Would you like End Game back?
 

Now that we are nearing a new season I thought it would be interesting to see the your thoughts on end games. If you had the power to bring end game back would you vote to bring it back? Why or why not?

Re: Would you like End Game back?
 

Well, hopefully yes. Generally the "endgame" for Aerial Assist was just "Truss that ball" or "Score that ball" and it was honestly very predictable and repetitive. It either scored or it didn't. Whereas with a pyramid or a bridge you have to wonder "Oh man will they have time to climb that top rung, will they be able to balance all 3 on that bridge?"

Re: Would you like End Game back?
 

Last year was my first year in FRC, so I never got to experience it. However, I did do some endgame stuff in VEX and liked it (won competition with a grappling hook!), so I guess I would like to see at least something this year.

Re: Would you like End Game back?
 

No, I would like to see FRC continue progressing toward "sport" rather than "game". It is much more exciting for the spectator to see a simpler game played with strategy and skill than to see a technical task accomplished. There are plenty of science fairs, but FRC is becoming the true sport for robots.

Re: Would you like End Game back?
 

The problem with comparing this to traditional sports is that it just isn't. What other sport is made up of groups of teams that switch all the time and play short matches to determine who plays the best? In my eyes the end game in a traditional sport would be like fouling in basketball. It is a risk you take toward the end of the game, but at least in robotics it doesn't make the last thirty seconds take a half hour to play.

I always thought the games have been fun to watch and exciting and the endgame was the thing that made people stop and be at a loss for words. The endgame is what was always able to sell sponsors and we actually lost a small sponsor due to there not being a jaw dropping task at the end of the game last year.

I would love to have it back, I think the endgame is one of the things that really tested creativity and saw some amazing solutions over the years.

Re: Would you like End Game back?
 

From a drivers standpoint (one who has driven 2011-2014), No end game was interesting. The endgame, meant a clear finish to the match. Without a endgame, there was no clear end, except for when the time ran out. I liked NO endgame, because it forced all teams to focus on the main task/game, instead of dropping the tube/not shooting all loaded balls or discs, and going to focus on the mini-bot/bridge/pyramid.

Re: Would you like End Game back?
 

With the endgames being confined to the last 30 seconds, they tend to be both quick and easy to score. I think the quick, showy task at the end really adds something to the spectating experience. In 2014, you could typically watch the first 30 seconds of a match and know who would win. That's not the case in a game like 2013, where you always knew that if an alliance had a potential 30 pt climb, the match could turn around at the end. It also forces a decision in regards to strategy, as you have to choose exactly the right time to shift focus in order to maximize points. Maybe it's just me, but I think the endgame just adds too much to the depth of a game to be ignored.

Re: Would you like End Game back?
 

I liked the endgame. It was something that challenged team to think outside the box in two applications rather than just one.
That being said it also has its downsides. Teams with more engineers and resources have an easier time with endgames because they can divide and conquer the tasks more effectively. So there's that to consider as well.
I vote for an endgame because I feel like the goal is to have a bigger challenge in design.

Re: Would you like End Game back?
 

After experiencing the end game for a few years, I felt that not having one was kinda nice. IMO I always thought the end games just never worked with the main teleop period, always being under or over valued. Its not hard to see why, since in order to balance the amount of points for the end game (usually single action) with the main teleop (usually multiple actions), the GDC would have to have a pretty good idea of exactly how much the average team is going to score in the main teleop, which of course they don't have. I mean, even we don't have that after build season until Week 1 events. Looking back at my time, this is how I think it played out:

2013: "Climb the pyramid" = "Hang from the Pyramid" and get 10 points (Going higher was undervalued for its difficulty)
2012: Co-op bridge and QS points per win/co-op was quite the fiasco.
2011: Mini-bot race overvalued and worth way more than most teams scored in tube points

And back even further there were things as simple as "park here when the match ends and get extra points." I don't know, after designing a robot painstakingly to do complex tasks like pick up and shoot frisbees or fire a foam ball into a hoop, giving teams these points for doing really easy tasks just seems like a detraction from the main teleop.

