).

Take a step back and look at who the "complainers" are too. You'll notice most are veterans from strong teams who carry quite a bit of influence and have been at this for years. Before you post, read their insight and try to soak in their opinions.

[The other Gabe]

I loved last year's game, in spite of (not because of) the violence and refereeing difficulties. Never had so much much fun. This year's unexpected turn was difficult to swallow, but FRC is still the best thing going.

the violence was my favorite part 3:)

(IE the strategic smashing of our robot into other robots that we called defense and that got us a surprisingly high DPR considering we did not really plan any defense into our design other than our 6 CIM drive. then our robot broke. probably because we smashed into so many other robots. oops)

I like the alliance selection strategy of this year, but miss having an endgame that is completely different from the rest of the challenge (a la 2013's pyramid and 2012's bridges), and I miss defense.

[nixiebunny]

I can see that negativity can be a problem - we have had that occur on our team this year and it's rather demoralizing. So I'll try a different approach, asking a question.

What do I say to potential mentor and student recruits about what this year's game is? I used to be able to say, "basketball" or "frisbees". "Working in a warehouse" doesn't seem appealing.

What do you say, while being positive?

[EricH]

im gonna be honest and say this game sucks. Worst game in the history of FRC. [...]

1. this game is the most unfair Job, that has yet to be played, there is no strategic challenge to it and its purely offense. [...]



No it isn't.

Not at all.

Not in the SLIGHTEST.

There is a game so bad (or so ill-documented, your choice) that FIRST doesn't post its summary on their website in the archives. Fortunately, or not, some documentation (https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B_NPAkx7sAJARUxKcDdsOFpfSk0&usp=sharing) is preserved by the TechnoKats History Project.

The name? Diabolical Dynamics. The year? 2001. The game? Score playground balls into goals, balance said goals on a seesaw, and get as many of your alliance to the far end of the field as possible before hitting the E-stop for a multiplier. Did I mention that it was played 4v0, with no second alliance on the field?


BTW, #2 on that list happens to be Lunacy (2009). This is a distant #3 at best. I'm still trying to decide whether I prefer Stack Attack (2003) or this game for the #3 spot on the "worst game" list.

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

I won't repeat what's already been stated and I never thought I would ever say this but I miss bumpers. Not just for defense but because it gave all robots a lot more color pop to them and team numbers were way more identifiable. Maybe not as strict of bumper rules as in the past but they at least made teams a lot more identifiable and is a relief from how much gray is in the game whether it be the fields or robots.

[Whippet]

What do you say, while being positive?

"Competitive Box Stacking" works pretty well for us.

[blazingbronco18]

When I first saw this years game, I was definitely kind of disappointed. But after watching some regionals, I think this game has a unique strategy element that games of years past have lacked. I think its a good change of pace, but I would like to see the defense aspect of the games come back.

[mrnoble]

Stacks on stacks. Forklift Simulator.

[nixiebunny]

I can't get that 1985 song by Dire Straits out of my head. Money for Nothing.

"We gotta move these refrigerators, we gotta move these color TVs."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAD6Obi7Cag

[MikLast]

Honestly, this game is pretty good. I don't see what there isint to like. Yes, there is no defense, but are you really just looking to watch the matches? why not marvel at what (hopefully) students built and are using to complete the challenge? Is that not the true point of FRC? Anyways, they are not going to change it, and if you are going to complain, do it somewhere else. Its kind of sad watching the same mentors teaching the students about robotics complain when the challenge or ideal is something they don't like, and its week 4. It wont be changed, they are already thinking of a new game, and if you don't like it, don't play. Simple as that.

[nixiebunny]

To all the complainers you have two choices......1: take the games for what they are and learn all you can learn, and build the "best" bot you can. 2: don't signup for next year cause you will probably find something to complain about then as well.

Personally I am more into watching my students take what they are given and running with it ! Watching the strategy change and unfold as they work with different teams. And most importantly watching them get comfortable outside the box!

Well, our team did build a unique laser-cut wooden robot that pushes the envelope of FRC bot construction, so I don't consider the year a waste of time.

I just don't see us taking it to demos. Good thing we saved last year's robot for that job.

I also am considering not signing up for next year, but only because the time sink has gotten too great for me. I can get paid to help people design machines to do warehouse work.

[SousVide]

I tell them it's kinda like a bunch of other non-contact competitive sports while waxing philosophy... golf, long jump, gymnastics, pole-vaulting, ring toss, javelin throw... You are trying to perform from a rehearsed routine and trying to achieve perfection... You are competing with yourself - it's like life, etc. etc.

I've said this same in other threads. This year is a tough sell for my sponsors and parents. The students get it, they build the robot, they have a competition to get ready for. They are ready to celebrate Robotics and Science and Engineering and GP with all of the other teams. It will be fun. But I also have to be able to sell it to their parents - so that they don't yank the students and put them into something else. I have to be able to sell it to my sponsors - most of these guys/gals get sports easy - I can sell them Frisbee, Basketball, Soccer, Nascar.

GDC has a tough job to do and they get beat up for it - it's a thankless job that is sometimes under-appreciated. And yes, it's my job to sell my team and to get "mo money" so that the team can continue to build robots, build leaders. I feel like I'm apologizing or just plain making excuses this year.

Look, it's a hard hill to climb to get people to understand FIRST - every single year. Some years, it's easier. I can just yell "Basketball" and eyes will light up rightaway.

It just feels like a bigger hill to climb this year.

[dtengineering]

For those of you who don't like the game... well, I'll just say that my sympathy is limited. Maybe you'll like next year's game better. For those who say it isn't their favorite game... hey, I get that... we all have favorite games, but saying its not your favorite is a big difference from saying you don't like it.

Personally I love the fact that it has changed things up and allowed so many teams to try so many different ideas. It is a game that it is very easy for a low resource team to create a robot that can stack a few crates, while almost impossible for anyone to perfect it.

Okay, almost impossible for anyone but 1114 to perfect it. :-)

But then again, I liked Lunacy, too... because it was different. Everyone had to throw out everything we knew about building drivetrains for carpeted playing fields and start over.... from the slippery ground up.

In fact, while I have favorites (Aim High, for instance) I can't think of a single FRC game that I've experienced that I haven't enjoyed. I'd like to credit the GDC, but I think the credit should be shared between the GDC for having the idea, and the teams for making the idea into something awesome.

I do, however, find it interesting that the games that are the most different (Recycle Rush, Lunacy) are the ones that often receive the most criticism. I guess some folks just don't like change.

Jason

[Chris Endres]

I feel this game is fine. It may not be the most intense game, but is that what FRC is all about? No. It's about students learning new concepts, having fun, and getting experience in science and technology. I, myself, have seen so many cool mechanisms, some that I know would not have come together if there were aspects in the game, such as: bumpers, defense, size restrictions, motor restrictions, etc.

However, I do see a large gap separating the higher team numbers (less-experienced) and the lower numbers (more experienced) than any other year. The lack of defense renders bare drive bases basically useless (disregarding herding totes and litter).

Despite the comments from fellow FIRSTers, this game has brought many cool aspects to the game, some that I wished were a reality for a while now. Hopefully we see some old game aspects come into play in future games, but I like new twists and turns the GDC gives us, giving us new problems to solve and overcome.

[Zebra_Fact_Man]

This year's "game" is kinda like bowling or darts to me: once you're behind, you're screwed, unless the other alliance makes a mistake.

PS: I don't like those things.

PPS: I liked Lunacy.

[JVN]

im gonna be honest and say this game sucks. Worst game in the history of FRC.

1. this game is the most unfair Job, that has yet to be played, there is no strategic challenge to it and its purely offense. the good robots win uncontested. Our team is a team that never builds a robot like 1114 or 254 that dominates the whole competition if we had to go head to head in an offensive game against any of these "top team" we would lose. we just don't have the resources, people and money to build a robot like that. What makes are team competitive is being able to slow down the opponent so that they are on our level. Last year you could do this. This year not at all your a sitting duck.

Rant over.

Who716,
What is your version of an ideal game? Please start a new thread and tell us.

Do you like Mario Kart? Are you a "blue-shell" kind of guy?

I hate blue shells.

[Citrus Dad]

I'm not a fan of the game and I think that certain aspects of it, if adopted long term, could harm the FIRST program. I think a game that (in my opinion) doesn't engage an audience of non-engineers in the same way that a sporting event does is contrary to FIRST's goals. Because of this, and because I want FIRST to continue to inspire and engage students, I will make my opinions known.

I agree. The point of FIRST is SOCIAL engineering, not technical engineering. It's to attract students who would never give STEM another look. When its exciting its successful.

This year after I've seen a good bot in a couple of matches, I'm done watching them, even 1114. I never got tired of watching 254 fly around the field last year (to our chagrin.) Being exceptionally good at repeating a routine does not make for a great sporting event.

And I make these posts about this year's game, in very specific ways, hoping that someone will notice. The GDC already responded to another thread about the "cheesecake" issue. I'm guessing they're reading and thinking about next year. But I completely understand that we playing the game that we are for this year.

[SousVide]

I can see that negativity can be a problem - we have had that occur on our team this year and it's rather demoralizing. So I'll try a different approach, asking a question.

What do I say to potential mentor and student recruits about what this year's game is? I used to be able to say, "basketball" or "frisbees". "Working in a warehouse" doesn't seem appealing.

What do you say, while being positive?

I once told them it's kinda like Russian Acrobatics Gymnastics - except that you've only practiced by yourself and you have not practiced with any of your partners. They got that I'm just joking...

Check out this super awesome Russian Acrobatic Gymnatics team though.
https://youtu.be/8LW0sioDcSo

[Citrus Dad]

I tell them it's kinda like a bunch of other non-contact competitive sports while waxing philosophy... golf, long jump, gymnastics, pole-vaulting, ring toss, javelin throw... You are trying to perform from a rehearsed routine and trying to achieve perfection... You are competing with yourself - it's like life, etc. etc.

I agree with your post.

I noted one important thing about your examples: ALL of them are individual sports--not a single one is a team sport. (Gymnastics is a made up team sport that's really individuals.) I think the problem is that these sports really don't have any interaction with other individuals in a direct way. That may be why this year's game isn't really ringing true.

[Abhishek R]

Who716,
What is your version of an ideal game? Please start a new thread and tell us.

Do you like Mario Kart? Are you a "blue-shell" kind of guy?

I hate blue shells.

Wow, what an apt analogy.

I never understood that. Why would anyone try to lead the pack in MarioKart if you know you will always lead for 2 laps then get smoked by multiple blue shells at the end... Why would you make a mechanic that directly harms the top competitor? I enjoy the Bullets and Golden Mushrooms that let you catch up from the bottom more than the blue shell - especially if the guy who gets it is in 8th place; they'll likely never catch up to 1st anyway, yet the 1st place racer is now probably in 4th or 5th.

Why do we want to lower the ceiling rather than raise the floor?

I agree with your post.

I noted one important thing about your examples: ALL of them are individual sports--not a single one is a team sport. (Gymnastics is a made up team sport that's really individuals.) I think the problem is that these sports really don't have any interaction with other individuals in a direct way. That may be why this year's game isn't really ringing true.

Especially as we see the teams who are able to independently create and cap their own stacks seem to be doing better, the notion of the "alliance" seems to be lesser emphasized when compared with a "group of three teams each doing their own thing."

[PayneTrain]

At the very least it's fun to point out that the new system was designed to fall in line more with "Olympic" sports scoring instead of a standings that was a variant of traditional team sports with this in mind:

Say what you will about it being hard to get a good top 8 in the past (classic Virginia 2013 when a top 8 robot scored zero points the entire tournament, save for foul points to the opponents) no one is watching downhill skiing September through February, they're watching the NFL. Baseball stadiums fill to the brim on cool weekend nights in the summer and no one is lining up to see a kayak slalom as often. March Madness is probably the greatest event in sports, and it's top-down single elimination chaos.

[T^2]

I've always thought that one of the strengths of FRC as a competitive and spectator sport is its use of 2-minute rounds, which add intensity when the games are designed correctly; compare the average excitement of a match of Counter-Strike with one of Dota. Losing interactivity between alliances rather removes this intensity; might as well line up our robots and clock our stack times to determine seeding.

[FIRST_Parent]

We all have heard "It's not just about the robot" yes I get it and so do all of you...but what I think Dean, and everyone involved in First wants, is for everyone not to pick apart yet again "this years game"...it's about continually exciting these brilliant young minds to save the planet we all have abused and surely have pretty much destroyed. I truly count on these FRC First Team students to absolve us all of our sins. So its not a job...its a real reality that we encourage all these students to fix what the past has broken...give them every resource they need. They are our last hope. Ok, I will get off the soapbox now. :cool:

[TheOtherGuy]

Do you like Mario Kart? Are you a "blue-shell" kind of guy?

I hate blue shells.

Huh.. I love blue shells! Hate bananas, though. I guess I'm bad at "Mario Kart". :rolleyes:

[BHS_STopping]

I think this game is quite exciting, at least from the perspective of a team member. I've really enjoyed the season so far since we're continuously iterating and improving our design. I like how we can purely focus on playing the game instead of making provisions for highly variable things like defense. On the other hand, it does feel more like a match of solitaire than it does an actual competition. However, there exist many non-interactive sports which are still exciting and easy to appreciate: Gymnastics, track and field, swimming, and so on. How many of us would argue that the 100m dash would be better if runners were allowed to trip each other?

Sometimes a game requires you to put aside things like opponent interaction. We would never have a game like Recycle Rush if defense was a major factor; the GDC would certainly be stifled for creativity if they only allowed games where robots could prevent each other from scoring. Sometimes defense allows for a grotesque imbalance between the effort required to create something and the effort required to destroy it. I'll take 2007 as an example: It was way too easy to shut down a really good team by simply getting in the way. I hate watching games where robots simply slam into each other and struggle to do anything exciting game-wise. This year's game has forced teams to build more than just a working drivebase. Recycle Rush is helping to raise the bar of general robot quality and has been encouraging teams to step up their game and think more about neat designs and strategies instead of impromptu tactics during a match.

I feel like we're going to see some very exciting matches in St. Louis this year. Instead of having to drag down the best teams via defense, teams must instead iterate and evolve in order to remain competitive. Teams are pushing the limits every single match, and to me that's exciting. I can really appreciate the amount of skill and precision that goes into crafting and executing the perfect match plan. I want to see two killer alliances face off on Einstein and have to be just *that* much better than the other in order to win. I want to see robots have to race to create their stacks just a few seconds faster because their opponents are just as evenly matched as they are.

In addition, I'm glad we have a game this year where few teams had the ability to recycle previous years' designs. I've been racking my brain the last 2.5 months to try and solve all of these brand new problems. I don't think I've ever had to think as hard over my last ten years in FIRST as I've had to this year. I suppose that's worth something.

[who716]

Who716,
What is your version of an ideal game? Please start a new thread and tell us.

Do you like Mario Kart? Are you a "blue-shell" kind of guy?

I hate blue shells.
The blue shell in Mario Kart is precisely what allows for an okay driver/ Robot, to remain competitive. Defense when done well is a work of art. And it requires more skill and thought then just getting a turbo, to catch up to everyone. Defense being lost puts so many robots out of contention. But im sure your team probably hates defense being such a strong offense robot year in and year out.

[Koko Ed]

I'm actually surprised how much I enjoy this game during the elims. It's really intense out there. Friday drags on and Thursday is a total bore but I have to give it credit, it's better than I thought it would be.

[Koko Ed]

At GTR Central someone brought a drone to the event and I thought " that's what this game needs. attack drones unleashed in the last 30 seconds to knock over stacks with elements on the robot to slap them down and drone dogfights everywhere! Now that's excitement!"

[Chris Hibner]

I hate to say it, but I found 2001 to be more entertaining than this year. At least that year you had the variable of stopping the clock and the race to see if you could complete the task faster. Additionally, in order to get max points the teams on the field had to work together whereas this year you typically have robots doing their own thing in their corner of the field. And the playoff format this year: zzzzzzzz.



No it isn't.

Not at all.

Not in the SLIGHTEST.

There is a game so bad (or so ill-documented, your choice) that FIRST doesn't post its summary on their website in the archives. Fortunately, or not, some documentation (https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B_NPAkx7sAJARUxKcDdsOFpfSk0&usp=sharing) is preserved by the TechnoKats History Project.

The name? Diabolical Dynamics. The year? 2001. The game? Score playground balls into goals, balance said goals on a seesaw, and get as many of your alliance to the far end of the field as possible before hitting the E-stop for a multiplier. Did I mention that it was played 4v0, with no second alliance on the field?


BTW, #2 on that list happens to be Lunacy (2009). This is a distant #3 at best. I'm still trying to decide whether I prefer Stack Attack (2003) or this game for the #3 spot on the "worst game" list.

