What FRC game aspects do like/Dislike?
 

I am curious to know what FRC people prefer to have in FRC game. I'm not talking about specific games, but over arching concepts. A lot of people are complaining about this years game, but I think it would be more productive if we also talk about what we want in FRC game. I don't want this to turn into a hate fest, so please list both likes and dislikes.

Like:
1. Real Time (unofficial) Scoring
This makes the game easy to follow, and exciting for the audiance.
2. An "end Game"
I like the idea of a game that has two different tasks. It gives options to the teams, and it makes the end of the match exciting.
3. Simple Seeding(sp?)
This makes everything simpiler, win a match +2 points, tie +1, Loose +0. I am also OK with stuff like the cooperation points.


Dislike:
1. Opportunities for High Speed Ramming
I enjoy watching a good offensive team getting shut down by defense. I consider it good strategy. However, I dislike high-speed ramming because it can damage robots that teams have spent weeks working on.
2. Unfair Fouls
All fouls that I have ever seen in FRC make sense on paper. They are there to get rid of loop holes in the game. However, in reality they end up being really unfair. The biggest offender I have seen is the possession of the other alliances game piece. It needs to be there for the game to function, but it also killed some teams when a ball accidentally fell into their robot.

3. Single Game piece play
Having only one game piece makes everything more stressful. For example: when a ball gets stuck in a robot and the return time for a ball that gets bounced out of the field.

Re: What FRC game aspects do like/Dislike?
 

Some of these may not be game-inherent

Like:

1) Low frequency of ##-0 or 0-0 matches (though this has definitely improved with adding, instead of subtracting, penalties)
2) Higher level of play in elims than quals
3) Real-time scoring + final scores shortly after match end
4) Relatively straightforward rules
5) Challenge veterans / accessible to rookies
6) Relatively easy to score in auto (like 2011-2014)
7) Multiple tiers of scoring (eg low, middle, high goal)
8) Game pieces that are easy to obtain or enough come in kit/FIRST Choice

Dislike:

1) Relatively easy to earn red cards (eg 2011)
2) Tetrix minibots

Interested to see again:

1) Allowed to have arbitrary number of game pieces (in a game with a lot in play, eg Aim High)

Re: What FRC game aspects do like/Dislike?
 

Likes:
-challenges that are hard, but not crucial and allow a rookie team to do generally well, and a really good team to excel.
-High scoring matches
- simple games that allow for flexible strategies
- end game with multiple levels of complexity, such as multiple tiers on pyramid
- looks awesome to anyone, even grandmothers.
- allows for defense to be useful if done right, but it doesn't stop the entire flow
- not to much relies on refs
- allows for a team with great strategy to exceed
- autonomous modes that allow a rookie team to score some, and a really good team to score a lot
- high low type goals, multiple options
Dislikes:
- high speed ramming as a valid strategy to some teams.
- no safe zones
- single elements
- difficult to understand games
- games that can't be explained thoroughly within a few minutes
- REGOLITH
- games that rely more on human players than robots
- games without a hard challenge involved somewhere

Re: What FRC game aspects do like/Dislike?
 

I don't know about that, I think regolith could be good in an overdrive style game.

Re: What FRC game aspects do like/Dislike?
 

Likes:
Many Game Pieces
No Max Score(i.e. 45 discs compared to infinite # of cycles)
Independent work of an alliance
Good Slowing Defense

Dislikes:
Wacky Fouls (if you catch a ball that is not yours when you are meant to catch)
Bad/Fast Collisions
Single Game Pieces

Re: What FRC game aspects do like/Dislike?
 

Likes:
-Team member value/ no all-stars
-Multiple goals to shoot in
-Value in defense
-No safe zones
-Endgames
-More robot, less player

Dislikes:
-Fragile/inflatable game pieces
-Only one game piece
-No endgame
-Possision fouls

Personally, I would like to see a single game peice game with points being scored based on goals. Defense would become more viable.

Re: What FRC game aspects do like/Dislike?
 

Man, maybe I am out of touch. I have just come back into the game after a hiatus that started in 2005, so most of my experience is from the days before bumpers. Back then we built 'em strong and appreciated vigorous defense and counter-defense. This stuff about safe zones and fear of getting rammed by a padded robot makes it feel like FRC has been nerfed.

Jeez, does this mean I have turned into the "Back in my day..." guy?

Re: What FRC game aspects do like/Dislike?
 

Likes: Single game piece! Makes for a much more spectator friendly and strategic game.

I feel that games with many pieces become "stand and shoot" affairs. That may be more satisfying for teams that want to show off their creations unchallenged, but the event become less "sport" and more "science fair".

Re: What FRC game aspects do like/Dislike?
 

The only thing I dislike about FRC is the fact that the FRC games have not improved as fast as the number of teams in FRC.

Every single game unveiled since 2008 (my rookie year) had a lot of potential. Unfortunately, if you compare 2014 to 2008 and every year in between, the game didn't really change; and I'm not talking about the game play. I'm talking about the rules/field errors/etc.

All I want is a field that works and rules that are clear.

Re: What FRC game aspects do like/Dislike?
 

It seems that many teams are annoyed about the lack of safe zones because they didn't predict defense as a possibility when designing the robot, leading to easily damaged robots. We have to build for the game, not change the game to erase our shortfalls. (Although the change in rules over the past few weeks have attempted to change some of it. Ie. G27)

I'm not saying the rules aren't broken this year, they are, but defense is a core aspect of this game and should have been designed for.

Re: What FRC game aspects do like/Dislike?
 

And then once they got rid of the technical on accidental possession, they didn't call it on a team that collected and shot their opponent's ball

Re: What FRC game aspects do like/Dislike?
 

You know, I actually kind of like not having an end game. I wasn't sure about it at the beginning of the season, but seeing some of the matches, it's won me over. Don't get me wrong, I also like having an end game, but this new dynamic is really intriguing.

Here are my two reasons:
1) No big point swings. The lack of end game ultimately means that there is no really big point swing. Ultimately this means that it's a difficult for an alliance to pull off the win based on a large sum of points scored in the last 10-15 seconds.

2) When matches are close, the gameplay gets intense. I've seen this across the country and even in my drivers, when matches get close, teams tend to dig in, and the last 30 seconds are just an absolutely amazing display of skill, strategy, and pure robots. It's exciting.

- Sunny G.

Re: What FRC game aspects do like/Dislike?
 

Haha, I haven't seen many people express that opinion, but I can really relate to it. I was active in high school from 2004 - 2007, right when bumpers were introduced and a stronger focus on penalizing damage came along.

In general, I think most everyone agrees that the bumpers themselves are a good thing. They allow you to not have to bandage your robot as frequently, not have to drive with as much trepidation, and gives your more time to focus on improvements rather than repairs.

That being said, I don't think I will ever agree with getting penalties for having a piece of your robot break or for breaking a piece of another team's robot. I'm not even sure if I agree with this distinction of "reaching inside the frame perimeter." You should take care to protect all of your important parts and understand that competitive play will result in tons of accidents. Having your robot broken is bad enough, adding a penalty on top of that is ridiculous.