Now I do see how it allows rookie teams with less experience and resources to still be able to add to their alliance's score, but there are other ways to build this element into the game without an end game. 2014 was a perfect example, with allowing a very modest 5 points for a simple drive forward in auton. Even more so a robot who could just herd balls, but do it well, could be a major contributor to the alliance.

Honestly, I just don't think its necessary. Let teams focus on one element for the whole match. It makes it easier for spectators to understand and enjoy too.

And why not, I'll throw out the ubiquitous "Just my two cents" :D

Re: Would you like End Game back?
 

I think that End Games are good for lower levels of competition, but having no end game is better for higher levels of competition. By the time teams get to division elims and higher, most teams have usually found the most efficient way to do the endgame. For instance, we saw no 30pt climbs on Einstein in 2013, and no 40 point balances on Einstein in 2012. But on Einstein 2014, we had that epic back and forth between the 2 alliance. 1 missed ball would have changed the entire outcome of the match.

In games with endgames, at the early level of competition, you can be winning through most of the match, then lose because the other teams have a better endgame. At the high level, most teams do the end game correctly, so it comes down to who executes better.

In a game like this year, at the early levels of competition, if you were ahead early, you were most likely going to win. But at the higher levels it was so close one error changes the entire outcome.


I personally liked not having an endgame because it made the robot simpler, but I don't know. I might like it back.

1640 30pt climbed on Einstein in 2013 and 2012 Einstein didn't allow 3 robots on an alliance to function at the same time as I recall.

Re: Would you like End Game back?
 

I wouldn't bring it back.

It was nice making significant strategy decisions on the field instead of in the first few days of build. From an engineering and resource perspective it helps lower the minimum competitive and helps make the process more focused.

To me the endgame always looked like tacking "musical chairs" onto the end of a different game.

Re: Would you like End Game back?
 

When Aerial Assist was first released, I was pretty upset that there was no end game, but once competition season came around, I understood why no end game was a good idea. The end game has always been, "Who designed their robot to score these extra points and who didn't?" and you could do very little to stop the opposing alliance from scoring those points if they were capable of doing so. With this year, especially in elims and at stacked competitions, there were often instances where alliances had to hold the opposing alliance from scoring a (often assist-loaded) ball to win the match and there were times when this won critical matches. To me, this is more exciting than an endgame where either the alliance gets bonus points, or they don't.

We tried to create a sort-of endgame for Capital City Classic this year, and it consisted of placing a "special" ball (the trackball from Overdrive) on top of the truss, and teams could knock it off of the truss with a shot or a human player could throw the Aerial Assist ball at the trackball to knock it off (although this would not result in truss points if the Aerial Assist ball made it over the truss). Whichever alliance had the ball completely in their alliance's zone at the end of the match earned a ten point bonus. While the endgame was not a core part of the competition, there were instances where alliances fought over the ball and the result decided the match.

I believe that end games like this, where the two alliances have to fight for the bonus points and only one alliance or neither alliance will earn the points, are much more exciting to watch.

Re: Would you like End Game back?
 

Or lost them... I distinctly remember calling one of those. One alliance pulled a pin with about 10 seconds left in the match, 3 robots pinning one robot with a triple-assist ball that was heading for the high goal. (Oh, and this was the rubbermatch of that series--winner went to semifinals.) 3 different refs were signalling pin, but no robots backed up at all before the end of the match, even after a flag went up. The final score had a 42-point differential in favor of the pinned team.

Re: Would you like End Game back?
 