[Dan Petrovic]

My biggest complaint this year doesn't really have much to do with the game itself, but more about the robot rules:

The 78" height limit. Keep it at 60" so that we don't have to struggle to get our robot through doors, please. :)

While Recycle Rush isn't my favorite, it certainly isn't the worst. At least you can see the progression of the scores and the huge point swings, unlike Lunacy where you can hardly see who's in the lead. Matches aren't decided in the first 5 seconds like Zone Zeal was (although it might turn into that at higher levels of play) and the whole game doesn't stray away from its original point - stacking boxes - and dissolve into a brutal King of the Hill like Stack Attack.

Also, I really don't like the hokey themes. The terms "Moon Rock" and "Litter" make me cringe.

[jman4747]

I know FIRST wants to draw more excitement and attention to Engineering/STEM but it's still engineering. You probably won't be working on a robot disc shooter or foam/exercise ball thrower ever. You might work on the machine that forms the plastic for the disc, or test materials to find the best composition of plastic to make it out of. Maybe you would prefer working on the power system for the plant or analyzing and optimizing the work flow?

Point is if you can't handle this maybe slightly less exciting game you get your excitement from the wrong place. I'm excited about getting twice as good at Labview than I was in 2014 ago and that my team can finally use vision processing. I'm excited our team gets to run and compete in FRC with more than $1,000 spending money this year and that we will be mentoring an FTC team starting this summer.

So thank you GDC for more great learning experiences and a chance to apply my technical skills with a team, and for giving me an amazing excuse to hang out with so many engineers.

[KelliV]

This is just me speaking from a spectator. I have NOT built a robot this year. I went to an event last weekend for fun and to take a break from a film project I am working on and this is what I thought:

If math and science isn't your thing, visit the pits and see some robots quickly and then go home and work on something else. Come back next year. The straight up sporting feel of the game just isn't there if you don't "get" the scoring right away. It's not like many of the past games where anyone off the street could walk in and be able to follow what's going on.

The game may not be for everyone but I can kind of see its merits in teaching kids to play against them-self and try to make the best robot they can, then beat that robot. Always try to achieve higher scores and do better each match.

All that being said, I wish this years game had more action, had more interaction between teams, and had a less difficult seeding system. I started to try and figure that out and no amounts of coffee could make that happen without sitting down with a manual. I'll give it another shot in a few weeks and hopefully my thoughts on the game will change but who knows.

[robochick1319]

I think the issue with this game is it's appeal to non-FIRST community members. In the past, saying "our robots shoots basketballs/frisbees/gigantic balls" was a much more approachable game. People understood how that could be "sport" and it was much easier to demonstrate in a variety of environments.

When I explain this game in the most exciting way I can, I actually see a little disappointment on people's faces like, "Oh, it stacks boxes?"

We find it fun to watch because after 6 weeks of scratching our heads it's cool to see how other teams have dealt with what is a pretty big technical challenge. We find the elims exciting because it is our game, our world.

TL;DR It's not a bad game. It's just not the best game to appeal to non-FIRST people. Need to brainstorm some cool ways to demo it in the summer/fall.....

[mac]

I'm tired of these negative threads about this year's game. Go complain somewhere else the gdc tries their best. I'm not a big fan of the game but I'm not going to complain on the Internet when there's no way the game is going to change.

Is it OK to not like anything under the sun. Or do equate not liking with negativity. Thomas (just give me a crabcake) McCubbin

[Brian C]

No it isn't.

Not at all.

Not in the SLIGHTEST.

There is a game so bad (or so ill-documented, your choice) that FIRST doesn't post its summary on their website in the archives.

The name? Diabolical Dynamics. The year? 2001. The game? Score playground balls into goals, balance said goals on a seesaw, and get as many of your alliance to the far end of the field as possible before hitting the E-stop for a multiplier. Did I mention that it was played 4v0, with no second alliance on the field?

I respectfully disagree!

I believe the 2001 game was actually the beginning of teams sharing information during the build season. Many teams showcased their machines and their strategies early on in their build in an effort to create an alliance where each robot performed a specific task very well. Wildstang and their teeter-totter controlling ramp 'bot comes to mind.

I readily admit that I was not overly thrilled with this years game. However, after attending NYC last weekend I've changed my mind. As Koko Ed said earlier, qualifying is a drawn out process but Eliminations....er....... Playoffs is definitely a much more exciting time.

I was actually surprised this year that more teams did not share their concepts earlier during build in a similar concept of creating complementary robots.

The majority of teams that exist today only understand an offense/defense type of game because that is all they have seen for over a decade. I believe that the game this year threw many of them a curveball in that they may not have been able to wrap their heads around a minimally interactive game.

Now I have my own thoughts as to a best vs worst list of games but I'll keep that to myself. As they say everyone has an opinion and "your mileage may vary"

[kmusa]

... I've been racking my brain the last 2.5 months to try and solve all of these brand new problems. I don't think I've ever had to think as hard over my last ten years in FIRST as I've had to this year. I suppose that's worth something.

This.

The engineering this year has been difficult. Watching the effort, comprehension, and growth of the students this year has been amazing.

I get it that this year's competition is harder to watch by or describe to the general public. I wouldn't want it to happen often (2 out of 3, 3 of 5 would be too much), but I'll tolerate it occasionally, for how it inspired our students this year.

Note to self for next year - remember to think inside AND outside of the box.

[mac]

I tell them it's kinda like a bunch of other non-contact competitive sports while waxing philosophy... golf, long jump, gymnastics, pole-vaulting, ring toss, javelin throw... You are trying to perform from a rehearsed routine and trying to achieve perfection... You are competing with yourself - it's like life, etc. etc.

I've said this same in other threads. This year is a tough sell for my sponsors and parents. The students get it, they build the robot, they have a competition to get ready for. They are ready to celebrate Robotics and Science and Engineering and GP with all of the other teams. It will be fun. But I also have to be able to sell it to their parents - so that they don't yank the students and put them into something else. I have to be able to sell it to my sponsors - most of these guys/gals get sports easy - I can sell them Frisbee, Basketball, Soccer, Nascar.

GDC has a tough job to do and they get beat up for it - it's a thankless job that is sometimes under-appreciated. And yes, it's my job to sell my team and to get "mo money" so that the team can continue to build robots, build leaders. I feel like I'm apologizing or just plain making excuses this year.

Look, it's a hard hill to climb to get people to understand FIRST - every single year. Some years, it's easier. I can just yell "Basketball" and eyes will light up rightaway.

It just feels like a bigger hill to climb this year.

When someone at GDC stays up to 3am during 2010 "Breakout". Comes up with a math problem that was 8 mm long to determine how long it should take, to return, the soccer ball to the field; algorithm. We the simple people just said 11 seconds. The drawings for making the pyramid did not make sense to my engineer teacher or his carpenter son, 2013 game. The static bowl game in 2009, that I got shock a lot doing field reset. The GDC should be big to. To take a few lumps. Thomas (just give me a crabcake) McCubbin

[The_ShamWOW88]

Im not wanting to start a war I simply want to drop the atomic bomb to end it.

Because you don't agree with other opinions...

The thing to remember is there will always be two+ sides to every argument and nobody will ever 100% agree...

Attacking others for differing opinions only makes you look silly....

[pmangels17]

I have to be honest, I really do not like this game. I think the field of robots is spread so much wider this year than others between the best teams and the worst teams. Also, as previously mentioned, it's hard to get the game to appeal to people outside of FIRST. And, for me at least, it's painfully boring to watch most quals matches, though elims can get pretty cool when an alliance really grooves.

That being said, there are a lot of things that this game does right. Primarily, I think the eliminations format is a step in the right direction. The switch from "win-loss-tie 2 out of 3 head to heads" to a round robin system is something that I like very much. Here's why:

Suppose somehow we had an objective way of measuring which elims alliances are the best (obviously this is an idealized situation). Now suppose that at a given event, alliance 1, 2, 7, and 8 are objectively the best alliances. In a round-robin style format these alliances can all advance, and the best four alliances move on to the semis, instead of two of them getting eliminated in quarters. The same logic applies to semis. I am not pretending to have all the answers, and I'm not sure how we could combine a round-robin playoff model with the win-loss-tie format (because, it is a competition after all, and there are and should be winners and losers), but I do thoroughly believe that this is a big step in the right direction for FIRST.

Oh, and if you're still reading this, here's one more good thing about RR. This game has changed the way teams think about drivetrains. Tank drive is still fine, but this is a year where omni-directional drives can really own it. I love how many stupidly simple drives there are this year, and I look forward to how teams wrangle their newfound loves for low-traction omnidirectional drives (H-drive, mecanum, etc) with the fact that next year there might be robot-robot contact again.

tl;dr: I really don't like this game, but I do like round-robin elims and drivetrains

[IronicDeadBird]

If good game design was easy then I would be a billionaire making the next hit video game.
If you strongly believe that this years game is bad I understand that, I'm not a huge fan of the game but I respect the GDC with their consistent ability to deliver a game internationally that provides everything that FIRST stands for. It is absolutely true that some years are better then others. It is absolutely fine to provide feedback. However real people, real humans put their time into making these games and you should keep that in mind and be polite. The GDC does not have the resources to fully test games the way most games be it video games or board games. They do however have ears as long as we keep the conversation polite I believe they will keep an ear out and open to us.
There is an area for game design on chief delphi if you have an idea for a game bring it over there and it can be turned into a discussion.

[BBray_T1296]

I hope everyone realizes that the Step (and thus separation of the alliances) was added late in the game design process soley due to the constant, incessant moaning and compaining about the defense last year.

Now look at us: complaining about not enough strategy ie. defense.

While both these games may be seen as the two extremes, we asked for it.

I personally see merit in both sides of the arguement about the quality of this year's game, but I cannot help but realize that we brought this on ourselves.

[Sperkowsky]

Because you don't agree with other opinions...

The thing to remember is there will always be two+ sides to every argument and nobody will ever 100% agree...

Attacking others for differing opinions only makes you look silly....
I didn't say i agreed with either side. I simply said I don't want this to be yet another argument thread over whether this game is good or bad.

[Chris is me]

Who716,
What is your version of an ideal game? Please start a new thread and tell us.

Do you like Mario Kart? Are you a "blue-shell" kind of guy?

I hate blue shells.

I know what you're trying to get at here, but in the latest version of Mario Kart, they heavily balanced the blue shell with the game changes. The blue shell stays on the ground and has a chance of hitting everyone. Additionally, there is a new item, the Horn, which can be used to prevent the blue shell from hitting you in first place (among other things). This update to Mario Kart puts a strong strategic focus on item management, incentivising holding onto items for the right moment rather than spamming them as soon as you get one. It proves that with creative thinking, even the most ridiculous of game mechanics can be iterated and improved upon.

I know this is really tangential, but I think there's merit to considering how we can iterate on even the most unconventional of game mechanics. I don't think a no-interaction game is fundamentally guaranteed to be awful, but both of the attempts that FRC has made on the concept had some pretty significant flaws.

[nixiebunny]

The event that precipitated this thread was an encounter with one of my fellow engineers at my day job in the radio astronomy factory where I work.

He was holding a calibration hot-load slider mechanism in his hands, and I mentioned that we build stuff exactly like that for our robots, Bimba cylinders and all. He asked me what this year's game was, and I tried to describe the tote stacking stuff. He said, "Jenga?" I said, "No, more like working in a warehouse."

But you know, Jenga would be a really fun game to play with robots!

[techhelpbb]

The title of this topic is ironic:

I build things for a living.
Watching these things actually in production is like watching your child take their first steps.

So why would it be a bad thing that what the competition does is teach us something actually applicable & useful?

Would we be as negative about game theory?

If only you could aspire to do what you love, even if it's not just a game.

[jvriezen]

I hope everyone realizes that the Step (and thus separation of the alliances) was added late in the game design process soley due to the constant, incessant moaning and compaining about the defense last year.

I suspect it was also brought on by the need to give the excellent volunteer refs a big contrast to their extreme workload last year. If I were a ref and went through two consecutive years like 2014, I'd probably not be back again-- at least not as a ref.

The change also gave inspectors a big break, because bumpers. Bumpers consumes a lot of inspection bandwidth.

[Citrus Dad]

I know FIRST wants to draw more excitement and attention to Engineering/STEM but it's still engineering....

Point is if you can't handle this maybe slightly less exciting game you get your excitement from the wrong place. I'm excited about getting twice as good at Labview than I was in 2014 ago and that my team can finally use vision processing.

KelliV and Robochik1319 express a view more reflective of the target audience of FIRST. Dean invented this sport to attract students who otherwise would not look to STEM through excitement. Students like you would have just gone into some other STEM activity and pretty much ended up where you will be. You're an important part of FIRST because you can impart your knowledge to those students who weren't attracted until they saw something exciting, like our team captain from 2013 who switched from being a fashion designer to a mechanical engineer. This is about transforming how others seem STEM opportunities, not how they are today.

[Christopher149]

Now suppose that at a given event, alliance 1, 2, 7, and 8 are objectively the best alliances.

Sounds like 2015 Traverse City (http://www.thebluealliance.com/event/2015mitvc). Rank going into semis was ordered 1, 8, 2, 7.

[Siri]

I hope everyone realizes that the Step (and thus separation of the alliances) was added late in the game design process soley due to the constant, incessant moaning and compaining about the defense last year.

Now look at us: complaining about not enough strategy ie. defense.

While both these games may be seen as the two extremes, we asked for it.

I personally see merit in both sides of the arguement about the quality of this year's game, but I cannot help but realize that we brought this on ourselves.People were moaning about defense last year? I remember people moaning about how the GDC tried to regulate defense last year. (Who wanted that unscheduled G27 game update?) I remember people complaining that the GDC had designed a game that overemphasized defense by saying "I wonder what happens if we put three robots on each alliance but only let one play offense at a time?" And then tried make the overburdened refs force it in line with their vision. But I don't remember anyone complaining that defense existed last year. No one, that is, except the GDC itself. And they (at least from my perspective as a coach and ref) were much, much, much, much, much louder about it than any other complaint about anything I heard all season.

I'm not saying that no one outside the GDC did complain about defense. I'm sure people did, and for understandable reasons. I'm just saying that it's only inherently hypocritical if you consider the community to be a monolith, which it definitely is not.


In terms of this game, I understand that each game design has different merits. From a team perspective, everything is a challenge and is potentially acceptable as such. This is not to say that you can't complain about whatever you want. Or that you shouldn't be upset when your ~$2000 minibot R&D gets cloned en masse for $50. Or that you can't pretend a game doesn't exist if it was basically one big charlie foxtrot on ice. But I'd like to propose two first-draft metrics for game merit. 1) Be sellable to sponsors. 2) Not alienate volunteers. Of course these are still subjective, but I'd say it's clear that 2015 > 2014 on #2 and 2015 < 2014 on #1. I know refs that left last year because of the toll the game took on us. I hope no one loses a current or potential sponsor this year to "competitive box stacking", but based on comments here and elsewhere, I'm not overly confident. And I would argue that that, no matter how much you or I personally (dis)like the game, is a problem.

[Jaywalker1711]

Sounds like 2015 Traverse City (http://www.thebluealliance.com/event/2015mitvc). Rank going into semis was ordered 1, 8, 2, 7.

And then the 1 and 2 went into the finals. I mentioned something similar in another thread. I think that the 1 alliance is winning more than ever this year. I can't complain though since this worked out in our benefit :D


That all being said, this is my last year of FRC, and I have to say I hoped for a different kind of game. However, I like a lot of aspects of the game, such as the delay the chute door (yes) provides. Build season was also very challenging and fun.

My least favorite part of this year is that you cannot counter another alliances strategy. In the semi-finals and finals my alliance did the exact same thing five times in a row. We won handily because nobody could stop us.



But seriously guys, it's too late to change the game now so what good does complaining do? Even if it's not the normal competitive game, I still had an amazing time at our districts. Have fun with what is there!

[JesseK]

I hope everyone realizes that the Step (and thus separation of the alliances) was added late in the game design process soley due to the constant, incessant moaning and compaining about the defense last year.

I'm curious how you know the step was added late in the game design process.

If there were a landfill but no step (as well as a safe zone near the HP stations), I think this game would be extremely interesting.

[MrForbes]

I'm getting a bit burned out by this year's competition.

I think it's your practice bot that did it to you....I'm not burned out.....we got to quit working on Feb 17th.

As for being like a job, I don't see it that way. I'm not getting paid for robotics, so it's still a game.

See you tonight!

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

I'm curious how you know the step was added late in the game design process.

If there were a landfill but no step (as well as a safe zone near the HP stations), I think this game would be extremely interesting.

Frank mentioned it when he was a guest on Gamesense. He did mention that the GDC was pretty split on the decision of adding the step and removing defense. I have to agree though that if the landfill was a neutral zone and step removed, we might have seen much cooler play especially at the highest level. As it stands now, Einstein will probably be decided in the first second of autonomous. Though I'll wait to see if that will end up being the case or not.

