View Full Version : FRC 2011: Logomotion [Initial Impressions]
Hey guys,
As the new game was just announced. What are your initial impressions of the game?
I, for one, think that the minobot will be a big player towards the end (like the super cell in Lunacy)
BitTwiddler
08-01-2011, 12:12
It's like Rack and Roll but it should be slightly easier to develop a workable autonomous capability to score the Ubertubes. I like it!
dt
Tetraman
08-01-2011, 12:20
From a Field Reset standpoint, I am scared out of my mind. Getting ripped up tape back together plus having to inflate/deflate all these tubes.
Oh dear...
From a student/mentor perspective, I like it. It's a good challenge though I wonder if the end game with the minibots is going to be more fun to watch then the rest of the game.
From a design standpoint I don't know what to think.
weinertj
08-01-2011, 12:25
Hmm...line following....
Overall I think it's a good game. While I feel bringing tubes back at this time early, its going to be a good game.
I'm really excited about the mini-bots. This is what is going to make these games rock.
And to those who guessed that these were coming, kudos to you!
I REALLY hate the inspection rule.
For reference, <T03>:
A TEAM will only be allowed to participate in a MATCH and receive qualification, ranking, and Coopertition points only if it has passed inspection. If it is learned after the start of the MATCH that a TEAM did not pass inspection, the TEAM’s entire ALLIANCE will receive a RED CARD for that MATCH
Unless no-show teams are given a bye, there are going to be quite a few red cards handed out early on. And if there aren't enough inspectors to go around, there could be some teams hurt unintentionally.
I see why it's there, but the entire alliance?????? The penalty is TOO MUCH! You've never been DQ'd because of what your partner did before, except in eliminations!
OTOH, I like the minibot role(s). And there will be fewer ties in eliminations.
Vikesrock
08-01-2011, 12:48
I see why it's there, but the entire alliance?????? The penalty is TOO MUCH! You've never been DQ'd because of what your partner did before, except in eliminations!
Easy enough to have 1 member of your drive team responsible for checking stickers before each match as part of your pre-match routine.
Dargel1625
08-01-2011, 12:54
I REALLY hate the inspection rule.
For reference, <T03>:
Unless no-show teams are given a bye, there are going to be quite a few red cards handed out early on. And if there aren't enough inspectors to go around, there could be some teams hurt unintentionally.
I see why it's there, but the entire alliance?????? The penalty is TOO MUCH! You've never been DQ'd because of what your partner did before, except in eliminations!
From the way I'm understanding it, there won't be penalties for no-show teams. It states that if it is found out after a match starts that a robot hasn't passed inspection, the penalty will be handed down. If I am reading it correctly I think the only situation in which this rule would be enforced is if a robot didn't pass inspection and went onto the field anyway, because no-show teams would be known before the match starts.
now I know why in first choice option 1 they had an ftc mini kit.. that was going through my head the whole time.:p
Easy enough to have 1 member of your drive team responsible for checking stickers before each match as part of your pre-match routine.
I can think of 2 separate incidents where teams did not pass inspection due to being stubborn, and refusing to change their robots to comply with the rules, or something similar. In that case per missing team, 2*7 or 2*10 red cards go to other teams, just because the team hasn't passed and refuses to pass inspection.
Those teams lose a match of qualifying.
I think the intent is that if a team is later found to be in violation (i.e., plays and then is re-inspected for X and fails), then the red cards. But that's not what the rule says. The rule says that if Team X has not passed inspection and participates in a match (sends a human player or minibot that has passed), then the entire alliance is DQ'd.
southgirl
08-01-2011, 13:01
Rule question b/c I can't access the FIRST site for some reason:
With the scoring pegs, will the second logo on a row double the entire peg row score, or just that second row?
Also, what is the limit on how high the minibots can be placed on the tower?
Nicole175
08-01-2011, 13:03
Rule question b/c I can't access the FIRST site for some reason:
With the scoring pegs, will the second logo on a row double the entire peg row score, or just that second row?
Also, what is the limit on how high the minibots can be placed on the tower?
the site's down and i'm very upset. anyone have a copy of the rules yet?
IronHorse 2761
08-01-2011, 13:04
The minibots can only be placed up to 18" above the base of the tower, which is 12" high. How do you start a new thread on this website?
MishraArtificer
08-01-2011, 13:07
I think we killed the site...again...anyone have a copy of the game manual they could send me?
Vikesrock
08-01-2011, 13:07
Rule question b/c I can't access the FIRST site for some reason:
With the scoring pegs, will the second logo on a row double the entire peg row score, or just that second row?
Also, what is the limit on how high the minibots can be placed on the tower?
A complete FIRST logo on a row of pegs in the grid doubles the score for each of the pegs in that row.
The minibots must be deployed below the Deployment Line per <G20>. The definition of the Deployment Line:
DEPLOYMENT LINE – located on the POST, approximately 18 inches above the top surface of the BASE.
ruleshttp://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=88360
Rule question b/c I can't access the FIRST site for some reason:
With the scoring pegs, will the second logo on a row double the entire peg row score, or just that second row?
Also, what is the limit on how high the minibots can be placed on the tower?
Rules answer:::rtm::
For the minbot height limit, <G20> ROBOTS/HOSTBOTS may not contact their own TOWERS above the DEPLOYMENT LINE. Violation: PENALTY for contact. TOWER is disabled if MINIBOT is DEPLOYED above the DEPLOYMENT LINE.The POST extends upwards from the center of the BASE. The POST is constructed from a piece of 1.75-inch diameter (O.D.) steel pipe. The DEPLOYMENT LINE is located on the POST, approximately 18 inches above the top surface of the BASE. The DEPLOYMENT LINE is marked on the POST with black permanent marker to avoid significant changes to the surface properties of the POST (other than color).
FYI, this is why the encrypted rules are released.
Starting a new thread: click that purple logo, find the appropriate subforum in the list, and click the "new thread" button.
Scoring: Scoring grids are independent, as near as I can make out.
ShortBang
08-01-2011, 13:22
5.3.5 Coopertition Score (CS)
Any borrowed MINIBOT which scores points by legally triggering the TARGET during the MATCH receives one (1) Coopertition point for the FRC TEAM registered for the event that is affiliated with the MINIBOT.
The total number of Coopertition points earned by a TEAM throughout the qualification matches will be their Coopertition score.
Now the way I read this, your team can lend a minibot even when not competing?
