Re: What was good about Aerial Assist?
 

I loved the last second shots. Last year, people cheered after the score went up, because they couldn't tell who had won. This year everybody in the stands knew that Curie would win if 254 made that last second shot, and everybody knew Newton would win if they missed. The tension was crazy :eek:

Re: What was good about Aerial Assist?
 

It is easier for me to state the 2 things I disliked about this game than to state the things I did like (just about everything)

Things I did not like

*Logistic issues. From FMS to reffing troubles, this was easily 99% of the reasons anybody has issues with the game

*no end game. While I appreciate the GDC trying something new, I like the last second challanges. When reasonably easy for low levels to do (bridge balancing vs >10pt pyramid climb) it makes a tense last few seconds.

Re: What was good about Aerial Assist?
 

When referees weren't involved it was a fun game at times.

Could have been a great game.

Re: What was good about Aerial Assist?
 

The cooperation among st teams was not doubt one of the leading factors in this years game. Coming from last year, where the idea was to build a good robot, and try to do the best YOU could do, this year was very different. It was all about how well you could do with others, and that led to many different strategy options which were always nice to see :) . From what I saw week one, I never would have thought that the game would evolve into such a massive amount of teamwork from the matches I saw later in the season. Loved this years game and hope to see more like it in the future.

Re: What was good about Aerial Assist?
 

Not having an end game was cool in some ways. The game is about scoring points with the big exercise ball for the entire time, which I think makes it more comprehensible. Even though the end games have been cool in their own ways, they always seem to be mashed together with their respective games in a way that doesn't make intuitive sense. Shoot frisbees + climb a pyramid; hang tubes + deploy minibot; shoot basketballs + balance on ramp. I'm not saying we shouldn't ever have end games, but I think the absence of a discordant end game lends simplicity and elegance to Aerial Assist.

An end game would have been somewhat disastrous this year anyway, because it would have resulted in even more teams that are nearly incapable of possessing the ball. Shooting mechanisms were enough of a fatal distraction to a lot of teams.

Edit: I could see doing an end game that is still focused on scoring the ball. Like being allowed to introduce a second ball, or being allowed to score the opponent's ball, or something like that to make the game swing more at the end. It didn't seem like this game needed any more of a swing at the end, though, because each cycle can be worth a big chunk of the final score as it is.

Re: What was good about Aerial Assist?
 

This game has given me more truly exciting moments than any other game I can remember. Truly a team game, where every robot on the field mattered.

I also liked the absence of the end game. Two examples why:
1) the Archimedes match where 27 pushed the red robot with the ball back half the distance of the field for the last 15 seconds to deny them any scoring chance. That moment of total drivetrain dominance couldn't have been possible if an end game were in place.
2) the final match (I believe) on Einstein where Newton scored their final complete cycle with 10-some odd seconds left and all three robots rushed down the field to play D on 254. 254 scored anyway and won the match for Curie.

Both these moments were so clutch and inspiring to watch. You could feel the moment swing with each completed cycle in every game. It was awesome.

Re: What was good about Aerial Assist?
 

If a alliance members robot stunk, get ready for your stats to drop a bit

Re: What was good about Aerial Assist?
 

I agree wholeheartedly. This game has had some incredible matches, often in which if it were anything other than Aerial Assist, would have a different result. For example, in Quals 5 @ Hatboro Horsham (MAR); 1712, 4954, and 87 defeated 103, 25, and 1640. This is a match that we had no historical right to win, and would have lost in any other game. Even in the context of aerial assist, this was an upset. One low goal bot, one H.P. trusser, and a robot was broken faced a catcher/finisher, and two high goal robots (one a soft lob) and won.

EDIT: This was also a first week event. Perhaps that makes it less impressive, perhaps more so, but I'm pretty confident it's relevant.

Re: What was good about Aerial Assist?
 

This was a game designed to be played at a world championships level. When we got there, it was awesome. At championships eliminations, you were almost guaranteed to have a good inbounder and trusser that will get the ball to the finisher in a decent amount of time. Sure, some were faster and more reliable than others, and defense made a difference, but there was no anguishing over a ball that is stuck in the back half of the field for half the match. And so what happened was now the finishers got to really show off what they were made of. To some extend, we were back to where really good robots could dominate. And I was inspired to see a showdown between 2 amazing finishers, 254 and 1114. Because they built amazing robots that really shone above the rest. That is what made champs awesome for me.

I don't think FRC was ready for this kind of game though. There are still too many box-of-rocks on wheels at the regional level, and nowhere near enough teams with the capacity to shoot the ball. Maybe if they made the ball smaller so that more teams would be able to handle it, then this game would have been OK. But even then, I think we would be better off just going back to the days of every robot doing their own thing and giving every robot the chance to show off what they brought to the competition (i.e. being able to use your shooter even if it is really inaccurate). If FIRST is insistent on coopertition, something like 2012 would be awesome; coopertition is valuable but not the only way to win, and almost any robot could do it.

Re: What was good about Aerial Assist?
 

This game, more than others, left more to strategy in determining who would do they best which I liked. Although this might have been one of the best finals I have ever seen, other games overall have been more interesting and exciting.

Re: What was good about Aerial Assist?
 

I understand the frustration of having weak robots on your alliance pulling you down, but a large part of it is how you could use these robots, even if they were unable to pick up the ball. Herding counted for possesion, and many succesful strategies involved the best team on an alliance in quals to be the "middle-man", transfering the ball between the weaker teams, and still getting the 3 assists. Overall, I thought it was such a great game because the only thing that really limited you was the quality of your strategy.

Re: What was good about Aerial Assist?
 

At the SF regionals at least, I found that while weak teams did make a match harder to win, it was mostly teams that refused to follow strategy that made teams lose. Our robot was unable to pick up the ball from the ground, but we where a very consistent truss passer, allowing us to get the 6th seeded position. In matches that we played with team that weren't the best, we simply made them play defense *and that tended to help quite a bit*, but teams that refused to do that much where one of the reasons we lost the 3 matches we did before the elimination rounds. In short, I think that FRC was alright with encouraging rookie teams this year, but could have been better. Perhaps 2 game pieces per an alliance would be the best way to fix any issues with teams that don't listen to strategy and teams that aren't the best. :)

Re: What was good about Aerial Assist?
 

I think people really would've called FIRST out if they did that. There were enough similarities to 2008 as it was.

Re: What was good about Aerial Assist?
 

Well I don't mean THIS year! :p

Re: What was good about Aerial Assist?
 

I think the ten-second autonomous period was exactly the right duration. It wasn't so short that most teams couldn't do something useful, and it wasn't so long that spectators could get bored.