[Chris Endres]

If we're going on "is Recycle Rush a spectator friendly game"? I'd say that on a scale of yes to no, it's a meh. The aspect of the game is similiar to other first games, regardless of game pieces, stacking and scoring are present in many FRC and FTC games. I remember seeing FRC for the first time in 2008, and all I could think of was " what the hell is happening?". Looking back at a bunch of other games, 2007 there was no real exciting aspect of the game: "bruh, did you just score a tube on a post? No freaking way, that's the most exciting thing I've ever seen." (Said no one) . I can list a bunch more games where watching it made you fall asleep, even in those crappy stadium seats.

If I didn't know what FIRST was, and I watched a high-end match from champs, I would get really interested. The intensity of a stack falling over, last second scoring, bin grabbing, tipping, its all exciting. Not to mention, it easier to see what each robot is doing, rather than 2013/2014, where every robot on the field were running everywhere.

I don't know, I'd say we stop complaining and look at the positives. We see new rules, allowing new mecahnisms and designs to come into FRC. Have anyone seen an kiwi be this effective since 2008? No. Would you ever see another awesome drive like holonomic kiwi from a high end team, and be this effective, with games like 2013 and 2014? No.

Everybody, chill and play the game out.

[Abhishek R]

To talk about a point someone brought up earlier: why couldn't we have a round robin format with wins/losses?

[menns]

I found at the first competition I attended that the game was more exciting to watch than I expected. The seeding system does however have an unfortunate side effect.
Usually, throughout the qualification matches, a team's ranking peaks right after they have played (and won) a match and then slips as other teams win in subsequent matches. They way it works this year with average scores is that a team's ranking can go up as a result of match in which they weren't playing. The effect of this is that when I'm watching a match which my team isn't playing I find myself hoping for both alliances to do poorly. With the more usual seeding system based on win & losses I would typically be cheering for underdogs in hopes that they defeat higher ranked teams.
Cheering for someone to win in more fun than hoping all the robots on the field perform poorly.

[jvriezen]

Frank mentioned it when he was a guest on Gamesense. He did mention that the GDC was pretty split on the decision of adding the step and removing defense. I have to agree though that if the landfill was a neutral zone and step removed, we might have seen much cooler play especially at the highest level. As it stands now, Einstein will probably be decided in the first second of autonomous. Though I'll wait to see if that will end up being the case or not.

Wondering if there might be a 'CanBurgler' agreement at the higher levels of play. Both sides agree to grab two cans (not fighting over them), and may the fastest stacker/topper win.

An alternative to avoid the 1/2 second decider issue, would be to make step resources off limits until an alliance has placed a set number (6?) of (capped?) grey totes on scoring platforms. Or maybe you can't get a step can until you've used your three cans to cap stacks-- now its a race..

Maybe some good ideas for IRI and other off season events ?

[Kevin Leonard]

Wondering if there might be a 'CanBurgler' agreement at the higher levels of play. Both sides agree to grab two cans (not fighting over them), and may the fastest stacker/topper win.

An alternative to avoid the 1/2 second decider issue, would be to make step resources off limits until an alliance has placed a set number (6?) of (capped?) grey totes on scoring platforms. Or maybe you can't get a step can until you've used your three cans to cap stacks-- now its a race..

Maybe some good ideas for IRI and other off season events ?

At the highest levels, whichever team has the slower can stealer needs to be the lower seed for finals so they can place their robots second.

As for IRI/off-season changes, I was thinking just having extra recycling containers behind the driver station that can be put into play over the driver station wall.
This would increase the maximum scoring potential of both Alliances.

[SousVide]

ok, here's the thing - and it might be something that many numerous teams do not have problems with. Money and external interest. And I am going to stop beating this dead horse after this.

I want to keep doing FIRST. There are many many students that want to keep doing FIRST. and we will keep doing it no matter what the game is. We *do* appreciate all of the work GDC does, all of the work that FIRST volunteers and employees do that make all of this possible.

A lot of teams have a different level of struggle (on the higher end) as far as juggling sponsors and interests - perhaps there's a stable base and you are worried about a different aspect of fundraising and sponsor drives.

Here in California, the State Court recently in the last 2 years or so, made a ruling on a suit. The end result is that after-school extra-curricular activities can not require fundraising as a basis for participation/membership. We can ask people to help, but we can't require it. We can *not* charge a membership fee, equipment fee, or anything like it. As long as we are tied to a public school, our team has a very strict set of handcuffs regarding how to implement our schemes to generate cash inflow. The ideas behind it are great - making it a level playing field and provide a certain set of fairness for participation. However, it makes it extremely difficult to staff fundraiser events.

We enjoy building the robot and seeing the students overcome challenges. The problem is if I have a difficult time generating interest and sponsorships, we won't get a chance to make the robot. The "meh" faces I'm getting from this year - from sponsors and parents - are all that I want to bring attention to. I like promoting FIRST and the game, this year I just find myself trying to apologize instead of cheering alongside my excited visitors at the game.

I know it's a hard job putting together these games and the events. However, I do still want to bring to light some of the challenges that other teams face on the fundraising end - and the overall goal of bringing FIRST and STEM to the general public. I know that every team out there struggles with their budget every year - FRC is expensive. For some teams, maybe losing sponsorship mean having to look for another great shop that can powder-coat their robot. For us, it might mean "no money, no robot"

[techhelpbb]

The "meh" faces I'm getting from this year - from sponsors and parents - are all that I want to bring attention to. I like promoting FIRST and the game, this year I just find myself trying to apologize instead of cheering alongside my excited visitors at the game.


Using this as a metric:

You know that to people that don't know FIRST the very first thing they think I am talking about is RobotWars TM.

So for the first section of a conversation they think we are going to build robots and smash them up like Romans in the Colosseum.
I suppose we could argue that the Colosseum was very effective at occupying the Roman Empire's interest.
We are being even more humane because we are only smashing up robots.

- Point being - sometimes we want to get the right attention.

RobotWars was all about entertainment.
It did not work like a true balanced competition behind the scenes.

[GreyingJay]

It's true. Almost every time I open a conversation with "So I've been volunteering with a high school robotics team" the other person says "Oh, like Robot Wars?"

The reaction when I explain "it stacks boxes" is always a little fun to watch... but when you get into the eliminations and finals, things start to look very interesting. Races between can-grabbers, the "will it fall?" when a team puts down a precarious looking 6-tote stack with RC, the moment when a robot is in the act of putting down an RC just as the timer hits 0 (will it count??) and who can forget the moment in the Finals 2 at GTR Central when a pool noodle landed inside 1114's robot and toppled the stack it was trying to build, leaving a tote jammed in the mechanism for a few precious seconds.

It kinda sounds lame to read it, but it was so intense to watch!

[jvriezen]

A team parent is a photographer for the small town newspaper and got a press pass and took lots of pictures at Northern Lights.

The picture caption in this week's newspaper photo from the event was literally "Robot Wars."

The media knows what sells, I guess.

[SousVide]

ok, no metrics are necessary - I am just trying to bring more people in to get interest in this - though at a certain level it *is* a little bit of selfishness, because the team (and FIRST in general) needs a little more recognition - and our team (like most teams out there I'm sure) needs money. I can't get money without the attention - good or bad (but definitely hoping it's all good).

I don't need metrics or Robot Wars or whatever - I myself actually didn't even know about Robot Wars until several years after I'd started FIRST - maybe I'm closeted or something. And funny enough. I only get that "Robot Wars" reaction maybe 25% of the time. It comes up once in awhile, but definitely much much much less than half of the time.

and Robot Wars is coming back now, so that's going to be another problem come next season.

All I am saying is, "I" and the team don't have any problems with the game - other than the fact that it is - from our perspective and the anecdotal "metric" of looking at my visitors faces and their frantic search for words "that don't insult me" (such as lame) when I show them "look our robot stacks boxes" as compared to "look, our robot shoots/kicks balls/frisbees or races around a track tossing balls or anything else"... - getting more blank stares from my visitors and parents.

I want to show them a game where it's very obviously team-oriented, that it's something akin to some type of sport - so that there is no problem in their minds to make that small leap from what they are already familiar with to what I want them to know - which is what we do is very relatable... As you know, sometimes you only have a few short seconds to make a pitch, the more I have to explain, the quicker they lose interest.

I am interested in converting more minds quicker and not turning them off. If that's a metric, that's the one I'm interested in. I really could careless about Robot Wars - it's pretty much the first thing I immediately discount fairly early in the program each season. FIRST brings the added value of GP and Professionalism that I don't see in VEX or Robot Wars (no insult to any of the other fine programs, I'm sure there are great people playing it. It's just not necessarily a front-and-center stated value)

[GreyingJay]

I think the real issue here is that it takes a certain level of knowledge of the game (any game) before you can start to appreciate and enjoy watching.

Robots playing soccer? Everybody gets that, because everybody knows what soccer is (or, even if you don't, you are at least familiar with the concept of kicking a ball around). So anyone who has seen soccer knows what they are looking at when they see robots chasing the ball, passing between teammates, intercepting, shooting.

And due to the nature of man, everyone understands the concept of bashing into other robots to prevent them from achieving their goals, of offense and defense. Violence, basically. Everybody gets that. It's obvious, and compelling.

Robots stacking boxes? It takes a little more understanding to figure out what the heck is going on, but once you see it, then you see it (if that makes sense). Ah, look, that one is holding the RC hoping for the other one to finish a tote stack. See? They are working together. Oh, there's only 10 seconds left, will 1247 be able to finish its double-stack from the tote feeder and get it onto a scoring platform in time? There is real drama there but only if you understand the rules. And since there is no direct interaction between the two competing alliances (save for the canburgling in the very beginning), there is that much less "obvious" stuff to look at and understand.

[jvriezen]

FIRST brings the added value of GP and Professionalism that I don't see in VEX or Robot Wars (no insult to any of the other fine programs, I'm sure there are great people playing it. It's just not necessarily a front-and-center stated value)

Here's something worth trying when you introduce someone to FRC. Instead of starting with explaining the current year game mechanics, explain the key differentiator which you noted above-- the GP and Coopertition. So instead of "This is a great program, our team built a robot to stack totes", say "This is a great program. Teams built their bots in six weeks and right now in the pits there are veteran teams loaning parts, tools and work for other teams to repair and improve their bots, so that all the bots are as good as they can be. That's like a football team loaning a lineman to the opponents!"

[BrennanB]

This is gonna be a long one, so bear with me. I wanted to hold off until I had actually played the game. (did so last week)

To a large extent, the 2015 game has solved many of the problems that games have had/people have complained about in the past:

Aggressive Defense resulting in robot damage:

-This was only really a topic of discussion in 2014, where there were no safe zones and had carpet with 6 CIM drive trains.

-Since you can't go over and touch the other robots, this isn't a problem anymore
*I still think this could be largely avoided and wasn't that big of a deal
**I didn't watch every instance of damaging contact, and there may have been a situation where it was a big deal

Overworked Referees:

-2014 had a ref intensive game where they had to be looking in five different directions at the same time, leading to missed calls/controversial calls
-There are now scorers for the live score display, and simpler/less controversial rules. Refs have less work to do now.

Game outcome changing penalties:

-Many, many outcomes of games were changed because of the 50 pnt Tech foul in 2014. No other year really had this issue (maybe 2010 to a lesser extent with ball return penalties)
-Penalties are relatively small for 2015, and definitely not changing outcomes.

*50 pnt foul was needed in order to make it enough of a deterrent to not "steal the opponents ball" making it impossible for them to score.

Ambiguous/Unclear Rules:

-2014 had rules that were called largely by "intent". My intent isn't the same as your intent, which isn't the same as his intent... etc etc.
-2015 has clear rules

Bumpers:

-From 2009-2014 FRC required full bumpers on the robot, mounted in a specific zone, with red/blue requirements starting in 2010.
-Bumpers were a lot of work to make, mount, and be easily removable to change colors. Many teams (mainly rookies) would show up to events with no/illegal bumpers, and thus adding a bunch of stress on them etc.

-2015 has no bumper requirement, so one less thing to worry about. Teams are out on the field earlier.

Seeding:

-Schedule luck played a huge roll in how well you seeded. Only play against bad teams, and only play with good teams and you can seed higher than robots that may be better than you.

-2015 mitigates match schedule to a massive degree. If you have a couple of matches with good teams, sure you will rise up in the rankings, but not to the same degree as past years. This means teams with no list that weren't prepared to pick can read off the scoreboard and have a better chance at picking a decent team. Also, it is incredibly unlikely that the best robot at the event doesn't seed first.

Eliminations Bracket:

-Especially prevalent since the wildcard system began, teams would decline to be on the "other side of the bracket" of the powerful alliance in an attempt to get a wildcard slot to champs. AKA (avoiding #4,5,8 alliances)

-2015 obviously has no "bracket" really, and it is entirely possible for you to get to the finals without having to worry if you will have to play the first seed.

Give the GDC credit, virtually every single complaint that people have had about games in the last 5 years, they have worked to solve.

That being said. Obviously the game isn't perfect.

Autonomous is too hard

There are waaay to many 0 autonomous scores. It requires (for the average team) everyone on the alliance to have a functional autonomous. Honestly, I don't know why the GDC didn't make it per robot/tote/can/stack. It's a bad idea to change now, since teams with 3 tote/can autons have recognized the value of autonomous, and have a nice advantage because of it.

Perhaps the GDC was trying to implement a part of the game where all three robots have to work together in order to score points, which I think is a good thing. The problem is autonomous isn't the place you should do it. Teams can't help alliance members that quickly with code based issues, especially in quals at a regional. Not to mention even if I had time, if I use Java, and they use C++, then I might have a hard time helping them move/get an auton working.

Games are less exciting

I'm not going to argue that the matches are boring, but I think we can all agree that they most definitely aren't as exciting as past years. Especially 2014. I think the major contributor to this is the ranking system (which we already established fixes some other problems)

Wins don't matter. Every sporting event is really based around the win, then the secondary is the points. In 2015 wins don't matter, so you don't care if you win or lose (or team 9999 wins or loses) you care about their averages. Before/during the match when all the hype should be, you don't know what the team needs to do to raise their average. Are they doing well/poorly? Who knows! Sure you know their rank, but what do they need to score to move up/down. You have to look at the rankings on your phone/laptop to figure out where each team is at. Simply put, the audience isn't engaged until the end of the match when the scores are released, but by then all the hype is gone, and the score doesn't matter too much because it's not a win/loss situation.

That all being said, lets not forget the many matches where the alliance spends the entire match shooting the ball and missing the highgoal. The team that spends the entire match getting to a 10 point hang only to fall of at the end of the match. Or the matches where nobody can pick up the tubes off the floor and they forget to attempt to deploy their minibot. It's not as bad as people make it out to be. This game still can and will be exciting.

There are a couple other small things like strategically this game is a bit more bland than 2014, but no more bland than any other year. There is also the controversial 3rd robot with a ramp & doesn't move strategy.

The GDC listened to what you had to say but I think to some extent we have a bit of one of Aesop's fables: The Man, the Boy, and the Donkey. (http://www.bartleby.com/17/1/62.html) You can't please everyone, so don't try to. Someone will always have something to complain about.

Is this game bad? No.
Were other games better? No.
Do I prefer other games over this one? Yes.
Does someone prefer this game over other games? Yes.


Now then. Lets stop complaining all over CD about how bad the game is, and instead think of how you can play the game better.

tl;dr The game doesn't suck, it's just different. /thread

[techhelpbb]

I think this year's game appeals to those intested in strategic games (board games or otherwise).

I think the other, more sports oriented games, appeal to audiences that prefer semi-contact sports.

[Citrus Dad]

This is gonna be a long one, so bear with me. I wanted to hold off until I had actually played the game. (did so last week)

To a large extent, the 2015 game has solved many of the problems that games have had/people have complained about in the past:

Aggressive Defense resulting in robot damage:

Bumpers:

Now then. Lets stop complaining all over CD about how bad the game is, and instead think of how you can play the game better.

I agree that the GDC addressed many of the complaints about last year's game (which were listed on CD BTW so I assume that's where they got them--more on that later). However they didn't need this game design to address most of them.

However I disagree with the 2 categories I've quoted from your list. Completely disengaging the teams is not a useful solution. Robot interaction has been one of the most important aspects of the success of FRC to date. I'm not sure that the bumper issues is so important that to create such a draconian solution--it sounds more like it could be solved in the inspection process (e.g., special help on bumper installation at inspection). The robot damage has been problem. We played with a broken frame clamped together in the final at IE last year. While on one hand that made it more difficult; on the other hand, the team had to work furiously to solve a real world engineering problem of a type that many will face in the field in their careers with real consequences, even lives, as stake. Regardless the robot damage issue can be solved with combinations of safe zones and obstructions that inhibit high speed collisions. (Think traffic calming devices on roads.)

Finally, as I mentioned above I presume that the GDC saw the complaints about the 2014 game on CD and addressed those. That means that we can get somewhere on design of next year's (and future) games by listing issues here. I made laudatory comments about last year's game concept; I'm going the other way this year. I assume that the GDC will avoid slippery surfaces and HP tosses into opposing robots after the 2009 game based on the complaints on CD. I think we have a long list from this year's game.