I don't know how fun it will be to watch as a spectator, and I'm not sure how fast paced the game will be either. Seems kind of lame when coming from Breakaway...
5.3.5 Coopertition Score (CS)
Any borrowed MINIBOT which scores points by legally triggering the TARGET during the MATCH receives one (1) Coopertition point for the FRC TEAM registered for the event that is affiliated with the MINIBOT.
The total number of Coopertition points earned by a TEAM throughout the qualification matches will be their Coopertition score.
Now the way I read this, your team can lend a minibot even when not competing? Unclear. I would assume so, but that's a Q&A question. Something on the order of, "Where are valid Minibot sources for a given match?
a) the team, assumed to be valid by reason of building it.
b) a partner
c) an opponent
d) a team that is not participating in the match
e) all of the above."
southgirl
08-01-2011, 13:34
Can someone please post the KOP inventory list for veteran teams because I still cannot access the FIRST site
Don Wright
08-01-2011, 13:50
Eric,
I think they mean if a robot competes on the field that didn't pass inspection, then it's a red card. If the robot didn't pass inspection and doesn't go on the field, no red card.
Eric,
I think they mean if a robot competes on the field that didn't pass inspection, then it's a red card. If the robot didn't pass inspection and doesn't go on the field, no red card.
What they mean, yes, I agree. But it's not what they say. If a TEAM participates (i.e., humans show up) and the robot does not, under the current writing of the rules, all three teams get a red card. All it takes is for the human player to show up, and there are three red cards, under the written rules.
It's an easy fix, too: Replace "TEAM" with "TEAM's ROBOT" the first two times it appears in that rule. Boom, the team can show up and participate without the robot, and no red cards are issued. (Though the alliance is still at a disadvantage.) Also, due to the change back to W-L-T rankings, it shouldn't be as big of an issue as this last year.
Christopher149
08-01-2011, 14:13
I think we killed the site...again...anyone have a copy of the game manual they could send me?
If you google "2011 frc Competition Manual & Related Docs", it should be the first result, and if you click "Cached", and then scroll down to the manual, I was able to retrieve it.
synth3tk
08-01-2011, 14:17
I don't know how fun it will be to watch as a spectator, and I'm not sure how fast paced the game will be either. Seems kind of lame when coming from Breakaway...
Watching a bunch of robots kick a bunch of balls into a bunch of goals? Or Tic-Tac-Toe, where you can glance halfway through the match and get an idea of how well an alliance is doing?
Agreed that there was a lot of action in Breakaway, you can't exactly say that this one will be lame until you've played it.
My initial thought was teams that excelled at handling and placing tubes in 2007 are going to dominate this game.
Also in a nod back to 2005 there is a "no-fly" zone on the field where if a team loses it's mind and does the unthinkably stupid and goes defend a robot placing tubes in their home zone they will get a debilitating penalty for their actions. Now more than ever teams need to make sure not only they know the rules but even more importantly their partners know the rules.
pacoliketaco
08-01-2011, 14:32
anyone else saying thank you that team 25 was featured in the 2007 behind the design book? i sure know thats what i first thought of when i saw this. I dont see much reason to do anything but that, have a lift on the front and the minibot deployment on the back.
I would also like a copy of the rules, please.
One thing the manual does not say is how high the scoring rods are above the ground. I got the "middle being 8" above the others", but the avg height? That info would be good for an automatically adjusting height-based lifter.
216Robochick288
08-01-2011, 15:17
We need to make sure the drivers can see through or around the tubes! I think it was a bad idea to have the game pieces blocking the drivers views, as well as being slightly dangerous! ::ouch:: Not so sure about this year, doesn't sound as fun as Breakaway or Lunacy.... -.-
Just my $.02, maybe I'm wrong...
GaryVoshol
08-01-2011, 15:50
We need to make sure the drivers can see through or around the tubes! I think it was a bad idea to have the game pieces blocking the drivers views, as well as being slightly dangerous!
Perhaps that's why there's so many vision targets and tracking lines on the field?
Perhaps that's why there's so many vision targets and tracking lines on the field?
Maybe teams could use a camera from previous years to assist with seeing what they're doing on the field.
Radical Pi
08-01-2011, 16:13
Maybe teams could use a camera from previous years to assist with seeing what they're doing on the field.
The first thing my team asked me relating to the control system was whether it would be possible to devote an entire screen to the camera feed. Sounds like the camera will be a major tool this year
Perhaps that's why there's so many vision targets and tracking lines on the field?
My thought as well. They're forcing us to use the camera this year, for the most part (and no complaining about how it's unfair: if the younger FLL kids can track lines easily, so can you).
Dustin Shadbolt
08-01-2011, 16:31
One thing the manual does not say is how high the scoring rods are above the ground. I got the "middle being 8" above the others", but the avg height? That info would be good for an automatically adjusting height-based lifter.
agreed
Steve-Man
08-01-2011, 16:38
Well, this event certainly seems to have a bit more challange then Breakaway; and as for the camera discussion you could always start with the top row, then go to the bottom row, and then finish with the middle row.
But yeah, overall this should prove to be fun. Minibots made me immediately think of Transformers which automatically makes them great in my book...but from a design perspective they could prove to be more than a little annoying to work with.
synth3tk
08-01-2011, 16:48
Can I just make a statement?
Please don't compare this game to previous games, or claim how "lame" it IS, especially without having played it yet. If you think it sounds boring, that's OK. But even at that, every year, groups of people cry "OMG THIS GAME WILL BE SO BORE! DO NOT WANT!" immediately after Kick-Off. Just chill out. If you're tired, or lacking sleep, please, go get some.
GCentola
08-01-2011, 16:48
and as for the camera discussion you could always start with the top row, then go to the bottom row, and then finish with the middle row.
Yeah, I think some of it can be solved with the camera, and part of it with strategy. It depends on how you fill the pegs.
Also, as far as how i feel about the game: 2007 but with a different location for the pegs. I think it will be a challenge, and the mini bots seem critical to success, but im not a huge fan of the game. I hope it grows on me though, it just doesnt seem like theres much variety in design or strategy. Hust my intitial thoughts though, which will probably change.
GCentola
08-01-2011, 16:52
Actually, when i first saw the towers, and the tubes, I thought we were going to have to stack them....but I was wrong. Later in the animation, there was a collective noise that cant really described, it was kind of a groan, part surprise, part ...ohhh crap..., when we found out about the deployable mini bots
ICntIHaveRbtics
08-01-2011, 17:15
anyone else saying thank you that team 25 was featured in the 2007 behind the design book? i sure know thats what i first thought of when i saw this. I dont see much reason to do anything but that, have a lift on the front and the minibot deployment on the back.