Well, everyone's put in valid and logical reasons for or against the Endgame.
I'm for the Endgame, just because, IMHO, it allowed greater team specialization. For instance, in 2013, teams could choose to be shooters, defense bots, climbers, or any combination. This allowed teams to choose a role that fit their team's philosophy, allowing them to learn more. In 2014, teams basically were told to shoot or block, with some wiggle room. I just guess I didn't like how we had to think harder to come up with our eventual strategy. ;)

Re: Would you like End Game back?
 

I've always felt that the endgames that don't have anything to do with the main intended objective of the game shouldn't have a place on the field. (2009 is the latest year that I remember had an end game with an objective similar to the regular teleop period). having no end game in 2014 was kind of a breath of fresh air. It created some intense matches that went down to the wire, and there was no clear winner until the end.

I also think FIRST hasn't been able to nail a good end game down properly. 2012 had the best end game in elims, but other than that, they were either undervalued or overvalued. In 2013, you could potentially score more disc points with a simple 10 pt buzzer beater hang and hurling frisbees all match instead of climbing for the 30. In 2011, the minibots were way overvalued, and guaranteed that whoever had a faster trigger finger would win the match, even if they didn't fill the rack up. In 2010, not many teams attempted climbs because on the onset it was only worth as much as 1-2 goals. And in 2009, trading an empty cell for a supercell almost never happened since there wasn't enough time to put the supercell back into play and score.

Maybe if FIRST can come up with a good endgame that is somewhat related to the game played in teleop, and is pretty balanced for the effort it takes, then it would be a good reintroduction of the endgame.

Re: Would you like End Game back?
 

In a 3v3 game endgame scoring schemes add an extra dimension to play. In Aerial Assist only two robots were active in any assist, so the third was either playing D or waiting for an inbound.
Bringing back an end game allows a third robot to choose between defense or bonus scoring in the final seconds.

Re: Would you like End Game back?
 

I would really hesitate to say that 30 point climbing and triple balancing was not efficient enough for high level play. In fact, in both games these factors made the difference at both the divisional playoff level and the IRI finals. In 2013, one alliance on Einstein had a 30 point climb. At the finals of IRI, where both alliances routinely ran out of discs to score, the alliance with two 30 point climbers beat the alliance with one 30 point climber. In 2012, the finals of multiple divisions were decided by successful or failed triple balances, and IRI was won by the alliance that could still triple balance (Opposing alliances in both the semis and finals substituted in a long backup robot, which had more trouble triple balancing).

The end game also often gives something for teams who want to do "one thing well" to focus on. In most games, you can win events with two scorers. An endgame specialist can make for a great second round pick.

Re: Would you like End Game back?
 

I'll second this sentiment. I thought the lack of endgame is one of the reasons 2014's game was such a fantastic game to watch.

Re: Would you like End Game back?
 

I really like there being an endgame, or at least another way to score. I feel that the best games were the ones that had 3 separate components (autonomous, teleoperated, and endgame usually) and the alliance that could win 2/3 of these components would win the match. I feel that this way nothing is too over or underrated.

For example, in 2011 the minibots were worth a lot but if you couldn't at least hold pace with the other alliance during auton/teleop then you just wouldn't be able to overcome the points they scored with the logos they would form. Same in 2012 with the bridges. A triple was worth 40 points and a good hybrid was roughly 30 (I know it's not perfect but that was pretty good for an alliance). With 70 points from hybrid and the endgame you could have won most games but if you fell behind in hybrid then you were going to have a battle ahead of you to come back in that match.

Re: Would you like End Game back?
 

I don't know if you can call it an endgame, but 2005's "tic tac toe" tetra game element was an interesting challenge.

For those unfamiliar the tetra goals were placed 3 x 3 so that from above, it was like a game of tic-tac-toe with the red or blue tetras on top being the X or O. It lead to the center goal becoming paramount and there was usually a rush at the end to break a row of 3 by topping strategic goals. This was essentially de-scoring, but all the placed tetras still counted for 3 points. While it wan't an alternative way to score (like 2013's 10 pt hang) it was points that were counted at the end, and could determine the outcome of a match.