And I think we've demonstrated that we are thinking about how to play the game better--see CVR. But look at our collective comments--we're thinking beyond just this year.

[MooreteP]

This is gonna be a long one, so bear with me.
Give the GDC credit, virtually every single complaint that people have had about games in the last 5 years, they have worked to solve.

That being said. Obviously the game isn't perfect.
Perhaps the GDC was trying to implement a part of the game where all three robots have to work together in order to score points, which I think is a good thing. The problem is autonomous isn't the place you should do it. Teams can't help alliance members that quickly with code based issues, especially in quals at a regional. Not to mention even if I had time, if I use Java, and they use C++, then I might have a hard time helping them move/get an auton working.

Is this game bad? No.
Were other games better? No.
Do I prefer other games over this one? Yes.
Does someone prefer this game over other games? Yes.


Now then. Lets stop complaining all over CD about how bad the game is, and instead think of how you can play the game better.

This^

Also, your team has one of the best Robot Crates ever.

http://i.imgur.com/igAbrxkh.jpg (http://imgur.com/igAbrxk)

Smile

[Squillo]

Our team has a "middling" robot - the ones everyone seems to feel get 'left behind' this year. I disagree. This year, for the first time, it seems that we are actually placing where we deserve to be - the middle of the pack. I hope we will do better at our next competition, having had more driver practice, etc., but even if we don't, I really like the new seeding, because a "middling" team gets credit (in terms of points, which increase QA score) for what it DOES do, rather than being shut out from getting any credit just because it's up against a better team. It's really frustrating for a team like ours to work so hard to build a robot that CAN, and DOES, shoot a few balls/frisbees, has a 10-pt hang, can balance on the bridge sometimes, etc., but still gets loss after loss because it ends up paired with similar (or less capable) teams and against more skilled teams. It feels like there is NO reward for all that work. Sure, there is the occasional win, and sometimes we would get that win because of our 'bot, but in our competitions over the past few years, it seems like the downside to a 'win-loss' ranking outweighed the upside. In this year's game, we are racking up points right next to anyone we play with - whether they are the proud owners of a 'toaster' or a total powerhouse.

Also, we get to actually PLAY the game, and have our robot DO what we built it to do (in the Quals, at least - I do understand that we might be asked to 'sit still' or at least 'stay out of the way' if we ever got picked by a powerhouse for the playoffs). We aren't just asked to "play defense" all the time - we get to build stacks no matter who we are playing with. And we aren't getting totally shut down by the other side's defense.

And I totally don't get the "we're losing sponsors because it's not a fun sport to watch" or "hard to describe". Our sponsors help us because of what we're doing for the students, how we're helping them, inspiring them - maybe out of a bit of local pride (we're the only team on our island, and most of our sponsors are local) - I don't think most of them even know what the game is from year to year, and as long as the kids are enjoying the activity, and learning and getting inspired in STEM areas, well, that is what we tell the sponsors and what they care about. I mean, we're not talking sponsors who are really hoping to gain market share because their logo is on a robot, right? This isn't NASCAR or professional sports. No one thinks their company is going to get media exposure because they sponsor a FIRST team, do they? Maybe I'm just living in a different world. We get our sponsors through OUR enthusiasm for the game/activity, not because THEY are excited about the competition itself - is this not the norm?

I do agree that autonomous this year is too much "all or nothing" - it would have been better if there had been a point for just getting YOUR robot into the zone, 2 points for getting a tote or container in, etc., with a BONUS for getting all three (robots/totes/containers). This year's auto scoring leaves a lot to be desired, but I think the GDC will learn from it.

Not sure yet how I feel about coopertition this year. I think the disconnect between having coop points contribute so much toward a high ranking in Quals, and then be completely absent from playoffs, is a bit of a problem. Unless you can get into the top tier (i.e., the "pickers") b/c of coopertition, then there is not much point in doing it, because it is unlikely that a score inflated by coop points will lead to being "picked". I would be happier if the coop task were something that could be used in the playoffs (like the bridge balancing in whatever year that was), and/or if the points achieved were more proportional to the value of the task in playoffs. What if a coopertition bonus were given only if each alliance was able to remove at least one can from the step to their side? To get it at all, red would have to get a can off the step AND blue would too. That could maybe add 10-20 points to both alliances' scores. Just a wild musing...

[jvriezen]

This is gonna be a long one, so bear with me. I wanted to hold off until I had actually played the game. (did so last week)

To a large extent, the 2015 game has solved many of the problems that games have had/people have complained about in the past:

Aggressive Defense resulting in robot damage:
Overworked Referees:
Ambiguous/Unclear Rules:
Bumpers:
Seeding:
Eliminations Bracket:


Sounds a lot like what I posted before kickoff:

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1416736&postcount=411

[BrennanB]

However I disagree with the 2 categories I've quoted from your list. Completely disengaging the teams is not a useful solution. Robot interaction has been one of the most important aspects of the success of FRC to date. I'm not sure that the bumper issues is so important that to create such a draconian solution--it sounds more like it could be solved in the inspection process (e.g., special help on bumper installation at inspection). The robot damage has been problem. We played with a broken frame clamped together in the final at IE last year. While on one hand that made it more difficult; on the other hand, the team had to work furiously to solve a real world engineering problem of a type that many will face in the field in their careers with real consequences, even lives, as stake. Regardless the robot damage issue can be solved with combinations of safe zones and obstructions that inhibit high speed collisions. (Think traffic calming devices on roads.)

The intent was to point out some good things about this game. It just so happens that the majority of those things were directly related to what people have talked about on CD. (mainly last year as people were more vocal) All the things I stated were solutions, just not necessarily the best one.

As for bumpers... if I had to guess, the removal of them is more related to the zero contact than anything else, but I would still call it a "good thing" about the game.

Finally, as I mentioned above I presume that the GDC saw the complaints about the 2014 game on CD and addressed those. That means that we can get somewhere on design of next year's (and future) games by listing issues here.

Ideally yes, the discussion results in a positive outcome for next years game. I will be waiting wait till after championships.

And I think we've demonstrated that we are thinking about how to play the game better--see CVR. But look at our collective comments--we're thinking beyond just this year.

You are right, some people are thinking about how to play the game better. It's the people that aren't that worry me.

[Jaywalker1711]

While I think that often people do not understand the game, or any FRC game, I think that there is one thing people do understand: people
There's all this talk about Robot Wars and whatever, and I am sad to hear about that kind of press. But sometimes the media gets it.


This is the front page of the local paper from Monday

https://scontent-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/t31.0-8/11041916_10204887619684459_6738234757792880547_o.j pg

There's a whole page later devoted to pictures of the robots and other teams.


See, it's not all about the robots. It's about the people who build the robots. It's not all about the game. It's all about how you play the game

[SousVide]

Here's something worth trying when you introduce someone to FRC. Instead of starting with explaining the current year game mechanics, explain the key differentiator which you noted above-- the GP and Coopertition. So instead of "This is a great program, our team built a robot to stack totes", say "This is a great program. Teams built their bots in six weeks and right now in the pits there are veteran teams loaning parts, tools and work for other teams to repair and improve their bots, so that all the bots are as good as they can be. That's like a football team loaning a lineman to the opponents!"

I am so glad that you brought this up; Because that is something that we do.

Here's the thing. When I walk up to someone who doesn't know FIRST or Robotics or don't really care that I am talking with them; they already immediately assume that we (he/she and I) do something different - that's pretty much a given. In their minds, most of the time is "Oh, Science, oh Engineering, oh Robots. I can't do that."

First thing I let them know is none of the mentors or students knew anything about FIRST or Robotics when they first started. Heck, some of the students haven't touched a handtool before.

The first thing I want to show them is - we are doing the same thing - not different - find common ground. That gets them on "our" side, then I show them that there's something that we all want and those "GP" things are what we are doing - shared vision.

So, if I am struggling to get off the ground to find common ground - their first impression that we do something different is going to stick...

I think Squillo mentioned that sponsors donate and support out of local pride - I definitely have no doubt about that many other teams (and not just in Hawaii) have a local town that are similarly proud for their one team or one school. By and large, that isn't the type of merchants and sponsors we have locally and unfortunately. I am almost always stuck with cold calls - and if I'm lucky, I'll get invited to actually do a short presentation about what we are and why they should support us. I can't get one by "easily" (I am sure it's not easy to come by and you do have to work at it) with a shaka, a smile, and "Hey Bruddah". I am happy that other teams have tight knit communities that they can "easily" find that common ground. It's not as easy finding those type of common ground here - it's there and they are terrifically supportive - unfortunately, it takes more and when we are reaching out - it often comes down to being able to show them something physical that means something to them.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

No it isn't.

Not at all.

Not in the SLIGHTEST.

There is a game so bad (or so ill-documented, your choice) that FIRST doesn't post its summary on their website in the archives. Fortunately, or not, some documentation (https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B_NPAkx7sAJARUxKcDdsOFpfSk0&usp=sharing) is preserved by the TechnoKats History Project.

The name? Diabolical Dynamics. The year? 2001. The game? Score playground balls into goals, balance said goals on a seesaw, and get as many of your alliance to the far end of the field as possible before hitting the E-stop for a multiplier. Did I mention that it was played 4v0, with no second alliance on the field?


BTW, #2 on that list happens to be Lunacy (2009). This is a distant #3 at best. I'm still trying to decide whether I prefer Stack Attack (2003) or this game for the #3 spot on the "worst game" list.

As far as being a 'game' goes, I agree that 2001 was the worst, and I think this year is #2 (I actually enjoyed Lunacy and Stack attack, but I'm sadistic like that ;) )

That being said, I believe that this years challenge is one of the best engineering 'Challenges' FIRST has ever given. The shear difficulty with stacking multiple, different sized, heavy game pieces in a very confined space with other robots that can be 'fairly' large is a huge undertaking. Add the dynamics of coopertition (SP?) stacks and noodle throwing strategies and this is a very difficult challenge.

I, for one, congratulate the GDC on thinking outside the (proverbial) box.

[pmangels17]

To talk about a point someone brought up earlier: why couldn't we have a round robin format with wins/losses?

I didn't say we couldn't, in fact I think we should. I just haven't really thought through how to decide who matches up with who and how we decide who moves ahead. I think win-loss-tie round robin would be the ideal eliminations format.

[waialua359]

KoKo Ed said it the best.

On Thursdays, its ZZZZ.
On Fridays, there are too many matches that are ZZZZ.
But on Saturdays during eliminations, there are as good as any previous season, especially if you are still playing come the finals. Is it really any different than previous years?

The game is definitely different compared to the last several years, but the excitement as a whole hasnt changed.

With Championships much bigger starting this year, I see it as gettting to a whole new level with the 8 divisions.
Matches are more fun and exciting when both alliances on the field are more evenly matched, where the better strategy wins matches. We should see a whole lot more given that elite teams will have a tough time getting 3 elite robots on the same alliance due the increase of divisions and teams.

[Green Potato]

In the last few years, some people paid the majority of the attention to the best robot on each alliance in eliminations, because it often appeared to the team. Some people opened their eyes more and looked at the whole alliance as a unit. However, this year in elims, I find myself taking note of how elimination alliances handle the weakest robot on the field. Some alliances sort of push it off to the sides to keep it out of the way of the higher seeds, and some try harder to integrate it into their alliance.

[Jared Russell]

This is worse than 2001 and 2009 IMO. At least in those years, every robot on the field mattered, and there was some variation in what you were going to see from match to match.

It felt like FRC was becoming an actual sport for a while, and then all of sudden we're doing a no-touching forklift skills competition instead. If this is the new normal, I'm out. Plain and simple. I'd rather be at work.

[Chris Endres]

Now then. Lets stop complaining all over CD about how bad the game is, and instead think of how you can play the game better.

tl;dr The game doesn't suck, it's just different. /thread

Amen, plz stahp.

[Travis Hoffman]

Im not wanting to start a war I simply want to drop the atomic bomb to end it.

Your nuclear game is weak. People who know me know that I can sustain a critical campaign against various flawed aspects of games and their administration by staff and volunteers for weeks, if motivated. But instead of issuing my own extended opinion this time, I will simply encourage any and all who have disagreements over the game to continue to voice them constructively. Please do ensure you fill out the event feedback surveys FIRST issues to competing teams each week - both students and mentors are free to fill these out. And yes, feel free to post your misgivings on CD. We know the GDC is listening. Identify the problem(s) and propose corrective action.

I am recognizing this game as a HOPEFULLY temporary divergence from a more traditional competition. If this type of game becomes the norm, FIRST can throw the "Sport for the Mind" and "Super Bowl of Smarts" taglines right out the window.

"Material Handling for the Mind"? It's definitely harder to capture the hearts and minds of the uninitiated when the vehicle is a forklift instead of a snazzy "sports" car.

[jman4747]

"Material Handling for the Mind"? It's definitely harder to capture the hearts and minds of the uninitiated when the vehicle is a forklift instead of a snazzy "sports" car.

But we've never had sports cars! I still say if you came for an exciting game to watch as a spectator then you missed the point. FIRST isn't about spectating it's about involvement. Involvement of kids, mentors, companies, and volunteers. None of the companies who sponsor our team got involved because of the game we are playing, they were impressed by what we students were doing.

The first time I saw any kind of robotics was 2010 championships and when I got there I didn't so much as look a the playing field because I had no idea what was going on. Most outsides looking at FRC never get what's happening on the field unless one of us explains it anyway. Furthermore most games start out with most teams not doing much on days 1 & 2 of the regional this is no different.

Kids may think shooting frisbees is cool but how many would really want to put in the work to build a 2013 bot? The inspiration is in the work the game gives us work and has us trying to improve to beat each other at it. Being a competition and not a science far offers the motivation for us. Most people who spectate pro basketball don't participate and a pro game of basketball is more "exciting" to watch than any year of FRC. Playing the game, FRC or basketball, has a whole lot more to it than the match.

[Chris Hibner]

I still say if you came for an exciting game to watch as a spectator then you missed the point. FIRST isn't about spectating it's about involvement.

Don't take this the wrong way, but you may be missing the point that a lot of us are trying to make: you get more involvement with an exciting competition.

I'm not saying that the students THIS YEAR will be more or less involved - I'm talking about future involvement. If you bring new people to an event and they find it exciting and fun, they are more likely to get involved. On the other hand, if they're bored to tears they're much more likely to think "this is stupid" and find better things to do with their time.

[jman4747]

Don't take this the wrong way, but you may be missing the point that a lot of us are trying to make: you get more involvement with an exciting competition.

I'm not saying that the students THIS YEAR will be more or less involved - I'm talking about future involvement. If you bring new people to an event and they find it exciting and fun, they are more likely to get involved. On the other hand, if they're bored to tears they're much more likely to think "this is stupid" and find better things to do with their time.

My statement was to mean that our involvement and the work we do is what gets people looking into STEM and supporting stem based education not how the matches look. The competition being exciting is one reason we might stay involved and there is more to the excitement than how much happens in a mach.

FRC matches never look "cool" to outsiders at lower and medium levels of play and usually not even at high levels. That aspect is no different than years past. This challenge is great and the competition is as good as its ever been.

[SousVide]

While I think that often people do not understand the game, or any FRC game, I think that there is one thing people do understand: people
There's all this talk about Robot Wars and whatever, and I am sad to hear about that kind of press. But sometimes the media gets it.


This is the front page of the local paper from Monday

(snipped out the picture as it's a large image for reinclude)

There's a whole page later devoted to pictures of the robots and other teams.


See, it's not all about the robots. It's about the people who build the robots. It's not all about the game. It's all about how you play the game

Excellent article. Congrats on your team's win.

[Wayne TenBrink]

This game reminds me of a bowling tournament with 3-person teams. You are rewarded for being able to perform the same task (manipulating a heavy object) in the same setting (at least for chute loaders), over and over again without messing up. What happens on the next lane over has little impact on your game. Now with "Cheese-caking", its like a bowling tournament where the best bowler gets to throw the second ball for the weakest bowler.

I do like the engineering challenge. Its a nice departure from handling spheres or inflated tubes, and the robot rules have given teams an opportunity to think outside the normal box.

I can handle the different tournament format and lack of direct interaction once in a while, but I hope it isn't the new norm.

[Siri]

FRC matches never look "cool" to outsiders at lower and medium levels of play and usually not even at high levels. That aspect is no different than years past. This challenge is great and the competition is as good as its ever been.I will counter your anecdote-based opinion with my own anecdote. I've been fieldside for a number of high-profile outsider guests these past few weeks, and it is much worse than last year or particularly 2013 (also 2012). They're not as engaged, don't get caught up in the action, don't watch as long, and make decidedly unexcited comments about how hard this must be.

Now that we both have anecdotes, can we stop asserting their conclusions as fact?

If you'd like to recall your own anecdotes, I'd like to suggest the TBA Approach. Pick your favorite event and your favorite number (under ~70). Watch that match from 2015, 2014, 2013 and 2012 (a current senior's career in FIRST). I just did Match 40 at Week 1 Hatboro-Horsham.