I thought the same thing about how the whole taking and placing the tubes was quite similar to 2007. I immediately started to think about how my hometown team's robot from that year could be easily re-made to adapt to this challenge. But while the tubes feel like deja vu, I love the minibots because I never have seen or would have thought of introducing a game aspect like that.
I can just imagine little kids watching the game for the first time and their eyes going wide when towards the end of the match the minibots deploy... "Woahhh!" Wouldn't be surprised if it causes an increase in Jr./FLL students next year!
Cyberphil
08-01-2011, 17:31
Initial impression of the game: Awesome, fast paced, intense game. After reading the manual and finding out that defense is futile in qualification matches I was even more excited!
We were trying to figure out what is optimal, so our programmer created a score calculator for the 2011 game. You can find it here:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=88417
Alex Cormier
08-01-2011, 17:41
Horrible move on FIRST part that teams are close to required to purchase and acquire FTC parts to have a good shot at winning matches...
The programs should never mix and match again.
indubitably
08-01-2011, 17:47
I feel they have taken indescision out of the question, "Should we have an endgame?"
The fact that finishing 1st during endgame (30 pts) is worth almost as many points as 2 rows of FIRST logos on the top row (36 pts) and more than 2 rows of FIRST logos on the middle row (24 pts) is rediculous. That is easily enough to shift the momentum of any game.
SashaKuznetsov
08-01-2011, 18:18
I really like the game this year, I didn't like last year's game, but that's probably cause I'm not a sports person.
I really like hearing that coopertition has reverted because remembering all those teams who would score for their opponents is rather painful. Not because they did it, but because they had to.
I also like how this game is looking on the whole, not a defense game, front. I mean, if you're not scoring for your team, you're doing something wrong. But I do like the fact that if, say, your mechanism for scoring breaks, you're not useless like previous years, you can just go throw yourself at the enemy team.
I personally like the Analyst because that's basically the job I've been looking for for a while. I'm the drive team captain, but I've never actually liked driving, and we have a mentor for coach, so I've never actually been on the drive team, I just trained them and worked over-all strategy before matches and managed scouting data. Now I can actually have a position on the field. :D
Over-all, I think we have a good game this year, my senior year, and I'm looking forward to every second of the next six weeks, especially.
Good luck everyone and Logomotion!
alectronic
08-01-2011, 18:45
Please don't compare this game to previous games, or claim how "lame" it IS, especially without having played it yet. If you think it sounds boring, that's OK. ... If you're tired, or lacking sleep, please, go get some.
Thank you! I feel this is important, because people do tend to compare things and make judgments. I think the GDC tests these more than we realize, and I am sure it will iron out well in the coming weeks...
Horrible move on FIRST part that teams are close to required to purchase and acquire FTC parts to have a good shot at winning matches...
I disagree. I think it is cool to encourage the interaction, especially with the exiting ftc/frc connections. Please consider looking at the FIRSt Choice page, where you can get the FTC kit for free for your team. So for the most part, they don't "require" you to buy one.
katiebelle
08-01-2011, 19:09
I REALLY hate the inspection rule.
For reference, <T03>:
Unless no-show teams are given a bye, there are going to be quite a few red cards handed out early on. And if there aren't enough inspectors to go around, there could be some teams hurt unintentionally.
I see why it's there, but the entire alliance?????? The penalty is TOO MUCH! You've never been DQ'd because of what your partner did before, except in eliminations!
In qualification matches, red cards are robot-specific. So only the specific team would recieve a red card. Only during finals matches would a red card ever be issued to an entire alliance, as I understand.
After reading the manual and finding out that defense is futile in qualification matches I was even more excited!
Where are you getting this from? Section 5.3.3 states that seeding will be based on Qualification Score, which has returned to its previous state of 2 points per win, 1 per tie, 0 per loss. So there's still the incentive to win your qualification matches, and therefore an incentive to play defense.
As for my opinion of the game, I really like it. I am excited to see the different ways teams climb the tower with the minibot. I think teams that dominated in 2007 will be at an advantage, but they are also susceptible to new teams using the old tried and true ways of scoring tubes.
I think that the endgame is insanely important. If your alliance gets the first two minibots, that's 50 points, so the other alliance can only get 25. Those 25 points are going to be almost impossible to make up using tubes alone.
Overall I'm very excited for this year's game.
In qualification matches, red cards are robot-specific. So only the specific team would recieve a red card. Only during finals matches would a red card ever be issued to an entire alliance, as I understand.
You didn't read the rule, did you? You don't receive qualification and ranking points in eliminations. In other words, an elimination red card is being applied in qualifications for the case where a robot is not inspected.
After reading the rules, we talked strategy and design (which is secret now.)
That said:
I really like the BaneBots thing (using up to 4 total BB motors, of any of the 4 types) although I think the RS550's will be the most popular since they have the highest power output (~250 watts, according to the FIRST specs). I also sorta like the uber-powerful FP motor (~290) watts), and fear for its life in competition (POOF!), although there is currently no source for it (AM dosen't have it).
I like the multiple but similar game pieces. We are very, very glad that our 2007 robot still works perfectly (the arm at least) because we just fixed it up for a parade. That said, the tubes in 2007 were all around bigger than these (the tubes at least) and the center diameter is much larger then than the triangles and squares now.
I like the mini-bot.
(now back to drawing robot mechanism ideas on paper)
This is going to be a fun season, but a difficult one too. Vex and NXT can be used which makes it even more fun but once again, difficult. But the most difficult thing will be the minibot because its such a different thing.
StormTrooperAV
08-01-2011, 19:39
I agree. I'm really excited about throwing around some unusual ideas for the minibot. I think, this year, it may payoff to take a penalty or two in order to cash in on the big points that can come from the minibot.
I agree. I'm really excited about throwing around some unusual ideas for the minibot. I think, this year, it may payoff to take a penalty or two in order to cash in on the big points that can come from the minibot.
Depending on what the penalty is, of course. Getting the minibot going too soon results in zero points.
I like the game, but there are some rules that I don't like (or really like).
chris janney
08-01-2011, 19:47
thanks for clarifying how high up the mini-bot could be deployed from. also does anyone know if we would be allowed to use compressed air to shoot the minibot up the pole?