It was sort of an endgame,but the intended endgame was to have all 3 robots back in front of the driver station and behind a line. the actual end game took away from the main game, and only rewarded a measly 10 points. I wouldn't mind seeing it not included.


FRC has come a long way since 2005 when I started, and the quality of robots has gone up drastically thanks to Vex and Andymark. I would love to see a similar game mechanic with today's robots.


2007 had a similar thing with the rack.. but that was messy.

Re: Would you like End Game back?
 

I like the idea of an "inline" endgame, essentially raising the stakes/scoring near the end of the game or in a certain time frame.

An interesting 2014 endgame might have been that a ball is worth 20 points if it is launched before the buzzer and touches the ground on the opposite side of the truss after the buzzer. It would also be the only time a ball is allowed to be scored over the truss twice.

Re: Would you like End Game back?
 

I'm itching for an autonomous endgame.

Who's with me?

Re: Would you like End Game back?
 

I think it's a very cool idea if done right.

Re: Would you like End Game back?
 

That's true for any endgame, but it's definitely more difficult to "get right" if it's autonomous. A lot of variables to consider in robot/game piece position/heading.

It could add so much additional strategy to the end of teleop. There is also the opportunity for some real autonomous defense that is entirely absent most years.

Re: Would you like End Game back?
 

And I can't even think of ONE match where that was attempted, let alone completed. Everybody was playing the alternative: Score more, go for rows/disruption of rows.

Re: Would you like End Game back?
 

Sometimes endgames are god. But recently it seems more and more teams build robots to compete for the endgame, and just sit on the field for 2 minutes waiting for the funky noise to play. Very boring, too bland.

Re: Would you like End Game back?
 

I would hate to have an autonomous end game for one. Do you know how much time some teams would spend lining up their robot via remote control for that. It would definitely take away from the actual game. A robot with lots of sensors that can self navigate and tell itself what to do when would win that best as no prep would be needed for the autonomous end game. Imagining hard coded autonomous end game robots. I assume their would be more robots running into each other than usual for that, messing up their programs for sure. A robot could only be successful with that relying solely on sensors. It would be a challenge.

Re: Would you like End Game back?
 

Exactly why it would be so fun. It would be a monster programming and strategic challenge.

You could have the last 30 seconds be optionally autonomous activated by the team and indicated on the robot, but the game stays the same. Points scored autonomously would obviously be worth more.

The devil is in the details, but it I think it would be a lot of fun.

Re: Would you like End Game back?
 

But would it take away from the focus on the actual game, and would people operating remotely mess up those working autonomously? That is the question. Or would the autonomous end game component be completely ignored if the points for doing the task were too little?

Re: Would you like End Game back?
 

Autonomous has gotten easier pretty much every single year since 2005, down to the point where last year the GDC basically said "Just drive forward, please, we'll give you points!" and a lot of teams at early regionals couldn't even do that. Unless something big changes, endgame autonomous is a long way from feasibility.

Re: Would you like End Game back?
 

I'm guessing the drive forward and score ruling came out of the GDC being tired of seeing matches where 6 robots sat on the field doing nothing for all of auto.

An autonomous endgame may be a terrible idea and completely unwatchable except for the very highest level of competition, but it sounds like a fun challenge to me.

Re: Would you like End Game back?
 

Then again, some would have said the same about Aerial Assist. I heard some people compare the gameplay at early events to 'little kids playing soccer,' but by the time Einstein came around, it was arguably the most nail-biting series of matches in recent memory.

Re: Would you like End Game back?
 

Absa-fraggin-lutely! A major part of engineering is compromise among competing priorities, and AA didn't provide that.

Re: Would you like End Game back?
 

Whereas in 2014 there were no teams that just sat there for 2 minutes and did nothing?

Re: Would you like End Game back?
 

Your robot could do everything in the game really well? Without sacrificing the ability to do other things even better?