2015 Week 1 HH Match 40 (http://www.thebluealliance.com/match/2015pahat_qm40)
2014 Week 1 HH Match 40 (http://www.thebluealliance.com/match/2014pahat_qm40)
2013 Week 1 HH Match 41 (http://www.thebluealliance.com/match/2013pahat_qm41) (40 is missing)
2012 Week 1 HH Match 40 (http://www.thebluealliance.com/match/2012pah_qm40)

There's no correct answer as to which one you enjoy more, but it might be an interesting exercise regardless.

[KelliV]

FRC matches never look "cool" to outsiders at lower and medium levels of play and usually not even at high levels. That aspect is no different than years past. This challenge is great and the competition is as good as its ever been.

I have to disagree, several games have looked cool and were fun to watch (2012 for example). In college, most of my friends really didn't care about engineering but LOVED watching matches with great defense, a solid objective, and an exciting end game. I showed some footage of this year's competition to a few people at work who were interested in FIRST and they declared it "boring" and "confusing". One even commented that watching our fork lift driver move pieces of basketball court was more interesting than watching robots try to stack boxes. They then turned it off. I hate saying it but at the end of the day this is a boring game UNLESS you are on a team, in which case I guess it could be fun because it's your robot out there?

[jman4747]

I will counter your anecdote-based opinion with my own anecdote. I've been fieldside for a number of high-profile outsider guests these past few weeks, and it is much worse than last year or particularly 2013 (also 2012). They're not as engaged, don't get caught up in the action, don't watch as long, and make decidedly unexcited comments about how hard this must be.

Now that we both have anecdotes, can we stop asserting their conclusions as fact?

If you'd like to recall your own anecdotes, I'd like to suggest the TBA Approach. Pick your favorite event and your favorite number (under ~70). Watch that match from 2015, 2014, 2013 and 2012 (a current senior's career in FIRST). I just did Match 40 at Week 1 Hatboro-Horsham.

2015 Week 1 HH Match 40 (http://www.thebluealliance.com/match/2015pahat_qm40)
2014 Week 1 HH Match 40 (http://www.thebluealliance.com/match/2014pahat_qm40)
2013 Week 1 HH Match 41 (http://www.thebluealliance.com/match/2013pahat_qm41) (40 is missing)
2012 Week 1 HH Match 40 (http://www.thebluealliance.com/match/2012pah_qm40)

There's no correct answer as to which one you enjoy more, but it might be an interesting exercise regardless.

1st 2013
2nd 2014
3rd 2015,2012 tie

That's how interesting those matches were in order, and I was getting into the 2015 one more (probably because were playing it now). My point is an outsider looking at any match here wouldn't decide to get into STEM by virtue of the match alone. I think the better way to illustrate this is to imagine watching week one match one of 2014 and Einstein finals vs week one match one of 2015 and finals at Ontario this year. The relative reaction would be the same. A good 2015 match can be as good as a good 2012-13-14 match. If the robots are all doing really good bystanders can tell and will react accordingly. If the match ends with a few stray totes here and there it can be confusing as to what they were trying to do. If 1114 comes in and cleans up the field you will have a good example of both the objective and how it can be accomplished.

Basically I think this game is harder and thus you will see less high level play. High level play is exciting in any sport. Also the absence of a hole or box to shoot things through makes it more difficult to see the end goal with no fore knowledge. For instance if in 2013 one robot shot only 3 discs and made two the whole match you knew what they wanted to do (put disk in rectangle). In 2015 if a robot only gets 4 totes at all and one falls off the stack you may not know they wanted them there (what if the platform just looked like an obstacle?). Also I think everyone is to used to shooting and defending. Bottom line is if we all played like we wish we did matches would all look better and be more obvious to the outsider every year.

And TLDR because none of that is what makes you decide to do STEM. It's our job to get new people in the door not the GDC. Dean needs us to make it loud no matter whats going on at the field. The game is not bad.

[MrJohnston]

I find that when I talk to folks about FIRST and this year's game, the spin I put on it is huge.... I generally talk about the process - the six week build and how we never know what game we are playing until that first Saturday of the New Year. I mention all the different sorts of games we've played.... They then eagerly ask what this year's game is.... I word my answer something like this: "Well, this year, the game committee took a little away from teh game from a spectator's perspective and gave us a brutally difficult engineering challenge - the hardest one since I've been involved." I then go on to talk about attempting to stack those totes and can 8-10 feet high (six totes + RC + noodle).

I find they are still interested. I do acknowledge, however, that the game does not generate the same "wow" factor as our FCS did in 2013 or our free-throw shooter did in 2012.... Still, my students and I are enjoying the challenges this year.

[nixiebunny]

Looks like I'm not the only one who sees this task as not exactly exciting to the causal observer. I do see some thoughtful comments about the value of the challenge, with which I agree. But it still sounds like a job.

I would love to be watching our robot compete in Chandler at Arizona East this weekend, but I am currently waiting for my older son's appendectomy to be performed. Maybe I'll get to be there for the eliminations.

[pmangels17]

It's our job to get new people in the door not the GDC. Dean needs us to make it loud no matter whats going on at the field. The game is not bad.

Firstly, the GDC is our version of product design. It is always the job of designers (GDC) to create an appealing product that consumers (teams), so as to attract enough consumers to increase profits (which don't have to be monetary profits). We hold it on them to create a game that attracts the interest of competitors and spectators alike, like Apple expects the iPhone team to produce an iPhone that consumers want to buy. This extends past just recruiting new members. You can't market the "Sport for the Mind" if the sport is competitive box stacking, and you can't expect sponsors (especially new sponsors) to donate to a team that basically builds a miniature forklift, because there are already forklifts. It'd be like me investing in your company to invent the wooden wheel; it has already been done.

Secondly, and I CANNOT STRESS THIS ENOUGH, it isn't about what Dean wants or needs us to do. I have the utmost respect for Dean for starting something huge, and something that I love. However, FIRST is a community larger than one man, and we should be making it loud for students, for teams, for schools, for our friends, for our generation, and for our future, not because one man needs us to. This is a point that I cannot stress enough. Dean is awesome, but if you do things because Dean says you should, you are missing part of the point.

[EricH]

But we've never had sports cars!

You weren't around for 2008, so I'll give you a pass on that. What you missed: In 2008, the GDC gave us a game in which the objective was to go around and around a track, pushing and/or throwing large balls (bigger than last year's, and arguably one of the biggest game pieces FRC has ever seen) as you went. The more laps, the more points. Some teams built robots for speed and maneuverability rather than attempting to handle the large balls. BTW, this was NASCAR style: direction of travel was a left-hand turn.

Incidentally, 2008, like 2014, was a heavily-penalized year. Teams would get penalties for turning in place if they weren't careful, on occasion. (They'd violate some rule about position/crossing a line, or be seen to be doing that even though they weren't.) The next year, we got Lunacy with very few interaction rules. This time through the cycle, it was Aerial Assist followed by Recycle Rush. 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 oughtta be good years for spectator involvement if we are in fact on a roughly 6-year cycle of increasing penalties, followed by a year of very few penalties in reaction to massive penalties the previous year.

[jman4747]

Firstly, the GDC is our version of product design. It is always the job of designers (GDC) to create an appealing product that consumers (teams), so as to attract enough consumers to increase profits (which don't have to be monetary profits). We hold it on them to create a game that attracts the interest of competitors and spectators alike, like Apple expects the iPhone team to produce an iPhone that consumers want to buy. This extends past just recruiting new members. You can't market the "Sport for the Mind" if the sport is competitive box stacking, and you can't expect sponsors (especially new sponsors) to donate to a team that basically builds a miniature forklift, because there are already forklifts. It'd be like me investing in your company to invent the wooden wheel; it has already been done.

Secondly, and I CANNOT STRESS THIS ENOUGH, it isn't about what Dean wants or needs us to do. I have the utmost respect for Dean for starting something huge, and something that I love. However, FIRST is a community larger than one man, and we should be making it loud for students, for teams, for schools, for our friends, for our generation, and for our future, not because one man needs us to. This is a point that I cannot stress enough. Dean is awesome, but if you do things because Dean says you should, you are missing part of the point.

Sponsors
I got five new sponsors this year who are just fine with box stacking and put in thousands worth of machining, money, engineering advice, tools and more. They and our returning sponsors do not care about the game. They care about what the students get from competing and building the robot. In fact all five of our new sponsors agreed to help before the game came out because the excitement of the game is not the important part of FIRST. It's the people and what we do to make matches happen. They wanted to help us kids gain the knowledge and skills needed to do well in whatever game came out. They were confident that whatever it was it would demand the knowledge and skills that FRC always has.

Recruitment
If this game not being like 2013-14 negatively affects your recruitment somehow it's because you could only talk about how bad the games are. Instead of that try to remember all the work you put in and the things you learned to get the robot to the field in the first place.

Learning?
I guess I forgot that learning anything technical was on the back burner to the FRC community compared to how cool the game is. Yea I know that's quite cynical.

Word choice
I said Dean because the first time I remember hearing that phrase in reference to FIRST was when he mentioned it at 2013 champs because I was there. That is what came to mind so that's what I said.

Lastly, It's our job to get new people in the door not the GDC. If we can't even make the experience of building the robot seem attractive why would anyone join and stay on FRC team in the first place?

Game this year is great! I love it!

[jman4747]

You weren't around for 2008, so I'll give you a pass on that. What you missed: In 2008, the GDC gave us a game in which the objective was to go around and around a track, pushing and/or throwing large balls (bigger than last year's, and arguably one of the biggest game pieces FRC has ever seen) as you went. The more laps, the more points. Some teams built robots for speed and maneuverability rather than attempting to handle the large balls. BTW, this was NASCAR style: direction of travel was a left-hand turn.

Incidentally, 2008, like 2014, was a heavily-penalized year. Teams would get penalties for turning in place if they weren't careful, on occasion. (They'd violate some rule about position/crossing a line, or be seen to be doing that even though they weren't.) The next year, we got Lunacy with very few interaction rules. This time through the cycle, it was Aerial Assist followed by Recycle Rush. 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 oughtta be good years for spectator involvement if we are in fact on a roughly 6-year cycle of increasing penalties, followed by a year of very few penalties in reaction to massive penalties the previous year.

Ask someone if they want world champion FRC robot or a BMW M3...

We are here in huge part because STEM related things are under appreciated. Building that appreciation means nothing if it isn't based on what it really takes to do what we do. Most of our work is not to be on the field in front of the crowd. That's the goal, to do our best out there. What we do to get there is what we want people to appreciate. Would we say we are promoting stem if 10,000 spectators came to a regional because the games were so amazing to watch but participation never rose again?

[SousVide]

Ask someone if they want world champion FRC robot or a BMW M3...

We are here in huge part because STEM related things are under appreciated. Building that appreciation means nothing if it isn't based on what it really takes to do what we do. Most of our work is not to be on the field in front of the crowd. That's the goal, to do our best out there. What we do to get there is what we want people to appreciate. Would we say we are promoting stem if 10,000 spectators came to a regional because the games were so amazing to watch but participation never rose again?

Has everyone seen Dr. Randy Pausch's "Last Lecture", if not, I highly recommend it. You can see it here:
https://youtu.be/j7zzQpvoYcQ

It's a inspirational message about how people learn - and it was actually his last lecture - he meant to leave that as his legacy to his children. Anyways, in it, he talks about head-fake. In which, he teaches someone an important lesson that they might not know to learn (or care to) by showing them something else that they might have an interest in instead.

Anyways, I see the FIRST world as two different types of people - and no, this isn't a joke about the binary counting system. Type A is the people who already come in with some interest or appreciation for metal work, hand tools, electrical wiring, programming, or just plain old STEM. These people are either standing at the thresholding waiting to be invited in or have already boldly stride through. Our work as mentors is to groom them and "mentor" them - keep them interested, reveal to them the rest of the wonder, etc. There are also adults who are in this category and they are ready to jump in enthusiastically to help, to pitch in with support, etc.

But those aren't necessarily the people I'm talking about. I am talking about the Type B people. They have no interest in this stuff - nobody has shone them and they might not even care. Here's the head-fake, I show them a sports game - that he/she can relate to. We can talk about how exciting these things can get. How much sports there is and look at all of these young people, parents, and mentors all very much engaged, etc... While they are enjoying all of this and nodding, I take them to the workshop and the pit where everybody are furiously working towards a common goal - show them all of the GP and coopertition that's happening... Head faked again... because all of that exciting stuff that we just shared and enjoyed out of the field happens because of all of this other stuff that happens here - now we all have an understanding. "Bud, I need your help", etc. ,etc... Sometimes people can learn to appreciate something that they haven't before if you can show them some common ground and a powerful shared vision - eventhough they had completely no interest in it in the first place.

We are not just trying to reach Type A folks, we need to bring in Type B folks too... In my case, I have to, because most of the town are Type B folks - absolutely no interest. But hey, if I can show them a basketball-like game, or soccer-like game, I just might be able to head-fake them into it.

It's sooo much harder when they think what's going on out on the field is a snore.

(and again, I am completely fine with whatever engineering type challenges that are put out by our fine GDC folks at FIRST. The Type A folks we have will eat it up either way. It's the Type B folks that will always make it a challenge; and some years it's just harder.)

[jman4747]

The Type A folks we have will eat it up either way.
I wish... see this thread ;) : http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=135888

The game design and how matches look aren't it it's the fact that we are competing with each other. The excitement of doing well and winning. Then there is wanting to do better than what you are seeing. Competing with others always gets people excited.

The matches being exciting has more to do with how well we do in them. The more we score the more exciting it will be. Furthermore a low scoring match in 2012-14 probably looked better than this year. You have to do a bit more proportional to the current challenge for it to look as good. A few 2-3 stacks and the stray tote here or there doesn't look as good. That said Getting 2-3 caped 4-6 tote stacks looks pretty good. In that case the game design has less to do with it than robot performance, which is determined by competitors. I think this game is harder too.

Game is great. Recycle Rush hype!

[GreyingJay]

Ask someone if they want world champion FRC robot or a BMW M3...


If I had the choice between a BMW M3 and 1114's Simbot Sideswipe (in the beautiful red powder coat)... hmmm... ! ;)

[SousVide]

I wish... see this thread ;) : http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=135888

The game design and how matches look aren't it it's the fact that we are competing with each other. The excitement of doing well and winning. Then there is wanting to do better than what you are seeing. Competing with others always gets people excited.

The matches being exciting has more to do with how well we do in them. The more we score the more exciting it will be. Furthermore a low scoring match in 2012-14 probably looked better than this year. You have to do a bit more proportional to the current challenge for it to look as good. A few 2-3 stacks and the stray tote here or there doesn't look as good. That said Getting 2-3 caped 4-6 tote stacks looks pretty good. In that case the game design has less to do with it than robot performance, which is determined by competitors. I think this game is harder too.

Game is great. Recycle Rush hype!

I know that many and most teams take the game and the regionals super-serious. We compete at our hardest too, but we focus on other aspects: the design, the building of the robot, how we organize and run our team at the event, how we partner up with our alliances, how we create and run the strategy, how we treat each other as people.... Win, Lose, Draw, we have fun. I truly have no gripes with the game from the team internal perspective - I am not overly concerned with the scoring mechanisms; it could be building a competitive rubber-stamping or dish-washing machine for all I care (edited: not that I don't care about what the GDC does or share their enthusiasm. It's just not really a main sole focus.). I really want the students in the team to focus on the process and themselves as the product.

The Robot and the game :] that's just another head-fake.... Do we get excited about the build season and getting to Regionals - heck, yeah. Do we take it seriously - absolutely... but not in that way though.

[bduddy]

I can only claim to be speaking for myself in this, but I'm not going to be able to attend SVR this year due to work stuff. While I'm sorry for not being able to volunteer, and to meet my former team and experience the atmosphere of an FRC regional, for the last couple years I would have also been upset about not being able to watch amazing teams play fun games. This year? Uhh, not so much.

I'm continually confused by the people here making excuses and trying to claim in various ways that the game being boring isn't important. Why are you here? Have you ever listened to even one of Dean's speeches? There are few things less important to FRC. I would honestly be surprised if next year isn't the worst for rookie retention in a long time due largely to this game. Anyone willing to argue that that isn't important?

[Dan Petrovic]

Have you ever listened to even one of Dean's speeches?

I'd argue that Recycle Rush is more thrilling than a Dean speech. :rolleyes:

[Siri]

I'd argue that Recycle Rush is more thrilling than a Dean speech. :rolleyes:Protip: don't use Dean's speeches as recruiting tools. ;)

[Andrew Schreiber]

Ask someone if they want world champion FRC robot or a BMW M3...

World Champ FRC robot... but I cheat, I already have a BMW 3 series and don't want the fuel costs of the M3.