StormTrooperAV
08-01-2011, 19:51
Well, of course, I can't be TOO specific as to exactly what penalties I am referring to :p
But I agree with you completely about the rules. There rule book got a lot thicker this year, & personally, I don't approve of a lot of the restrictions.
First impression, don't like the game at all. The logo array scoring is spectator unfriendly. Scoring will be unclear and games will end with no idea who has won until the official score is announced, not only because the logo scoring requires a rule book to tally but also the end of game bonus is relatively large. Positioning game pieces on a rack has no relevance to anything in the real world for most people.
For the participants, it will be challenging and fun as it always is when you are competing. In the grand scheme of broadening the appeal of FRC, this game is a step backwards from 2010 "soccer" and a huge disappointment.
thanks for clarifying how high up the mini-bot could be deployed from. also does anyone know if we would be allowed to use compressed air to shoot the minibot up the pole?
Depends. Can it be done within the pneumatics rules set forth in Game Section 4.3.11?
If so, then yes, provided that launching minibots is also legal. If not, then don't show up to competition with a device using compressed air to shoot minitbots up poles.
We are very, very glad that our 2007 robot still works perfectly (the arm at least) because we just fixed it up for a parade.
not sure what you mean by this, since you later mention thinking about ideas... just FYI: using mechanisms from old robots is not allowed. (some stuff is allowed, but I won't interpert the rules here.)
not sure what you mean by this, since you later mention thinking about ideas... just FYI: using mechanisms from old robots is not allowed. (some stuff is allowed, but I won't interpert the rules here.)
Oh darn!
And here I was thinking we could just bag our 2007 robot and take a nice seven week break til FLR.
Guess it's time to get to brainstorming.
not sure what you mean by this, since you later mention thinking about ideas... just FYI: using mechanisms from old robots is not allowed. (some stuff is allowed, but I won't interpert the rules here.)
Our 07 bot manipulates tubes, similar to this year's game pieces. We can look at what it did to score, and see how well it works for the new game pieces (which are very similar to the 07 tube).
We wouldn't use it, just look at how it works and see if we can use the stuff we learned back then again now.
That robot's arm is built of .030 aluminum tube, which is very thin. Analysis said it was very close to breaking, and after about 10 hours of play time it did. We repaired it, but it is still very, very close to catastrophic failure.
Horrible move on FIRST part that teams are close to required to purchase and acquire FTC parts to have a good shot at winning matches...
The programs should never mix and match again.
Totally agree, it's a huge disadvantage to teams that chose to do and mentor Vex instead.
FIRST shouldn't try and force a program on us that we don't want.
SashaKuznetsov
08-01-2011, 21:37
Totally agree, it's a huge disadvantage to teams that chose to do and mentor Vex instead.
FIRST shouldn't try and force a program on us that we don't want.
What do you mean, a program we don't want? FTC is a part of who we are as a program, they are the origins of good FRC members. And if you didn't know, FTC, FLL, and FRC are ALWAYS related. The biggest clues you can get before kick-off aren't those we're given, but the ones you can get by observing the other two's challenges and preparing for it appropriately.
Plus, they're not forcing anything on us, they actually gave us a really easy way to earn points. They gave us a simple challenge, a base model for how to rise to it, and FREE kits of simple parts to put it together.
If you don't like it, just don't use it.
What do you mean, a program we don't want? FTC is a part of who we are as a program, they are the origins of good FRC members. And if you didn't know, FTC, FLL, and FRC are ALWAYS related. The biggest clues you can get before kick-off aren't those we're given, but the ones you can get by observing the other two's challenges and preparing for it appropriately.
Plus, they're not forcing anything on us, they actually gave us a really easy way to earn points. They gave us a simple challenge, a base model for how to rise to it, and FREE kits of simple parts to put it together.
If you don't like it, just don't use it.
Its not a collective we, it is a my team (and many other teams) we. We don't do FTC. We don't want to do FTC. We do a much more cost effective program.
They stated many times during kickoff how being involved in FTC would be an advantage for teams. To me that infers that teams like ours who choose a different rout to inspire and bring younger students into the FRC team will be deliberately and intentionally at a disadvantage.
This isn't about a challenge in the game it's about politics pure and simple.
Trust me I'm not the only one who feels this way, although I will be one of the few who will voice my opinion.
Grim Tuesday
08-01-2011, 22:17
First impression, don't like the game at all. The logo array scoring is spectator unfriendly. Scoring will be unclear and games will end with no idea who has won until the official score is announced, not only because the logo scoring requires a rule book to tally but also the end of game bonus is relatively large. Positioning game pieces on a rack has no relevance to anything in the real world for most people.
For the participants, it will be challenging and fun as it always is when you are competing. In the grand scheme of broadening the appeal of FRC, this game is a step backwards from 2010 "soccer" and a huge disappointment.
You hit the nail right on the head. I think the game will be exciting and fun to watch for the millions of people on an FRC team. However, the scoring is relatively complex, and makes no sense to someone who isnt in FIRST.
Personally, I love the game, it mixes up 2007 enough for it to be completely different (the biggest change imo is no defense) but it won't be fun to watch for spectators.
UkuleleGuy
08-01-2011, 23:34
Horrible move on FIRST part that teams are close to required to purchase and acquire FTC parts to have a good shot at winning matches...
The programs should never mix and match again.
FTC parts are not that expensive, you can get a good set for ~$500.
You cant tell me that the winning teams spend less than $500 on special parts for the current year's game.
And you can also use these parts for prototyping during the next years.
Tetraman
08-01-2011, 23:38
Its not a collective we, it is a my team (and many other teams) we. We don't do FTC. We don't want to do FTC. We do a much more cost effective program.
They stated many times during kickoff how being involved in FTC would be an advantage for teams. To me that infers that teams like ours who choose a different rout to inspire and bring younger students into the FRC team will be deliberately and intentionally at a disadvantage.
This isn't about a challenge in the game it's about politics pure and simple.
Trust me I'm not the only one who feels this way, although I will be one of the few who will voice my opinion.
To say it another way:
Imagine if the NFL gave out touchdowns at the last 2 minutes of each game based on how often an NFL team goes on youth outreach programs. Yes, it makes sense to honor and praise the teams that are able to do such great deeds, but for teams who go on elderly outreach programs are at a massive disadvantage because it's not a youth outreach program - and either way it's not about how well you do at playing the game of football.