If not, you had to make compromise among competing priorities.

Re: Would you like End Game back?
 

No matter what you're going to make the game and it's specifics, you're always going to have a few of those people. However, by making the game one set task, with a few role options, teams focus on one task, and that task only, making more robots able to compete, run and/or do something.

Re: Would you like End Game back?
 

Our robot certainly did everything it had to do much better than our previous two robots did their things. Our only significant points of compromise had to do with the time and skill constraints, not meeting the challenge itself. The AA robot just had to drive and manipulate the ball. As far as size, we optimized solely on ball manipulation and the essentially square dimensions were easy to build a drive system for. Our biggest failing for AA was in mis-analyzing the game - we had no idea it would be so strong on defense, so we opted for maneuverability over torque. There would have been equal (or perhaps less) challenge putting a 6-wheel shifting drive under the ball handler than the mecanum was.

Perhaps most telling as to the "lack of challenge" in the game mechanics was that a kitbot sporting three 20" plywood walls could be both fair on offense and quite good on defense. If it was geared down a bit from the kit, had a good driver and a taller wall, it could be a defensive nightmare. And it wasn't even waiving any endgame bonus to do this!

And to reference another recent one, yes, there were robots even in AA that sat there and did nothing for two minutes, especially in the first few rounds.

Re: Would you like End Game back?
 

I think that the endgame should return. As many have mentioned before, the ability to swing the score at the end of the match is an important part of the endgame. Watching the Einstein Matches, one could tell in most games that whichever team scored the first assist-loaded ball was going to win the match. If there was an endgame, who knows? 1114 could have jumped on top of the truss, scored 50 points, and won the series for all we know.

I also think that endgames allow for more amazing, inspirational designs with greater variety than in a game without an endgame. For example, those of you who saw team 3624, the Thundercolts (Dix Hills, NY), in 2013 at the Virginia Regional and Long Island Regional, they had an amazing robot. From the start of the match it began climbing the pyramid, shifting it's weight and position to slowly reach the top. It was one of the most amazing robots at the competition, and one that left an impression on all of my teammates. That type of robot, one that very few had ever thought of, is something an endgame can create very well. After all, we're here to inspire kids about STEM right?

For those reasons, I support the return of the endgame.

Re: Would you like End Game back?
 

I originally hated that there was no endgame.

However, I have since changed my mind. After going through a couple days of our first event, I found that the gameplay ran much smoother, and it was much easier for the crowd to follow.

I realized that it was much better for the gameplay to continue, rather than being interrupted by this "other" task that was completely unrelated to the game.

That being said, I think that there were a couple end-games that were done well (Rebound Rumble, Overdrive), but most of them, while they were fun to watch, were also kind of whacky now that I think about it because it had absolutely nothing to do with the game. It made the gameplay in many games very confusing in the last 20 or 30 seconds because you would have some robots continuing to do what they were, and some doing this other task. It interrupted the gameplay. As far as FIRST's goal of making FIRST more accessible and understandable and marketable to the "general public" or the "civies" as I call them, removing the endgame was a good move.

I also hated when the endgame was worth more than the game itself. When an alliance could essentially be terrible throughout the whole match, and win in the last couple seconds by completing one task before the other team did. While it was exciting at times, it also led to some teams making it to the eliminations that probably didn't deserve to be there. When the robot could really only do one thing well, and they end up in the top 8. Lunacy comes to mind especially... Not trying to be mean, but rather realistic.

Re: Would you like End Game back?
 

I would love an endgame back. Pretty cool game imo would be aerial assist with climbing the pyramid and taking out the truss.

The end game adds another level for the better teams. It makes the game more approachable for all. Back in 2013 many teams chose to keep shooting and just climb for 10 the really good teams like 254 and 1114 said lets go climb and get the extra 30 points plus the 20 point dump.

Re: Would you like End Game back?
 

Oh I am going to love this conversation but I will start by not reading any of it to get my initial impression and then I will edit it after what I see.