[jman4747]

1. How good matches look is determined by how well the robots preform.

2. A good looking match is not necessary to inspire interest in STEM.

3. Guys just take the car, sell it, and buy robot parts! Meanwhile the point was most not FIRST people would go watch a race rather than the 08 game anyway and would take the car over the robot.

[IronicDeadBird]

What I found very surprising about this years is that it actually more accurately mirrors competitive events in the real world then any of the past games. Ever watch the world cup? Ever watch 3 year olds play soccer? In the real world there is no "curving", "blue shell", or "balancing mechanic." One of the issues the GDC has is that it needs a game that doesn't just shred teams that for whatever reason cannot design and build to the highest level. Its easier to inspire when you can step up to the field instead of being shoved off because you aren't competitive. When you add these training wheels to a game so everyone can participate then yes it might come off a bit dull.

But real talk for just a second.
Ask yourself what you find exciting about this experience.
Maybe its that you like the action provided by the game and the positive environment. Its colorful, its loud, its fun. You spent so much time working and now you can show off and flex a little.
Or maybe you do what I do. I go out on the field and I stare at this heap of metal, wires, and plastic that embodies all the work that was done by these students and I feel a rush because somehow, (mostly through mountain dew) we made it.
At the end of the day the game is what brought us to the location, but its the people that got the party started.

[bduddy]

I'd argue that Recycle Rush is more thrilling than a Dean speech. :rolleyes:I wasn't trying to say that Dean's speeches are boring, just that he himself has emphasized how FRC being exciting is important.

As for your argument... Hmm, I think it depends on what teams are playing...:yikes:

[Mockapapella]

I couldn't agree more. While it gives us the freedom of no boundaries and an ability to strategize, the real world goal is blatently obvious what they're trying to get out of this game.

Allow me to elaborate.

In past years the game was sports. Acquire and fire. If there was a goal or an engineering concept that they wanted to get out of it, it was fairly well hidden. This year it seems like they made no attempt to hide it. It doesn't feel like a game, it doesn't feel the same as past years. The best design is already out there -- a forklift. That's why it's used in industry, because it works the best. They wouldn't be so widely popular if they weren't. And what kinds of teams are we seeing reaching the finals, semi-finals, and quarter-finals? Forklifts.

For most teams, getting rookies and little kids involved will be very difficult with this year's robot. It's not fun; it's not exciting. Seeing a forklift operate isn't nearly as exciting to a little kid as seeing a giant ball being thrown, or shooting frisbees/soccer balls/basketballs toward them. They can interact with the robots then, they can get involved. The most they're going to be able to get involved with the robot this year is putting a noodle in the RC.

[runneals]

I agree with your warehouse reference. At the beginning of the season I was like "This game is gonna be way worse then last year". But after watching a few regionals, I think the rules change is a great change of pace. I also have interesting thoughts on how they are scoring it this year (from previous WLT to using team averages) << I don't know how I like/dislike this yet.

The thing I dislike the most is how this game only requires the team to basically do 1 task/motion (lifting/moving stacks) vs previous years (like ultimate ascent, where teams could climb the pyramid, shoot frisbees, or push frisbees) where the GDC gave teams more of a challenge and let them chose which one to focus on.

Overall, I think this game is a game of FIRSTS heh and the GDC is experimenting with changing things up.

[MrForbes]

Hey David, is it looking more like a fun game now?

[nixiebunny]

Our team has certainly earned 50-cents-an-hour raises.

[MooreteP]

Well, if you win the finals, you may get healthcare too. As long as you're not......

[MooreteP]

OMG what a great F1.

[Christopher149]

Well, if you win the finals, you may get healthcare too. As long as you're not......

Well, they won.

[nixiebunny]

I am happy to say that we did manage to win the Arizona East regional with our amazing partners 3944 and 4146.

There was an actual tussle over a can in the last final match, in which we lost the can but won the match in the end.

Therefore, it's a game after all.

[Mockapapella]

Therefore, it's a game after all.

In the most minimalist sense of the term, yes I suppose it is a game.

On an unrelated note, if we take some bleachers and lights and put it in a warehouse we essentially have the same things as this game. Alright guys, let's see how many ways we can pick up these pallets!

[techhelpbb]

In past years the game was sports. Acquire and fire. If there was a goal or an engineering concept that they wanted to get out of it, it was fairly well hidden.

There are many quite apparent weapon systems applications of the target and fire nature of the previous games.

So much so that they have inspired the interest of military solution providers.

The controls of military drones are also quite well considered for the experienced video game players.

I suppose military applications are pretty exciting but I guess it depends on the job you want to contribute to.

[SousVide]

I am happy to say that we did manage to win the Arizona East regional with our amazing partners 3944 and 4146.

There was an actual tussle over a can in the last final match, in which we lost the can but won the match in the end.

Therefore, it's a game after all.

"Winning makes it more fun" -- unknown Mentor.

[Green Potato]

Honestly, I don't think the best word to describe this year's competition is "Job," or "game." The best one-word description that I can think of is "challenge."

Before I go on to rant, I'll define a few things.
According to Mariam-Webster...

Game- activity engaged in for diversion or amusement, often involving strategy and/or competition
Challenge- a stimulating task or problem OR a summons that is often threatening, provocative, stimulating, or inciting

Think about it. In earlier years, apart from Rebound rumble's center bridge, a successful team won not by not necessarily beating the game per se, but by beating the enemy alliance. 2013, most of 2012, 2011, and especially 2014 were all games that were generally considered more fun to watch, and focused more on strategy and competition instead of provoking a problem. Sure, designing a great robot is no small feat for any competition, but in those years, strategy was a huge part of the game, and the robots directly competed against each other for victories. Those competitions fit the "game" definition more than the "Challenge" definition.

Fast forward to 2015. Sure, this year's game is fun to play, and teams do compete against each other and develop strategy like FIRST has emphasized for a long while, but it's who, or in this case, what, teams competed against that drove me to my conclusion. In this game, teams didn't compete against each other in qualifications for the most part. Often, they helped each other. However, they did compete against the field. The challenge really was out to kill this year: the landfill is always cluttered with litter, the tote chute is unreliable, and the cans are relatively difficult to grip and lift to scoring levels. No matter how one slices it, the word "problem" or "puzzle" certainly fit the bill here.

This really shouldn't be a surprise. FIRST has been hinting at this for years now that teams should be working with each other instead of against each other through Gracious Professionalism, and this challenge, as I see it, was a manifestation of those values. A challenge like this was almost inevitable.

[EmileH]

I have a feeling that the reason robots cannot cross the step is because last year in AA, there were so many bad calls on the referee side for pinning, ramming, or "repeated ramming", as well as the overwhelmingly large numbers of teams that were aggressive in competition.

I predict bumpers and alliance competition will be back next year.

[who716]

I have a feeling that the reason robots cannot cross the step is because last year in AA, there were so many bad calls on the referee side for pinning, ramming, or "repeated ramming", as well as the overwhelmingly large numbers of teams that were aggressive in competition.

I predict bumpers and alliance competition will be back next year.

We really hope soo

[lsbd4]

Win, Lose, Draw, we have fun. .[/QUOTE]

Our team continues to grow each year because we try to make learning fun... this year's challenge is no different. On one hand, our student's liked the idea that there wasn't any 'defensive bots' on the field to worry about. They found prototyping, designing, building and programming challenging and enjoyable. On the other hand, once they started competing, they found some less exciting aspects to this year's game. Really good teams (those stacking 5 or 6 totes with a bin) were encouraging some alliances to 'stay out of their way'; coopertition stacks were discouraged by many teams because it was difficult to do so; and the lack of defense (at least in prior years they could at least drive around and cause some chaos) or rely on robots in their alliance to do so. This year those that built a really efficient robot are virtually unstoppable because there isn't any defense (okay litter sometimes got in the way). Our students are continually problem-solving to make our robot perform and pick up reliably (we'll see at our next competition...can't wait.. should be awesome). But when all said and done... our team had a really good time and they made the best out of the experience.

[Citrus Dad]

1st 2013
2nd 2014
3rd 2015,2012 tie

That's how interesting those matches were in order, and I was getting into the 2015 one more (probably because were playing it now). My point is an outsider looking at any match here wouldn't decide to get into STEM by virtue of the match alone. I think the better way to illustrate this is to imagine watching week one match one of 2014 and Einstein finals vs week one match one of 2015 and finals at Ontario this year. The relative reaction would be the same. A good 2015 match can be as good as a good 2012-13-14 match. If the robots are all doing really good bystanders can tell and will react accordingly. If the match ends with a few stray totes here and there it can be confusing as to what they were trying to do. If 1114 comes in and cleans up the field you will have a good example of both the objective and how it can be accomplished.

An important difference between 2014 and 2015: Many fewer teams can compete at the same level as 1114 this year vs. last year. The proof is in the distribution of the OPRs. The OPRs are much more skewed this year than in the past. That reflects the increases technical difficulty. It also makes for a much less competitive game. Lack of true competition eventually turns off spectators. Ask both golf (Woods) and track & field (Bolt).

[GreyingJay]

What I have appreciated and enjoyed about this year's challenge is how many different approaches can be taken to solving the same problem. A previous poster said "They're all forklifts" but that is not even really true, 1114 is not a forklift-based design and kudos to them for coming up with a machine that solves the problem with such speed and consistency. Watching their robot in action is mesmerizing.

Even among the "forklift-class" robots, there is such variation in each design and it is fun to see which designs work better than others. It is neat to see how all the teams took the same functional requirements and distilled them into mostly the same operational parameters, but implemented them slightly differently.

This does mean that it is a "breadth" of interesting things that doesn't have a lot of "depth". That is, once you've seen a robot in action, you know pretty much exactly what to expect in every match going forward.

[Chris Hibner]

The OPRs are much more skewed this year than in the past. That reflects the increases technical difficulty.

I'm going to somewhat disagree with this, or at least add another explanation that also contributes to the increased OPR disparity this year.

No Defense (or No Defence in 1114's case)

Every year prior, the big name teams would have a gigantic target on their back, which invited every team to try to do their best to stop them. In years past, 1114 would see waaaaay more defense played against them than any middle of the road team. That naturally keeps the OPRs a little tigher: as soon as teams see you breaking away from the pack, they'll defend you harder to bring you back.

This year, there's nothing you can do to slow 1114 down. Therefore, for the first year ever they've had unimpeded access to do whatever they want to do. I'd almost argue that if defense was banned every year, there would have been similar disparities in OPR in the past.

[CTbiker105]

I have a feeling that the reason robots cannot cross the step is because last year in AA, there were so many bad calls on the referee side for pinning, ramming, or "repeated ramming", as well as the overwhelmingly large numbers of teams that were aggressive in competition.

The nature of this year's game is also a very valid reason for the step.

Think about it, how could anyone put up any substantial scores if after every time a team made a stack, the opposing alliance knocked it over? The rules against "puppy guarding" stacks would probably be better off avoided through the use of the step.

[Alyssa]

I'm going to somewhat disagree with this, or at least add another explanation that also contributes to the increased OPR disparity this year.

No Defense (or No Defence in 1114's case)



Another example of skewed data is the range of Auto points being earned this year. Either you're a team with a 20 pt auto (there tend to be 1 or maybe 2 teams per regional this year) or you receive no auto points...maybe if you get a good alliance the big 4 pts. At some regionals, if you take out the top two scoring auto teams, the average amount of auto pts. per team is less than one point. This only reinforces the idea of this game being a skills challenge, rather than a game.

[pmangels17]

The nature of this year's game is also a very valid reason for the step.

Think about it, how could anyone put up any substantial scores if after every time a team made a stack, the opposing alliance knocked it over? The rules against "puppy guarding" stacks would probably be better off avoided through the use of the step.

And here in FIRST we've never seen THAT before...::rtm::

[Chris is me]

So maybe this has been said before, but I have a new perspective on this game after competing. Don't worry, I still think it's terrible.

Our team made an improbable run to the 8th alliance captain position and picked a solid alliance of three middle tier robots. Our strategy was essentially to gamble that the three teams working together were worth more than the sum of their parts. 870 would make their usual capped stack of five, then cap one of our stacks of five. 1111 would get the center bins in autonomous, then go for their own capped stack, while we would go for two stacks of five. If 1111 had extra time, they could cap our second stack. It was far from a guarantee but it put the strengths of each partner together and made for our best shot out of the quarters. The main problem is that it requires perfect play from all 3 robots.

Two seconds into our autonomous mode of our first quarterfinal match, the power cable from the roboRio to our PDP wiggles loose as we hit the scoring platform, and we're out for the match, excluding 2 seconds of false hope in the middle of it. As you might expect, the entire strategy falls apart when one member of the alliance isn't there, and we were the team that created scoring opportunities for our partners.

Any other year, it's a tragic loss, but not an insurmountable one - you can win the next two to move on. But at this event, we were in a situation where, two seconds after our very first match started, it immediately became impossible for us to win the regional. The score we would need to move on after getting nearly no points that match was impossibly large, and not even the best teams at the event ever scored that many points.

I did my best to keep everyone's spirits up and rally the alliance to score as high as they could their second match, saying it wasn't impossible to move on, but a few of the drivers just knew that we were going to be out on the field playing a completely pointless match. The energy of the alliance was down, and everyone was at least a little rattled from the previous match, so we didn't play optimally match 2 either. Not that it mattered; again, it was a completely pointless match.

I don't think there's anything less inspiring than having your fate sealed by an unforeseeable hiccup, then being forced to play a pointless match that leaves you no chance of advancing. We installed that wire correctly, we performed the standard pull test and solidly connected the wire at home. Short of running a multimeter to every wired connection on our robot before every match, there's nothing we could have done to prevent this. And as soon as it happened, it was over. There was no way to win the event anymore, the second match was just for show.

I gave this game a lot of chances - I thought it was a very fun engineering challenge. I wasn't my normal cynical self during build season, hoping things would work out. But that elimination tournament was like a kick to the gut. Have you ever lost a regional in the first two seconds of eliminations? Should that even be possible? I really think it shouldn't be. This game would be dramatically improved if the best 2 of 3 match scores were what determined if you moved on or not. There's no room for error - on your part, on the field's part, or just plain bad luck.

[IronicDeadBird]

The scoring mechanic they took is normally used in single player games. A game where the goal is to rack up a highscore independent of an opponents interaction is a very interesting choice when the past pattern points at it being more and more spectator friendly. One thing this game accomplished well is the diversity it brought in for robot designs.
Start with scoring and that you need to create stacks of totes, yes it is one scoring mechanic but there are many ways it can be accomplished. Internal stacking, external stacking. Mix in the different ways you can gather resources to score and you have all sorts of ways the game can be played.
Last years game was very linear in how it was played and that was really boring walking through the pits and seeing roughly the same thing over and over again.

Also personal belief.
Numerical values are not and should not be used as direct reflection on a games health (fun, difficulty, audience appeal).

[bduddy]

The nature of this year's game is also a very valid reason for the step.

Think about it, how could anyone put up any substantial scores if after every time a team made a stack, the opposing alliance knocked it over? The rules against "puppy guarding" stacks would probably be better off avoided through the use of the step.It's hard to argue with the fact that this game is better with the step than it would be without the step.

That's a reason to trash the concept, not add the step.

[bduddy]

This really shouldn't be a surprise. FIRST has been hinting at this for years now that teams should be working with each other instead of against each other through Gracious Professionalism, and this challenge, as I see it, was a manifestation of those values. A challenge like this was almost inevitable.If that's what you get out of "Gracious Professionalism", then I think you're misunderstanding what FIRST is trying to say. Although hey, they put out this game, maybe I'm the one that doesn't get them. Wouldn't be the first time...

[James1902]

The nature of this year's game is also a very valid reason for the step.

Think about it, how could anyone put up any substantial scores if after every time a team made a stack, the opposing alliance knocked it over? The rules against "puppy guarding" stacks would probably be better off avoided through the use of the step.

I disagree. The scoring platforms could be more pronounced and steep penalties applied to any opposing alliance that knocked them over. This at least gives a semblance of defense around the middle of the field as teams try to prevent the opposing alliance access to scoring objects.

I still don't think it'd make a very compelling game, but it would keep the complex engineering challenge without completely removing the direct competition aspect.

[Siri]

...As you might expect, the entire strategy falls apart when one member of the alliance isn't there, and we were the team that created scoring opportunities for our partners.

Any other year, it's a tragic loss, but not an insurmountable one - you can win the next two to move on. But at this event, we were in a situation where, two seconds after our very first match started, it immediately became impossible for us to win the regional. The score we would need to move on after getting nearly no points that match was impossibly large, and not even the best teams at the event ever scored that many points...Wow, that sucks. I'll also point out that this isn't just a product of the tournament rules, which really do not play nice with improvement/inconsistency. It's also a product of the game itself and comes up in many other unfortunate places. Capping this year is unique in the modern FRC era for its disproportionately high entry requirement. Design functions can typically be executed in parallel to receive points, rather than depending serially on another task--in your case on another robot. Of course, there are ways to avoid this pitfall (build a stack under your own Can), which is quite common. And it's not the GDC's 'fault' that teams specializing in Canning are at a loss without their partners. But it is uncommon--I think for a reason--to find a nominally 'scoring' task that's useless without another one. More valuable with another task, sure, rightly (1+ robot on a colored bridge or 2 on a white one). But entirely dependent?