What if a team can't start a FTC team because of money? They would if they could but every year they just can't get enough money. Are they to be penalized because they barely had enough to even build a box with wheels for FRC?
My quarrel comes from the fact that the majority of the legal parts and easiest way to build a mini-bot is though the FTC system. I understand why they chose to use the FTC system for the mini-bot, it makes perfect sense. FIRST controls what is FTC legal, thus what the mini-bot could be built out of is controlled easily. I just think more teams would be more comfortable with a wider array of legal parts and previous knowledge of FTC was an advantage.
That said, I LOVE everything else. I even love the Mini-bot race. I can't wait for this game...except for the field reset part...but I still love doing that too.
FTC parts are not that expensive, you can get a good set for ~$500.
You cant tell me that the winning teams spend less than $500 on special parts for the current year's game.
And you can also use these parts for prototyping during the next years.
What if a team can't even spend an extra $500 outside the traditional built robot? $500 is a big chunk of change for some teams they just can't afford to spend on something that is, to them, trivial.
penguinfrk
08-01-2011, 23:45
I think that the endgame is insanely important. If your alliance gets the first two minibots, that's 50 points, so the other alliance can only get 25. Those 25 points are going to be almost impossible to make up using tubes alone.
That's why I think this game is a bit lopsided. For the last 10 seconds of a match to be able to swing the first 125 seems a bit unbalanced to me. 20-15-10-5 or 15-10-5-0 seems more reasonable (and the 0 may add a little twist in strategy...)
For the participants, it will be challenging and fun as it always is when you are competing. In the grand scheme of broadening the appeal of FRC, this game is a step backwards from 2010 "soccer" and a huge disappointment.
I agree. As IndySam mentioned, it's not to say that non-FTC students can't become great FRC students. The FIRST vision says "To transform our culture by creating a world where science and technology are celebrated and where young people dream of becoming science and technology leaders" and I don't read anything about being specifically part of any team (Jr.FLL, FLL, FTC, FRC, VEX, etc).
That being said, I think working with the parts restrictions introduces a new type of innovation not formerly present in FRC: designing around limited parts to achieve your ends. For many rookie teams, this arguably provides a more level playing field because the parts aren't as expensive, no excessive resources required (machining, expertise, ...)
Grim Tuesday
08-01-2011, 23:50
To say it another way:
Imagine if the NFL gave out touchdowns at the last 2 minutes of each game based on how often an NFL team goes on youth outreach programs. Yes, it makes sense to honor and praise the teams that are able to do such great deeds, but for teams who go on elderly outreach programs are at a massive disadvantage because it's not a youth outreach program - and either way it's not about how well you do at playing the game of football.
That analogy is flawed. It would correctly be:
For the last 2 minutes of the game, the players play only touch football. They can do it, and if they werent in little leage middle school football, then they are at a disadvantage.
Any FRC team can put together n FTC robot, it might be harder if they arent used to it, but thats part of the fun and the challenge.
Tetraman
08-01-2011, 23:57
Any FRC team can put together n FTC robot, it might be harder if they arent used to it, but thats part of the fun and the challenge.
What if an FRC team can't afford an FTC kit?
Chris is me
09-01-2011, 00:05
FTC parts are not that expensive, you can get a good set for ~$500.
You cant tell me that the winning teams spend less than $500 on special parts for the current year's game.
And you can also use these parts for prototyping during the next years.
FTC parts are dramatically more expensive than Vex - that's the "expense" referred to here. Teams like ours chose VRC or similar programs because it was cheaper and much less reliable than FTC - easier for us to inspire students.
FIRST is punishing teams that inspire "the wrong way". Plain and simple.
Its not a collective we, it is a my team (and many other teams) we. We don't do FTC. We don't want to do FTC. We do a much more cost effective program.
They stated many times during kickoff how being involved in FTC would be an advantage for teams. To me that infers that teams like ours who choose a different rout to inspire and bring younger students into the FRC team will be deliberately and intentionally at a disadvantage.
This isn't about a challenge in the game it's about politics pure and simple.
Trust me I'm not the only one who feels this way, although I will be one of the few who will voice my opinion.
I completely agree. This is 100% politics and I'm not afraid to say it.
Dargel1625
09-01-2011, 00:20
That analogy is flawed. It would correctly be:
For the last 2 minutes of the game, the players play only touch football. They can do it, and if they werent in little leage middle school football, then they are at a disadvantage.
Any FRC team can put together n FTC robot, it might be harder if they arent used to it, but thats part of the fun and the challenge.
That analogy doesn't work either, as the challenge is not the main problem for most teams. It would be like making them only play flag football for the last 2 minutes, and charging them half a million dollars to buy the flags.
synth3tk
09-01-2011, 00:38
What if an FRC team can't afford an FTC kit?
Yeah, what if they can't afford free?
http://www.usfirst.org/uploadedFiles/Robotics_Programs/FRC/Game_and_Season__Info/Email_Archive/2011/2011%20FIRST%20Choice%20-%20Home%20Page.pdf
marwahaha
09-01-2011, 01:28
Just a couple things.
As for FTC parts, i think the game committee did consider rookies and limited budgets. This is why the FIRST Choice system is up, promoting organization, as this program is only offered for about a week. They want everyone to get their free parts, including an FTC Kit (you only pay for shipping). It's still frustrating to keep paying for extra parts, but if the endgame was different, then the shipping costs might have been spent elsewhere on the endgame strategy. Most teams should be able to get this kit, they just have to make the deadline.
This is also where the veterans who have more FTC parts can make more minibots to share and work towards a coopertition award.
As for the spectator viewing pleasure, I think this will be interesting to watch for at least the first 30 seconds, and especially the last 30 seconds. It's fine to complain, but these are the rules, let's work to meet this criteria. The first 30 seconds will be autonomous and the beginning of racking tubes, semi-interesting as robots extend out of starting configurations.
However, i think the more "fun" part of watching will be the robot interaction. If you can block the opponent from scoring in their zone, then the game turns into a "red rover" or "sharks-and-minnows" style game. Stay in your feeder/protected lane, then try to dart across the field to your scoring zone, avoiding robots trying to ram you off course. If games are played in this fashion, even people not involved in FIRST will be interested in the maneuverability of the robots and skill of the drive team rather than the racking of individual tubes.
The last 30 seconds will be very interesting as teams get ready to ignite their minibots. They will get ready by their tower, and "open up", essentially spitting out another robot to climb. These races will be intense to watch, probably determining who won.