FRC has always had this certain game "feel". To be honest the only components that I feel are required for that "feel" I get from standing behind students and yelling are auton, and tele op. I participated in FLL if you haven't done that when competing you take your robot to the field put it down and press start. BEST never had the robot to robot to interaction. FIRST has done a great job with having an exciting game to view between the size of these robots, robot to robot interaction, and robot to environment action it feels exciting. That being said you don't need to have an end game to still provide that same feel.
Outside of that End Games do provide additional engineering challenges which is great for STEM. It "GENERALLY" will provide for more depth in strategy. Anyway time to read the posts and realize how ignorant I was...

EDIT: After viewing what everyone has said I still am standing by the fact that you don't need an END Game for a good match. Seeing something mechanically similar to an endgame a window of opportunity or a window to score in a different way that is high risk high reward. I always thought it was a shame that the hot goals were used in one portion of the game, why not make it so the Hot goals were toggled on randomly throughout the match and bonus points added then. I will admit that when I started the END game was the equalizer. If you don't have the sharpest auton you could make it up with a good end game.
Anyway my proposal to the GDC you know as some random dude on the internet with all the mad street cred that comes from it. Design instead of an End game include in the matches periods that slightly deviate from a task in a high risk high reward manner. Make the hot goals random during tele op (balanced of course.) Signal mini bots to climb at any point in a match to make shot calling more dynamic. Challenge teams to instead of designing for such a routine system of Auton->Tele Op->End add a wild card to Tele Op lets mix it up.

Re: Would you like End Game back?
 

I personally don't find robots that seek ONLY to complete the endgame inspirational. Those I find inspirational are the robots that can complete aspects of the game at a very high level.

A lot of teams had the climber come up in brainstorming, but a lot of teams also realized they could easily score more than 30 pts by playing the game in teleop

Re: Would you like End Game back?
 

Granted I've only experienced the 2013 and 2014 seasons, but I'd really like to see the end game come back. It adds an extra challenge for teams and an element of excitement to the end of a game, especially if the alliance scores are close.

The end game element is a bit 'easier' for higher-level teams or bigger teams because of experience or dividing-and-conquering, but my rookie team was even able to rig up a 10-point hang for those extra points in Ultimate Ascent, which really came in handy when our shooter wasn't working.

The problem with an end game in a team-based challenge like Aerial Assist is that if one team focuses mainly on the end-game, the alliance as a whole loses out on a whole ton of points because that one robot isn't involved in the main game scoring. I'm thinking about robots that would take the entire match to climb to the 30 on the pyramid in 2013... In a team based game like Aerial Assist, are those points really worth it compared to the points that could be earned if they played the main game?

(...maybe the end game should come back just to make teams really think about that question.)

Re: Would you like End Game back?
 

I see everyone is posting their thought and thought I'd chime in my own thoughts about the subject.

I personally enjoyed this year's no end-game, It provided a much more tense game throughout the match and competition making much more diverse and fun. I know their were times when we were in matches that could have swayed either way because we were just points away from each other. I think if they didn't bring end game back I would not be disappointed as long as the game is sufficiently exciting enough.

Re: Would you like End Game back?
 

From what I've seen, not having the end game in 2014 resulted in a lot more late game defense. This increase in defense provided for excitement at the end of the game, without distracting from the main purpose. In fact, Aerial Assist truly had the feel of a sport, that feeling of the last seconds of a basketball or football game, in which everyone knows that, if this team scores right now, red wins, and if the other team blocks them, then blue wins. With an endgame, it is all dependent on the scoring capability of the teams, and thus, at a certain level, baring a significant malfunction, the endgame points are fairly predictable (either this team has a fast minibot or they don't, either this alliance can fit three bots on the bridge or they can't, either this team can 30 point climb, or they can't) which is not nearly as exciting as the possibility of one team stopping another from making a buzzer beater.