It's unlikely for an alliance in any year to win a match after losing their AC/first pick. But it's possible. (Heck, our 1st alliance won MAR in 2013 in 6 matches with the #1 pick of the draft repeatedly jamming for large swaths of matches.) Does anyone know an example of it this year?

I'm not even necessarily knocking this scoring as a game mechanic. It is what it is, and we're expected to play with it. I do find it interesting how uncommon this is in the modern era (to my memory?), though, and I rather hope it's not here to stay.

If that's what you get out of "Gracious Professionalism", then I think you're misunderstanding what FIRST is trying to say. Although hey, they put out this game, maybe I'm the one that doesn't get them. Wouldn't be the first time...I'm with you. Especially considering that GP is at least 15 years old, if not as old as FIRST or Woodie. And since almost every time we hear it, it's accompanied by Woodie's "compete like crazy" mantra. In fact, if FIRST has been hinting at anything recently, it's that we should be more of a "sport". Not that some sports don't work as individual challenges, but I don't ever recall HQ hinting that we shouldn't be competing against each other.

[jman4747]

An important difference between 2014 and 2015: Many fewer teams can compete at the same level as 1114 this year vs. last year. The proof is in the distribution of the OPRs. The OPRs are much more skewed this year than in the past. That reflects the increases technical difficulty. It also makes for a much less competitive game. Lack of true competition eventually turns off spectators. Ask both golf (Woods) and track & field (Bolt).

Well sure the game might be harder and a box on wheels is not as useful. Is that the GDC's problem? Most of what I see in this thread comes back to robot performance which is up to the team. Are you saying the GDC should make easier games? I mean if it were really as easy and simple as competitive forklifts than this would be a lot easier.

[Green Potato]

A similar thing happened in the semifinals at Virginia. One alliance consisted of 2 tote bots quickly cycling stacks of 4 or 5 totes, and 1 can topper. When the can topper lost com during one of the matches, everyone essentially began to count them out. Eventually, they managed a 150 point match and actually got in, but it goes to show just how bad loosing one robot for one match can be in this game.

[PayneTrain]

A similar thing happened in the semifinals at Virginia. One alliance consisted of 2 tote bots quickly cycling stacks of 4 or 5 totes, and 1 can topper. When the can topper lost com during one of the matches, everyone essentially began to count them out. Eventually, they managed a 150 point match and actually got in, but it goes to show just how bad loosing one robot for one match can be in this game.

The same robot lost comms for a majority of matches 1 and 3 of the finals, severely hindering their chances of winning the tournament.

Very cruel game. I already don't miss it.

[Rachel Lim]

Well sure the game might be harder and a box on wheels is not as useful. Is that the GDC's problem? Most of what I see in this thread comes back to robot performance which is up to the team. Are you saying the GDC should make easier games? I mean if it were really as easy and simple as competitive forklifts than this would be a lot easier.

No, the GDC should make games where every alliance partner can contribute to some extent. Of course an elite level team can do more, but non powerhouse teams should have something to do too. The issues with this game come in two ways:

1. What Citrus Dad mentioned is the huge gap between the few top teams and everyone else is even wider this year. While it's amazing to watch those teams, the fact that two robots can pretty much max out points isn't the most exciting idea. Knowing the other alliance can do nothing to try and stop them beyond the first <0.2sec of auto (grabbing containers) doesn't make it very fun to watch or to oppose them.

2. Alliance partners of those top teams also have little to contribute. I will be surprised if the winning alliance on Einstein has a captain+first pick that can't max out the points, given that they have the containers.

What do those two factors lead to? A game that isn't as exciting to watch as last year. Matches that will be decided by the first second. Very skewed OPRs. And cheesecake.

[pmangels17]

There is another point that has been made on here, but overlooked. Even the greatest robots are awesome the first time you've seen them. But, once I've seen 1114 or 148 or 2056 make a wall of tote stacks once or twice, it gets old. In previous years, defense and strategy made it so that you never knew what was coming in the next match, even if you had seen the robots preform previously. Unexpected or unique strategies in previous years changed the gameplay entirely with things like 1114's blocker in Einstein Finals last year, or the other alliance figuring out how to defend 469's machine on Einstein in 2010, make watching gameplay incredible more enjoyable, and make the game more unpredictable, with some variety.

If in every football game you went to (American Football), both teams ran the same plays in the same order every single time, games would start to get predictable and boring. Sure, once in a while a skill player will falter and make a mistake, or someone will pick a different receiver, but by and large the game will get repetitive and dull.

[MrForbes]

If in every football game you went to (American Football), both teams ran the same plays in the same order every single time, games would start to get predictable and boring. Sure, once in a while a skill player will falter and make a mistake, or someone will pick a different receiver, but by and large the game will get repetitive and dull.

I don't go to football games, they seem pretty dull to me. But I got to watch quite a few matches at the AZ regional, and I was pretty well entertained. Even the not very capable robots did interesting things, and it was neat to watch the teams learn how to play the game as the matches went on.

[magnets]

The same robot lost comms for a majority of matches 1 and 3 of the finals, severely hindering their chances of winning the tournament.

Very cruel game. I already don't miss it.

How is this game cruel? Your success depends solely on your robot's ability to score points. If you are eliminated, or don't seed high, it's because your robot couldn't put up points. If you seed high, and move on in elims, it's because your robot can score points consistently.

It's not as if your ability to score depends on your opponents, the schedule, the 'overpowering defense', field faults.....

The game is difficult. That's the whole point.

[Chris is me]

The game is difficult. That's the whole point.

"Difficult" is quite the broad term to be using here. This game doesn't disproportionately favor the most capable teams, this game doesn't punish specialization, etc. just because it is "difficult". 2013 was a very difficult year, but it was an extremely balanced game which was essentially won by the teams whom best built within their means and picked good strategies. 2011 was not a particularly difficult year, but it had huge flaws and winning the game essentially mandated a large monetary investment (no, other years did not to the extent that the minibot rules of 2011, and the fragile nature of the motors, did.).

It's hard to pick up game pieces and score them, yes. But you can make a game that's both difficult and good. The game punishes behavior that we should be rewarding, teams building within their means. The game all but mandates that to win you have to try and do everything.

It's hard to be consistent, yes, and the game rewards consistency. Sure, but it doesn't have to end entire tournaments because of a single miscue in a single match. This game basically ends elimination runs as soon as anything goes wrong. I get it - unforgiving circumstances are hard. But quite honestly not every circumstance is preventable, foreseeable, or something a team can do anything about. At some point, it becomes a game of probability - which alliances have enough luck to be evaluated based on their merit? Is that "difficult" or is that just swingyness / entropy?

[MrForbes]

Interesting. We played at Alamo, and ended up being picked by the 5th alliance, we were ranked second in the quarterfinals, and third in the semis. The alliance captain's robot had a non functioning tote stacker in the first QF match, we still scored 100 pts without it, by adapting to the situation. Their robot fell over in another match, we still carried on and did ok.

If your robot dies in a match, yeah, it's difficult. It's always been difficult.

We built our robot within our means, which in our case means we mostly designed it in Inventor, but cut the plywood and 2x4s and aluminum extrusions using hand and benchtop equipment. No sponsor cut parts, no CNC, and we designed all the parts to be easy to make by hand, so that's not a limiting thing.

As usual, clever design ideas, and working within your capabilities, helps you build a capable robot, done soon enough that you can test and improve things a bit before bagging. Teams that do this usually do pretty well at the competitions. The only difference with this game is that it seems to take more cleverness to figure out how to deal with the odd game pieces, and a lot of teams are struggling.

[jman4747]

No, the GDC should make games where every alliance partner can contribute to some extent. Of course an elite level team can do more, but non powerhouse teams should have something to do too. The issues with this game come in two ways:

1. What Citrus Dad mentioned is the huge gap between the few top teams and everyone else is even wider this year. While it's amazing to watch those teams, the fact that two robots can pretty much max out points isn't the most exciting idea. Knowing the other alliance can do nothing to try and stop them beyond the first <0.2sec of auto (grabbing containers) doesn't make it very fun to watch or to oppose them.

2. Alliance partners of those top teams also have little to contribute. I will be surprised if the winning alliance on Einstein has a captain+first pick that can't max out the points, given that they have the containers.

What do those two factors lead to? A game that isn't as exciting to watch as last year. Matches that will be decided by the first second. Very skewed OPRs. And cheesecake.

So you think box on wheels teams would be any better served fielding an RC car in the presence of someone like 1114 any other year? I'm baffled by how unimportant trying to learn anything more than tutorial basics is to so many of you. We should be pushing to build up resources and knowledge or poorer preforming teams so they don't have to suffer through watching their robot do nothing.

And how dare anyone compare having to sit through a boring match to having to play trough your own!

Instead of helping each other build effective robots to play the actual game we suggest that it was too hard? Hello, engineers solve problems for a living. Teams not having a role on the field is a failure of the community, not the game designer.

[Citrus Dad]

Well sure the game might be harder and a box on wheels is not as useful. Is that the GDC's problem? Most of what I see in this thread comes back to robot performance which is up to the team. Are you saying the GDC should make easier games? I mean if it were really as easy and simple as competitive forklifts than this would be a lot easier.

Yes, GDC should make easier games for entry level teams, with added difficulty bonuses like they've had in recent end games.

This whole program is about SOCIAL engineering to make STEM an exciting possibility for many students who wouldn't otherwise consider this path. While it's great that it poses good challenges to top STEM students, they would be headed down that path without FIRST anyway--it's just more enjoyable. Our national problem is that we don't have enough STEM students in the pipeline to meet our STEM workforce requirements in the future. We need to keep our eye on the prize.

[Citrus Dad]

Instead of helping each other build effective robots to play the actual game we suggest that it was too hard? Hello, engineers solve problems for a living. Teams not having a role on the field is a failure of the community, not the game designer.

I've addressed this problem on CD as well elsewhere, so I won't add much more than to say the game design and current build season model actually discourages that type of cooperation this year. Search my posts if you want more on this. Do NOT count on the "good will" of individuals to accomplish a community goal. Make the individual's incentives work toward the community goal.

[PayneTrain]

How is this game cruel? Your success depends solely on your robot's ability to score points. If you are eliminated, or don't seed high, it's because your robot couldn't put up points. If you seed high, and move on in elims, it's because your robot can score points consistently.

It's not as if your ability to score depends on your opponents, the schedule, the 'overpowering defense', field faults.....

The game is difficult. That's the whole point.

Difficult is not a synonym for cruel. Something that is difficult requires much preparation and effort to accomplish. Something that is cruel is an unavoidable yet harrowing and painful experience.

A situation exists where the #1 alliance could stumble into a DQ situation for one match and get tossed from the whole tournament because of the system. That is cruel.

[Siri]

I've addressed this problem on CD as well elsewhere, so I won't add much more than to say the game design and current build season model actually discourages that type of cooperation this year. Search my posts if you want more on this. Do NOT count on the "good will" of individuals to accomplish a community goal. Make the individual's incentives work toward the community goal.Beyond that (the discussion we've had), this game exacerbates the problem by taking away a lot of the "way points" to success:

This is a very difficult engineering challenge. And difficult engineering challenges happen in life. I've got one in another window of my computer right now. But FIRST is not about that. FIRST says outright that it's not about that. It's about Inspiration and Recognition. And huge challenges that don't have intermediate goals tend to be less effective inspirational tools.

It is very, very difficult--every year--to help a team that really doesn't understand what's going on. Think about how much work you put into your build season and events. Think about the burnout that's discussed on CD regularly. Now think about doing that without anyone else who knows how to build a robot. Now think about doing that when the only way to contribute is to meet an engineering challenge that's even harder than the seasons your used to.

We can push to help teams. We do push to help teams. (For crying out loud, you [jman] are talking to a guy for 1678.) But it is hard. I say that because I do it, and it's difficult. And game designs like this do not help; making it more difficult to inspire helps no one. That's is not to say that we shouldn't have major engineering challenges in FRC. I seem to recall the GDC deciding that we should climb a 10 foot tall pyramid like freaking monkeys a while back. Setting aside the problems with point scaling, I rather enjoyed that challenge. Actually, it drove me completely nuts, but seeing our robot 10 feet in the air over Einstein was entirely worth it. And yet it would've been a really miserable season if that was the only thing to do.

Can our team community step up and do more? Yes, of course, always. But so can the GDC. The GDC is part of this community: they're its leaders in many ways, and they're the standard bearers for its goals. Why shouldn't they help in their own way?

Big challenges have big rewards. That doesn't mean we don't need small challenges.

[Caleb Sykes]

So you think box on wheels teams would be any better served fielding an RC car in the prescience of someone like 1114 any other year?

Not to nitpick, but did you mean "presence" here? If not, can you please rephrase this sentence?

[Rachel Lim]

So you think box on wheels teams would be any better served fielding an RC car in the prescience of someone like 1114 any other year? I'm baffled by how unimportant trying to learn anything more than tutorial basics is to so many of you. We should be pushing to build up resources and knowledge or poorer preforming teams so they don't have to suffer through watching their robot do nothing.

And how dare anyone compare having to sit through a boring match to having to play trough your own!

Instead of helping each other build effective robots to play the actual game we suggest that it was too hard? Hello, engineers solve problems for a living. Teams not having a role on the field is a failure of the community, not the game designer.

FIRST is about inspiration. The simple fact is that for teams, especially rookie / less powerful teams, not being able to contribute = not as inspiring.

I'm not saying it's not amazing to watch 1114 or any other great team. It is. I've spent hours tracking down webcasts to watch the top teams compete to see how they approached this challenge and am still in awe. But if FIRST's goal is to reach as many students as possible and inspire them, this game makes it hard.

There will always be teams that struggle. There will always be top teams that try their best to help them. (Please, your original post was to a mentor on 1678. If they don't do everything they can to help other teams, I don't know who does.) But there are also games that make it easier, games with smaller goals that those teams can be guided to do, games that give every alliance member something to contribute to.

EDIT: Just read Siri's post (which I just saw)...it says what I was trying to say more eloquently.

[jman4747]

Beyond that (the discussion we've had), this game exacerbates the problem by taking away a lot of the "way points" to success:

This is a very difficult engineering challenge. And difficult engineering challenges happen in life. I've got one in another window of my computer right now. But FIRST is not about that. FIRST says outright that it's not about that. It's about Inspiration and Recognition. And huge challenges that don't have intermediate goals tend to be less effective inspirational tools.

It is very, very difficult--every year--to help a team that really doesn't understand what's going on. Think about how much work you put into your build season and events. Think about the burnout that's discussed on CD regularly. Now think about doing that without anyone else who knows how to build a robot. Now think about doing that when the only way to contribute is to meet an engineering challenge that's even harder than the seasons your used to.

We can push to help teams. We do push to help teams. (For crying out loud, you [jman] are talking to a guy for 1678.) But it is hard. I say that because I do it, and it's difficult. And game designs like this do not help; making it more difficult to inspire helps no one. That's is not to say that we shouldn't have major engineering challenges in FRC. I seem to recall the GDC deciding that we should climb a 10 foot tall pyramid like freaking monkeys a while back. Setting aside the problems with point scaling, I rather enjoyed that challenge. Actually, it drove me completely nuts, but seeing our robot 10 feet in the air over Einstein was entirely worth it. And yet it would've been a really miserable season if that was the only thing to do.

Can our team community step up and do more? Yes, of course, always. But so can the GDC. The GDC is part of this community: they're its leaders in many ways, and they're the standard bearers for its goals. Why shouldn't they help in their own way?

Big challenges have big rewards. That doesn't mean we don't need small challenges.

I didn't say you weren't but clearly there's not enough in general. How's having easier challenges in the game any more inspirational? Being stuck at a one point goal doesn't feel or look any better. Small challenges have small rewards and that's not inspiring. Having challenging challenges gives you more to shoot for and gives you a reason to keep improving.

[Koko Ed]

KoKo Ed said it the best.

On Thursdays, its ZZZZ.
On Fridays, there are too many matches that are ZZZZ.
But on Saturdays during eliminations, there are as good as any previous season, especially if you are still playing come the finals. Is it really any different than previous years?

The game is definitely different compared to the last several years, but the excitement as a whole hasnt changed.

With Championships much bigger starting this year, I see it as gettting to a whole new level with the 8 divisions.
Matches are more fun and exciting when both alliances on the field are more evenly matched, where the better strategy wins matches. We should see a whole lot more given that elite teams will have a tough time getting 3 elite robots on the same alliance due the increase of divisions and teams.

I'm expecting April 25th to be as insane! I can't wait!