The best analogy to think of is Harry Potter: Quidditch goals are only worth 10 points each, but whoever gets the Snitch at the end of the game gets 150 points, and likely wins.
EDIT: And in Quidditch you have scorers, and beaters/blockers trying to prevent scoring. Also, the Snitch is not released until later in the game, so for the beginning of the game you watch the scoring (for us, the tubes). When the Snitch is released and sighted you watch the Snitch (or minibot race). This analogy may work pretty well...
I enjoyed how FIRST worked out the kinks of scoring and "coopertition" this year. Take a look at pp65-67, it's pretty cool, as winning is most important. Then close, high-scoring games are preferable to low-scoring games or blowouts for tiebreaking scores. They also wanted to avoid the winning alliance helping the losing alliance to boost tiebreaking scores: As a result, a heavily weighted endgame makes the winner indeterminate until it's too late to help your opponent. I think this endgame change was one of many to prevent the 6vs0 games of last season.
FIRST is trying to unify spirit by integrating programs; I think we will be seeing more cross-overs in the future. This is the reason for the stress on "FIRST Team ----" during Kickoff. To them, it is less important to be a FRC robotics team than be a FIRST robotics team, the true organization behind it all. Yes, it is politics, but it's uniting all the different FIRST spirits (FRC, FTC, etc.) into one big giant community all excited about FIRST. Not only is the FTC kit involved, but the FLL line-tracking is present. By uniting the spirit into one group, the organization can get better recognition from the public and from the government and the media...
Which in turn may increase corporate sponsors, willing to donate to local teams or nationally, and more recruitment from younger schools, helping FIRST grow.
I am content with this year's game. Just really excited to be back in season.
Yeah, what if they can't afford free?
http://www.usfirst.org/uploadedFiles/Robotics_Programs/FRC/Game_and_Season__Info/Email_Archive/2011/2011%20FIRST%20Choice%20-%20Home%20Page.pdf
Free only works when you can get access to the store.
dtengineering
09-01-2011, 02:01
I'm hesitant to be critical of the GDC, as they have done a pretty good job of most things in the past. Well, certain ranking and match scoring algorithms haven't been that well thought out, and it was almost easier to get actual moon rocks than the game pieces, but as far as the game goes... they've done a pretty good job of it.
I am a bit disappointed, however, to see tubes on a Rack again.... I'm not quite sure why using 1/2" plywood cut and painted to form the logo pieces wouldn't have done the trick... they would have presented a slightly different grasping/manipulation challenge from what we've seen in the past, and teams would have had easy access to an essentially unlimited number of them.
Oh, yeah... they wouldn't pop, either.
The minibot is a neat idea. I think if I had to build one, however, I would look at how I could build it without the RCX... you are allowed two light switches, and I don't see where the rules say you cant hook the minibot motors up to them directly. For that matter, I don't see anything saying that the minibot motors can't be running at the start of the match. Last time I looked, lighter objects tend to go "up" faster. No sense packing an RCX up that pole if you don't have to.
Mind you, I've only had a cursory look at the rules this year as (for the first time in eight years) I'm not playing the game... but I don't think I'm missing out. I played Rack'n'Roll and had fun with it, and get the mini-bot experience and more through volunteering with VEX and teaching about mini-sumo robotics. The teams will make this a fun and interesting game, but I don't think it is the GDC's strongest effort. As far as game design goes, I'd have to say that both the VEX and FTC games this year are more "interesting" games to me.
Jason
P.S. When will we see used car tires as a game piece? Cheap, ubiquitous, easy to grasp in many different ways... and a delightful challenge to lift up in the air!
Travis Hoffman
09-01-2011, 04:10
Where are you getting this from? Section 5.3.3 states that seeding will be based on Qualification Score, which has returned to its previous state of 2 points per win, 1 per tie, 0 per loss. So there's still the incentive to win your qualification matches, and therefore an incentive to play defense.
:) If two alliances are balanced offensively, some good, smart defense would be prudent to slow the other side down just enough to pull out a victory. Denial and delay of game piece acquisition is where I'd begin.
Keep in mind though that the ranking score for the winning alliance is based on the losing alliance's unpenalized score, and the ranking score is the first tiebreaker in determining final team seeding, so it still behooves the winning alliance to permit some scoring by the opposition.
I enjoyed how FIRST worked out the kinks of scoring and "coopertition" this year. Take a look at pp65-67, it's pretty cool, as winning is most important. Then close, high-scoring games are preferable to low-scoring games or blowouts for tiebreaking scores. They also wanted to avoid the winning alliance helping the losing alliance to boost tiebreaking scores: As a result, a heavily weighted endgame makes the winner indeterminate until it's too late to help your opponent. I think this endgame change was one of many to prevent the 6vs0 games of last season.
FIRST is trying to unify spirit by integrating programs; I think we will be seeing more cross-overs in the future. This is the reason for the stress on "FIRST Team ----" during Kickoff. To them, it is less important to be a FRC robotics team than be a FIRST robotics team, the true organization behind it all. Yes, it is politics, but it's uniting all the different FIRST spirits (FRC, FTC, etc.) into one big giant community all excited about FIRST. Not only is the FTC kit involved, but the FLL line-tracking is present. By uniting the spirit into one group, the organization can get better recognition from the public and from the government and the media...
Which in turn may increase corporate sponsors, willing to donate to local teams or nationally, and more recruitment from younger schools, helping FIRST grow.
200 :)'s. All hail the glorious annihilation of the 2010 scoring system and the various goofball strategies it spawned.
I, too like bringing the different levels closer together. In fact, there's an FLL team in Canton our NEOFRA FRC teams helped kick off who developed some nice line following algorithms this year. And there's an FTC team at our local vocational school who could be instrumental in assisting all the local NEOFRA teams in minibot development. I think I'll be checking in with both of them soon. :)
Sean Raia
09-01-2011, 09:57
I think we may see a pattern forming within the next few years of FRC.
08 - Overdrive (Nascar)
09 - Lunacy
10 - Breakaway (Soccer)
11 - Logomotion
Since 08, it seems that every other years has been a sports related game. <-- i know there have only been two, but its still intriguing.
Making the games play out more like real sports is obviously to make the competitions more viewer friendly and easier to understand.
