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

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

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

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

Wow, that sucks. I'll also point out that this isn't just a product of the tournament rules, which really do not play nice with improvement/inconsistency. It's also a product of the game itself and comes up in many other unfortunate places. Capping this year is unique in the modern FRC era for its disproportionately high entry requirement. Design functions can typically be executed in parallel to receive points, rather than depending serially on another task--in your case on another robot. Of course, there are ways to avoid this pitfall (build a stack under your own Can), which is quite common. And it's not the GDC's 'fault' that teams specializing in Canning are at a loss without their partners. But it is uncommon--I think for a reason--to find a nominally 'scoring' task that's useless without another one. More valuable with another task, sure, rightly (1+ robot on a colored bridge or 2 on a white one). But entirely dependent?

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

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

I'm with you. Especially considering that GP is at least 15 years old, if not as old as FIRST or Woodie. And since almost every time we hear it, it's accompanied by Woodie's "compete like crazy" mantra. In fact, if FIRST has been hinting at anything recently, it's that we should be more of a "sport". Not that some sports don't work as individual challenges, but I don't ever recall HQ hinting that we shouldn't be competing against each other.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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