[Siri]

I didn't say you weren't but clearly there's not enough in general. How's having easier challenges in the game any more inspirational? Being stuck at a one point goal doesn't feel or look any better. Small challenges have small rewards and that's not inspiring. Having challenging challenges gives you more to shoot for and gives you a reason to keep improving.Small challenges are not inspiring to you. That's okay, because they're small to you. They are not small to everyone, and failing at personally insurmountable tasks isn't inspiring. Have you ever helped a team get a consistent low goal score? It 'feels' (and quite frankly, looks) a lot better than consistently missing the high goal, or sitting there because you don't have the mechanism. It can be an important contribution. Success that you did not otherwise have is inspiring.

That doesn't mean stop striving, but it does mean you've achieved something you previously could not. Why do we have progressions in real life? Just let 4th graders take the ACTs all the time, they're scores will eventually get better. We don't, because there's other value in tracking lesser progress and providing interim goals that are still valuable.

The GDC has a difficult job doing this for a huge spectrum of team abilities. No joke. But they have done it before, even consistently. This year, the plot of Game Mechanic Difficulty vs. Inspiration/Contribution is...unique. That's why we end up with discussions like this, and others about how to help teams contribute, and cheesecake food fights, and tethered boat anchors. These are not community effects; they're game ones. They change with game design, and there are good things about this year's curve. This really isn't one of them.

[rick.oliver]

I'm expecting April 25th to be as insane! I can't wait!

I concur.

[Chris is me]

If your robot dies in a match, yeah, it's difficult. It's always been difficult.

No, it's not difficult - it's over. In the past, best of 3 allowed you to have one big screwup in a match like a robot dying and still have a fighting chance until the end of the final match in your set. In this game, depending on which robot dies, a single mistake at the very beginning will just end your regional.

The whole point of my post is that, while in the past this failure was a frustrating experience that an alliance would need to work really hard to come back from, in this year it's very often literally impossible to do so. We're no strangers to catastrophe in Quarterfinal 1 - it's just that in other years, we had some ability to come back from it and fix it. This year, done, might as well go home, except here you still have to play a completely pointless match, have fun.

[TheOtherGuy]

No, it's not difficult - it's over. In the past, best of 3 allowed you to have one big screwup in a match like a robot dying and still have a fighting chance until the end of the final match in your set. In this game, depending on which robot dies, a single mistake at the very beginning will just end your regional.

The whole point of my post is that, while in the past this failure was a frustrating experience that an alliance would need to work really hard to come back from, in this year it's very often literally impossible to do so. We're no strangers to catastrophe in Quarterfinal 1 - it's just that in other years, we had some ability to come back from it and fix it. This year, done, might as well go home, except here you still have to play a completely pointless match, have fun.

How about getting pitted against the 1st seeded alliance in the traditional eliminations? What about losing a robot once you're already down a match? There are several scenarios in previous years that yielded the same result. If you've got a solid alliance this year, you'll do well; if you're inconsistent, you won't.

[AdamHeard]

How about getting pitted against the 1st seeded alliance in the traditional eliminations? What about losing a robot once you're already down a match? There are several scenarios in previous years that yielded the same result. If you've got a solid alliance this year, you'll do well; if you're inconsistent, you won't.

There are ways to keep those advantages and minimize the damage of Chris' point.

Add 4 more quarterfinals, drop the lowest score from each. Drop the lowest score of each team in the semis as well.

[jman4747]

http://leadwithastory.com/top-10-differences-between-high-school-sports-and-robotics/

Okay read that.

First posted here: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=136064 by the way.

None of that was dispirited or uninspired. This exactly captures my point about why FRC is inspirational and why Recycle Rush is not a detriment to the program.

[Nathan Streeter]

There is another point that has been made on here, but overlooked. Even the greatest robots are awesome the first time you've seen them. But, once I've seen 1114 or 148 or 2056 make a wall of tote stacks once or twice, it gets old. In previous years, defense and strategy made it so that you never knew what was coming in the next match, even if you had seen the robots preform previously. Unexpected or unique strategies in previous years changed the gameplay entirely with things like 1114's blocker in Einstein Finals last year, or the other alliance figuring out how to defend 469's machine on Einstein in 2010, make watching gameplay incredible more enjoyable, and make the game more unpredictable, with some variety.

I'm going to disagree that the greatest robots are actually especially interesting this year precisely because of the reason you mention (that top teams go and do the 'same' thing every match)...

What made the Einstein Finals in 2010 and 2014 so extra-interesting were the fact that those forms of defense (1114 trying to block 254's auto in 2014 or 1114&469 teaming up in 2010) were against something everyone was expecting... against teams so successful and consistent that everyone wondered (skeptically) how they could be stopped. We all expected 254 to run their fabulous 3-ball auto... the question was how to defend it, since it's so reliable and parked in front of a low goal. In 2010, we all knew 469 was going to drive to the tunnel in auto and re-cycle the balls while 1114 fed the cycle... most people thought 469 and 1114 winning in 2010 was a foregone conclusion. But when 67 just played the midfield game so spectacularly in an 'ordinary' way, 177 assisted, and 294 did their best to snarl up 469's cycle, and then things just didn't go quite right for 469 and 1114 (2041 got stuck in the goal; 294 was highly effective), everyone watched in shock as the alliance of 67-294-177 won.

FIRST needs 'iconic' top teams to be like a sport. In professional sports, the game is the same year to year, and the seasons are long so we all get to know what makes someone special... what they're better at than anyone else or what their Acchiles Heal is... that way at the Super Bowl or in the World Series there is a story anticipating the event. But, the FRC game changes every year, so the top teams that make it to Einstein need to re-write their story every year... be so fabulous and so consistent that everyone in FRC knows what to expect on Einstein, despite a short competition season... that way when a team get's toppled doing their 'tried and true' or they have to deviate to counter an opponent, it is that much more exciting.

Besides, high-level elimination matches this year will be overwhelmingly intense... down-to-the-wire in the quarters and semis too, because each alliance is facing every other alliance, fighting to get those last few points to bump up their QA... I agree with Koko Ed, April 25th will be one wild day.

[Mark Sheridan]

There are ways to keep those advantages and minimize the damage of Chris' point.

Add 4 more quarterfinals, drop the lowest score from each. Drop the lowest score of each team in the semis as well.

this would fix playoffs. Isn't this used in X-games?

[Karthik]

Moderators Note: It would be great if people could make their points in this thread without using slang terms for urination. Posts such as these have been and will be deleted. Refer to the forum rules if you any questions.

[MooreteP]

Moderators Note: It would be great if people could make their points in this thread without using slang terms for urination. Posts such as these have been and will be deleted. Refer to the forum rules if you any questions.

My bad, and I apologize.

There are ways to keep those advantages and minimize the damage of Chris' point.

Add 4 more quarterfinals, drop the lowest score from each. Drop the lowest score of each team in the semis as well.

This game is hard enough to explain to the audience already.

Come on, CD community, this game won't be changing. It's fine as it is.
It has addressed past complaints and yet, still, we are not happy with it?

To repeat an old saw. It is not about the Robot. See the forest, smell the roses, etc....
This thread has stomped on my buzz.

Try to enjoy these last few weeks and revel in how the strategies have evolved, instead of kvetching about how we wish the world would be.
Witness how three mediocre Robots can defeat the highest seeds by developing a clever game plan where the sum is greater than the parts.

/Rant over.

tl;dr people who wake up saying it's going to be a bad day are always right.

[IronicDeadBird]

When comparing this years game to games outside of FRC it dawned on me that one reason why games with similar mechanics on different platforms are fun. Lots of games that have these tedious matching or stacking mechanics have sensory feedback that make the game fun.
This is going to sound pretty bad for a comparison but hey lets do it!
So lets compare this game to candy crush. If you haven't played candy crush...
1. I don't blame you.
2. Its a match 3 game match 3 similar icons to get points
Thinking about that from an observational standpoint what is fun about candy crush? Absolutely not the actual interaction you have game play wise, what makes candy crush fun is the fact that upon completing an action you are rewarded with wacky sounds and cool particle effects. Last years game you saw goals light up then saw balls fly through and points were awarded. I feel like the disconnect between creating stacks and score going up is actually hindering people from having fun.
This being said I would propose this.
1. Remove the numbers on the score board that denote points (don't remove the time EVER).
2. Actions that change score are then replaced with audio and visual feedback
3. Turn up the during match music
I believe what this would accomplish is creating a greater sense of tension in the environment and the edge of your seat feeling would be maintained throughout the entire match until the final score board is shown.
Anyway its kind of late to implement this and its also a bit pricey to ensure all venues have the appropriate equipment to do so to I'd imagine.

[MaGiC_PiKaChU]

the fun of the game depends on the regional...
-music,
-lights,
-announcers

I suggest you go watch Montreal finals... most entertaining regional i've seen in years (although the announcers are french)

It's also way more fun when the score is close and high... Same thing applies for last year or even ultimate ascent;
watching a match with robots struggling to score is often boring, whatever the game is

[Ozuru]

the fun of the game depends on the regional...
-music,
-lights,
-announcers

I suggest you go watch Montreal finals... most entertaining regional i've seen in years (although the announcers are french)

It's also way more fun when the score is close and high... Same thing applies for last year or even ultimate ascent;
watching a match with robots struggling to score is often boring, whatever the game is

I saw a match from that and it looked really neat, I wish I was there. The lights were amazing and the announcers got really into it.

[MaGiC_PiKaChU]

I saw a match from that and it looked really neat, I wish I was there. The lights were amazing and the announcers got really into it.

so much into it they lost their voice for the last three matches :rolleyes:

[Siri]

I won't quote because don't want to call anyone out directly (a lot of people have said this, and I understand why), but I'd like to address this idea that we as a community should stop 'complaining' because the game is what it is, and it's 'what we asked for' in response to complaints from last year.

I find this sentiment interesting. (No, actually interesting, not "interesting-read-silly".) What is the internal logic for not complaining about a game that's a product of complaints? Yes, I understand it's annoying if you don't want it in your Portal feed, and this has the normal structural issues about redundancy and less-constructive comments. (Welcome to the internet, everyone!) But at its foundation, if 2015 is a rational* response to 2014's voiced objections, isn't objecting again the logically consistent course of action? Talking about problems with this game won't change it, but it could (by internal logic) be expected to change 2016+. Maybe it takes a while to develop a constructive dialogue, and I supposed that's complainable about. But if this is the continuous improvement process the 2014-to-2015 argument sells it as, why not try?

*I really don't buy this personally--which is why I'm talking about internally consistent logic. Viewed in isolation, '15 might be a logical response to complaints about '14. But when the GDC hears, "this is way too much defense", they have far more context that just '14 with which to assess that statement. '13, for instance, or '12. Or anything since '01. To my mind, the logical interpretation of "this is way too much defense" isn't "oh, they want us to get rid of defense" it's, "oh, they want offense/defense like in the games where they didn't complain about it. Maybe next year we just shouldn't mandate that only one team can play offense at a time." I've really never managed to process the former logic. I do think they're responding, but I'm not convinced it explains this season's weirdness.

[Zebra_Fact_Man]

Witness how three mediocre Robots can defeat the highest seeds by developing a clever game plan where the sum is greater than the parts.


Maybe this is just here in Michigan, but I have yet to see it happen. So far, the best 2 robots always win. No underdog ever wins. Not once.

This predictability actually takes some of the fun out of the for me.

I still enjoyed this year, but just not spectating this year as much as last year or 2012 or other years.

[Chris Hibner]

Maybe this is just here in Michigan, but I have yet to see it happen. So far, the best 2 robots always win. No underdog ever wins. Not once.

This predictability actually takes some of the fun out of the for me.

I still enjoyed this year, but just not spectating this year as much as last year or 2012 or other years.

I have to say, for me this year is a bummer for my own personal spectating.

EVERY YEAR for the past 6 years I've driven to one Michigan district every week to watch live. On the days I didn't go to see live, I would have TBA game day showing the multiple event split screen on my big screen TV. I couldn't stop watching FIRST events - I found them to be extremely exciting.

This year, not so much. I tried watching Dallas week one and I quickly found I had other things to do. The only event I've seen live is the event my team competed in, and I think I've watched less than 2 hours of webcast this year. I just can't get into it.

Don't get me wrong - I still love FIRST and I'm not (yet) going to quit over something like this. BUT... I just used to LOVE Saturdays during FIRST season - it was like New Year's day every weekend (I'm a big college football fan too). This year I only watch for academic reasons.

Oh well, the GDC can't be perfect for everyone every year. They had such a good streak of games going. Sure last year had its flaws, but it was still really exciting to watch.

[nuclearnerd]

so much into it they lost their voice for the last three matches :rolleyes:

You're not kidding. What a great match to listen to: http://www.watchfirstnow.com/archives/122918245

[MrForbes]

Maybe this is just here in Michigan, but I have yet to see it happen. So far, the best 2 robots always win. No underdog ever wins. Not once.

ironic....the guy who started this thread is in Arizona, and their team played last weekend. #1 seed picked #2. #3 seed picked #4. The second alliance won. Yes, that guy is on team #3. I guess you could call them the underdog, and they outscored the first alliance every round during playoffs.

[nixiebunny]

ironic....the guy who started this thread is in Arizona, and their team played last weekend. #1 seed picked #2. #3 seed picked #4. The second alliance won. Yes, that guy is on team #3. I guess you could call them the underdog, and they outscored the first alliance every round during playoffs.

That would be me, the other Mr. Forbes. Jim's my twin brother.

We were not quite the underdog, we just looked that way since our drive team had to learn how to play the game during the qual matches. Our scores went up linearly from 20 points to 150 points over the event. The #1 seed, 1538, played 100 point games from the start.

[Ozuru]

You're not kidding. What a great match to listen to: http://www.watchfirstnow.com/archives/122918245

2:00 is where it gets good. LOL.

Stack! Stack! Stack! Stack!

[Hjelstrom]

Wow, now that is an announcer! LOL!

[samfruth]

Maybe this is just here in Michigan, but I have yet to see it happen. So far, the best 2 robots always win. No underdog ever wins. Not once.

This predictability actually takes some of the fun out of the for me.

I still enjoyed this year, but just not spectating this year as much as last year or 2012 or other years.

6th seed alliance beat the #1 seed alliance in KC. 1st and 2nd seed after quals were on #1 seed. No one on the 6th seed was ranked higher than 8th (1710 was 43rd).

IMO rank doesn't mean much this year, resulting in scouting becoming an even more important element of the game.

[MaGiC_PiKaChU]

IMO rank doesn't mean much this year, resulting in scouting becoming an even more important element of the game.

Indeed. I've seen a team finishing 5th seed but all they could do was coop... not a huge advantage for the playoffs...

Scouting makes it, but most good teams reach a maximum level, so final matches are closer

[Citrus Dad]

6th seed alliance beat the #1 seed alliance in KC. 1st and 2nd seed after quals were on #1 seed. No one on the 6th seed was ranked higher than 8th (1710 was 43rd).

IMO rank doesn't mean much this year, resulting in scouting becoming an even more important element of the game.

Opposite of our experience in our 2 CA regionals. The top 4 or 6 teams were obvious and easily walked through the QFs. The top 2 teams each time were largely unchallenged.

One aspect might be the high skew in OPR in this year's game - unprecedented. See my post here: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=135689&page=5.

In regions without a few of the very high performers, the distribution may be more even and outcomes more uncertain. But that's not true in places where at least one of the high OPR teams appears.

[pokelogan89]

For the main part, I will have to agree with the bulk of the crowd. Compared to last years game, this was a slight letdown. But as a rookie, this game was actually quite exciting. My team, 1086 Blue Cheese competed at the Virginia Regional, and my throat still hurts from all the cheering and screaming I did. I say that this is a pretty good game (minus the whole "no offense" aspect.)

[Kevin Leonard]

For the main part, I will have to agree with the bulk of the crowd. Compared to last years game, this was a slight letdown. But as a rookie, this game was actually quite exciting. My team, 1086 Blue Cheese competed at the Virginia Regional, and my throat still hurts from all the cheering and screaming I did. I say that this is a pretty good game (minus the whole "no offense" aspect.)

No offense, but I think you meant "no defense".

[Caleb Sykes]

No offense, but I think you meant "no defense".

I see what you did there.

[Nyxyxylyth]

Maybe this is just here in Michigan, but I have yet to see it happen. So far, the best 2 robots always win. No underdog ever wins. Not once.
It happened once ;)

I'm not sure why St. Joseph videos didn't get posted on firstinmichigan's YouTube channel. I hope it's still coming - they put up the first 4 qualification matches, and then... hrm.

[Zebra_Fact_Man]

It happened once ;)

I'm not sure why St. Joseph videos didn't get posted on firstinmichigan's YouTube channel. I hope it's still coming - they put up the first 4 qualification matches, and then... hrm.

Ahhh... that's why I didn't see it on the FiM youtube site.

Even still, 3452 was ranked 3rd, 469 had already made it to the Finals after seeded outside the top 10 (at Woodhaven), and that alliance led the scoring throughout the playoffs. I'd hardly call that an upset.