I do agree that it seemed like an unwise move to design a competition that isn't easy for non-FRC spectators to follow, but after putting some thought into the other previous competitions i think its just a pattern. Perhaps competitions like Lunacy and Logomotion are designed more for the entertainment of the teams.
Regardless, i'm looking forward to this years challenge and i think that the competition will be fierce as ever.
SteveGPage
09-01-2011, 10:57
I completely agree. This is 100% politics and I'm not afraid to say it.
I can understand your frustration, especially if your team has been working with VEX teams rather than FTC teams. We are fortunate that we have been in a position to support both types of teams - due to some very generous grants and supporters. That being said, I - especially in light of Dean's homework - expect FIRST to continue to promote the FIRST brand, and only the FIRST brand. it isn't just politics, it is a branding and marketing decision.
Steve
Cyberphil
09-01-2011, 16:15
Where are you getting this from? Section 5.3.3 states that seeding will be based on Qualification Score, which has returned to its previous state of 2 points per win, 1 per tie, 0 per loss. So there's still the incentive to win your qualification matches, and therefore an incentive to play defense.
As for my opinion of the game, I really like it. I am excited to see the different ways teams climb the tower with the minibot. I think teams that dominated in 2007 will be at an advantage, but they are also susceptible to new teams using the old tried and true ways of scoring tubes.
I think that the endgame is insanely important. If your alliance gets the first two minibots, that's 50 points, so the other alliance can only get 25. Those 25 points are going to be almost impossible to make up using tubes alone.
Overall I'm very excited for this year's game.
I understand that qualification points are first, but the ranking points are next. So yes, there is a small incentive to play defense, but if you are playing defense, you are preventing your ranking score from going up. You want as high of a ranking score as possible so if you have a tie, you are the better team and are seeded higher.
So basically, if you cannot outscore the opponent, you can try to prevent them from scoring, which means one (or more) of your robots will be used to play defense against the other team, which makes it harder for your team to score because you only have 2 (or 1) robot trying to score at all times.
Defense will be vital in the finals, but to get seeded the highest in qualifications, you should try to get your opponents score to go as high as possible if you are winning, and try to get your score as high as possible if you are losing. Basically, if you just try to score, you are helping every one of the teams in respect to ranking points.
Yes, this is just talking about ranking points, but it is another thing you have to take into account for during the competitions.
I agree that winning the match should be your first priority, and I think some teams will play defense no matter what. It will be interesting to see how the matches actually turn out....
George Nishimura
09-01-2011, 17:07
Just as a general impression, I do feel that there is too much emphasis on the endgame.
This is my fourth year as a member of my team, and I think out of all the competitions so far, Lunacy has been my favorite, followed by Breakaway. While I can't truly judge until the regional, so far this has been my least favorite game idea.
While from a strategy perspective, I don't think there are that many options (although, I'm sure, I will be proved wrong), from a building perspective it looks pretty exciting with the minibot and the tubes. And there's something for us programmers too.
It's still a good game, I'll wait and see if my overall opinion changes though.
Its not a collective we, it is a my team (and many other teams) we. We don't do FTC. We don't want to do FTC. We do a much more cost effective program.
They stated many times during kickoff how being involved in FTC would be an advantage for teams. To me that infers that teams like ours who choose a different rout to inspire and bring younger students into the FRC team will be deliberately and intentionally at a disadvantage.
This isn't about a challenge in the game it's about politics pure and simple.
Trust me I'm not the only one who feels this way, although I will be one of the few who will voice my opinion.
I completely agree with you. Many of the FRC teams here in the Southern California area are FRC/VEX teams because of cost of competition and reliability of system.
As for my initial response, I had a total "tubes already?" moment at the start of kickoff. I was hoping for a different gamepiece...giant pucks perhaps? I think it will be a very interesting game this year, though I see veterans having a greater advantage here than before given the addition of the minibot. I think that the configuration of the rack in front of the player station is a huge mistake, and though it seems that the intent was to force the use of sensors and other means of navigation, it seems like there could have been more elegant means of accomplishing this - perhaps 1 rack above the player station, a medium height rack on the side of the field away from the audience, and short rack on the audience side?
MathMaven
10-01-2011, 17:33
...[T]he new game was just announced. What are your initial impressions of the game?...
I think the design for this game is very clever. The idea of creating FIRST's logo to recieve bonus points (and the hints provided throughout the live broadcast) is great.
However, the star of this year's game is the minibots. I remember the crowd's reaction to the minibot idea at the kickoff event at NOVI, and I think seeing somebody successfully score with a minibot for the first time will be amazing.
johannart
10-01-2011, 17:59
I like this game. Or should I say, I prefer it over last year's. I hated the scoring system last year and it took us forever to think things up and our solutions stunk. This year is easier as it reflects on an older robot and introduces a mini-bot which is easier than a hook. I'm sure there is going to be an increase in need to communicate with your alliance to make use of the uber-toobs.
I like this game. Or should I say, I prefer it over last year's. I hated the scoring system last year and it took us forever to think things up and our solutions stunk. This year is easier as it reflects on an older robot and introduces a mini-bot which is easier than a hook. I'm sure there is going to be an increase in need to communicate with your alliance to make use of the uber-toobs.
So let me get this straight you hated last years game because your robot was no good? My favorite game was 2004 and our robot fell over all the time. The GDC can't be held responsible for your lack of success.
And the lame ranking system from last year is being used for this game as well.
pfreivald
10-01-2011, 18:23
And the lame ranking system from last year is being used for this game as well.
Have I misread something?
--------------
General impression:
Autonomous is critical. Double-double score for logo-toprack-UBERTUBE? Yes, please!
Endgame is critical. Potential +50 points for the winning two MINIBOTs? Yes, please!
The rest of the game is critical. Potential for lots and lots of points by capitalizing on the autonomous successes, playing hard defense, and having great robots? Yes, please?
I don't mean to sound like a fanboi, but a fanboi I am! Logomotion makes all three stages of the game absolutely critical to success... As well they should be!
And the lame ranking system from last year is being used for this game as well.
Ed, don't make me tell you to go read the manual. It's W-L-T, then ranking score (2X unpenalized loser's for the winner, penalized loser's for the loser, 2x alliance score for a tie).
Ed, don't make me tell you to go read the manual. It's W-L-T, then ranking score (2X unpenalized loser's for the winner, penalized loser's for the loser, 2x alliance score for a tie).
Don't worry he does queuing :)
Grim Tuesday
10-01-2011, 22:27
So let me get this straight you hated last years game because your robot was no good? My favorite game was 2004 and our robot fell over all the time. The GDC can't be held responsible for your lack of success.
And the lame ranking system from last year is being used for this game as well.
The ranking system is not being used this year besides as a tiebreaker to W-L-T
Seathan93
10-01-2011, 23:07
Initial impressions of the game from myself and some of my fellow team members when the video started was, "eh seems a bit uninteresting." Then the minibots came out and we were all excited.
I don't like that FIRST is making it all about the FIRST brand. I get why they are, but Dean Kamen can't just say "it's not just about the robots" as an excuse as to why they're doing shameless branding. The whole point of last year was that FIRST was expanding to make it a "spectator sport" and I feel they're going backwards with this game.
Personally I liked last year's game. The scoring system for seeding points was a little funky, but it was very enjoyable to watch. Of course, our robot basically didn't work at all, but we failed in a spectacular display of hisses as our shield, the only working part, popped open.
That being said, the inability to defend once a team gets in the "safety zone" and the (seemingly obvious) strategy that people will just go from slot to scoreboard, makes the game a bit uninteresting. I think the minibot race at the end will be the most exciting bit of the game.
I hope I'm wrong, like I was with lunacy, but that's to be decided. Personally I liked Overdrive or Breakaway the best, but hopefully Logomotion will be just as enjoyable.
...people will just go from slot to scoreboard, makes the game a bit uninteresting.
Remember, that is a distance of over 50 feet each way, in oncoming traffic.
Cyberphil
10-01-2011, 23:27
Remember, that is a distance of over 50 feet each way, in oncoming traffic.
I understand what you are hinting to, but I can see a majority of people interpreting this in a very different way.
If I know 33 at all, I know you guys will have a strong strategy, and will make sure it works, and I am inclined to think the same way you are at this point.
Ed, don't make me tell you to go read the manual. It's W-L-T, then ranking score (2X unpenalized loser's for the winner, penalized loser's for the loser, 2x alliance score for a tie).
oops.
my bad
Travis Hoffman
11-01-2011, 09:45
Ed, don't make me tell you to go read the manual. It's W-L-T, then ranking score (2X unpenalized loser's for the winner, penalized loser's for the loser, 2x alliance score for a tie).
5.3.4 Ranking Score (RS)
Each TEAM on the winning ALLIANCE will receive a number of ranking points equal to the unpenalized score (the score without any assessed penalties) of the losing ALLIANCE.
Each TEAM on the losing ALLIANCE will receive a number of ranking points equal to their final score (with any assessed penalties).
In the case of a tie, all participating TEAMS will receive a number of ranking points equal to their ALLIANCE score (with any assessed penalties).
Tetraman
11-01-2011, 10:28
I don't like that FIRST is making it all about the FIRST brand. I get why they are, but Dean Kamen can't just say "it's not just about the robots" as an excuse as to why they're doing shameless branding. The whole point of last year was that FIRST was expanding to make it a "spectator sport" and I feel they're going backwards with this game.
If they weren't doing it for the 20th anniversary, they would for the 25th. The "Triangle, Circle and Square as Game Pieces in a single Game" has been thrown around to death and I'm really glad they are doing it. One reason, is to get the idea out there and years beyond this the notion won't be brought up again, at least for another 4-5 years.
The only Branding part I see is the use of FTC parts for the Mini-Bot. I don't think it could ever be a problem that FIRST is going to celebrate FIRST for all that FIRST has done for those who have found great success with FIRST. I understand the nausea of having to suffer though more speeches, but as I got older I found the speeches to actually be relevant and true. It would just help if they were more like Tooth.
As for being a spectator sport, I think simply telling a spectator that the goal of the game is to "create as many FIRST logos as possible" would be enough to get someone into the game...and what greater spectacle is there in the Mini-bot race? I think FIRST is ok with keeping everyone pumped for watching games they aren't in.
Chris is me
11-01-2011, 11:05
5.3.4 Ranking Score (RS)
Look directly above you at Qualification Score (QS)
Ian Curtis
11-01-2011, 11:22
Look directly above you at Qualification Score (QS)
I think Travis is just pointing out that Eric incorrectly listed the ranking score. It's just the losers unpenalized score for the winners, the loser's penalized score for the losers, and your score for a tie, as opposed to having multipliers like it had in the past. :)
I don't like that FIRST is making it all about the FIRST brand. I get why they are, but Dean Kamen can't just say "it's not just about the robots" as an excuse as to why they're doing shameless branding. The whole point of last year was that FIRST was expanding to make it a "spectator sport" and I feel they're going backwards with this game.
I respectfully, completely disagree.
They're not doing "shameless branding" just so they can say that it's not just about the robot. Does Ford stick a logo on everything they do to say "it's not just about the cars?" If they do, I'd be surprised. FIRST isn't using the logo pieces to get teams to show more team spirit, put more effort into their business plans, or do more for their community. They're not even doing it to get teams to display logos (the individual team's or FIRST's) everywhere as a promotional tool (and really, I don't see why any company wouldn't want to get their name out there and get themselves easily recognized. Isn't that why logos exist?).
I think that using the logo as game pieces for an anniversary-year game is very appropriate. It's a celebration of the organization of the whole, as well as a tribute to Jack Kamen (Dean's father), who designed the logo. Plus, you can't deny that having game pieces in three different shapes is a wonderful challenge, and I can't think of three better shapes for the situation.
Andrew Schreiber
11-01-2011, 11:39
Yeah, what if they can't afford free?
http://www.usfirst.org/uploadedFiles/Robotics_Programs/FRC/Game_and_Season__Info/Email_Archive/2011/2011%20FIRST%20Choice%20-%20Home%20Page.pdf
Free works great... except for the teams outside of the continental US.. you know, the ones who have to deal with getting their KOP 3rd week because it is held up in customs? The ones who have to pay to import all their COTS parts? There is probably not a country with an FRC team that doesn't have a local metal supplier but I would bet you there are a few that don't have a local FTC kit supplier.
I like the game, if they clear up the 60" discrepancy the way I hope they do I will be content. I love multiple game pieces. I love we will be able to score without being hit constantly. I love that there is still defense. The Minibots (FTC politics aside) are a welcome addition, FRC endgames were getting a little stale imho. In short, I haven't found a major flaw yet but I'll wait until the first set of updates and some Q&A before passing final judgement (on the rules, I can't judge gameplay until I see Einstein).
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.