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

When comparing this years game to games outside of FRC it dawned on me that one reason why games with similar mechanics on different platforms are fun. Lots of games that have these tedious matching or stacking mechanics have sensory feedback that make the game fun.
This is going to sound pretty bad for a comparison but hey lets do it!
So lets compare this game to candy crush. If you haven't played candy crush...
1. I don't blame you.
2. Its a match 3 game match 3 similar icons to get points
Thinking about that from an observational standpoint what is fun about candy crush? Absolutely not the actual interaction you have game play wise, what makes candy crush fun is the fact that upon completing an action you are rewarded with wacky sounds and cool particle effects. Last years game you saw goals light up then saw balls fly through and points were awarded. I feel like the disconnect between creating stacks and score going up is actually hindering people from having fun.
This being said I would propose this.
1. Remove the numbers on the score board that denote points (don't remove the time EVER).
2. Actions that change score are then replaced with audio and visual feedback
3. Turn up the during match music
I believe what this would accomplish is creating a greater sense of tension in the environment and the edge of your seat feeling would be maintained throughout the entire match until the final score board is shown.
Anyway its kind of late to implement this and its also a bit pricey to ensure all venues have the appropriate equipment to do so to I'd imagine.

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

the fun of the game depends on the regional...
-music,
-lights,
-announcers

I suggest you go watch Montreal finals... most entertaining regional i've seen in years (although the announcers are french)

It's also way more fun when the score is close and high... Same thing applies for last year or even ultimate ascent;
watching a match with robots struggling to score is often boring, whatever the game is

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

I saw a match from that and it looked really neat, I wish I was there. The lights were amazing and the announcers got really into it.

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

so much into it they lost their voice for the last three matches :rolleyes:

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

I won't quote because don't want to call anyone out directly (a lot of people have said this, and I understand why), but I'd like to address this idea that we as a community should stop 'complaining' because the game is what it is, and it's 'what we asked for' in response to complaints from last year.

I find this sentiment interesting. (No, actually interesting, not "interesting-read-silly".) What is the internal logic for not complaining about a game that's a product of complaints? Yes, I understand it's annoying if you don't want it in your Portal feed, and this has the normal structural issues about redundancy and less-constructive comments. (Welcome to the internet, everyone!) But at its foundation, if 2015 is a rational* response to 2014's voiced objections, isn't objecting again the logically consistent course of action? Talking about problems with this game won't change it, but it could (by internal logic) be expected to change 2016+. Maybe it takes a while to develop a constructive dialogue, and I supposed that's complainable about. But if this is the continuous improvement process the 2014-to-2015 argument sells it as, why not try?

*I really don't buy this personally--which is why I'm talking about internally consistent logic. Viewed in isolation, '15 might be a logical response to complaints about '14. But when the GDC hears, "this is way too much defense", they have far more context that just '14 with which to assess that statement. '13, for instance, or '12. Or anything since '01. To my mind, the logical interpretation of "this is way too much defense" isn't "oh, they want us to get rid of defense" it's, "oh, they want offense/defense like in the games where they didn't complain about it. Maybe next year we just shouldn't mandate that only one team can play offense at a time." I've really never managed to process the former logic. I do think they're responding, but I'm not convinced it explains this season's weirdness.

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

Maybe this is just here in Michigan, but I have yet to see it happen. So far, the best 2 robots always win. No underdog ever wins. Not once.

This predictability actually takes some of the fun out of the for me.

I still enjoyed this year, but just not spectating this year as much as last year or 2012 or other years.

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

I have to say, for me this year is a bummer for my own personal spectating.

EVERY YEAR for the past 6 years I've driven to one Michigan district every week to watch live. On the days I didn't go to see live, I would have TBA game day showing the multiple event split screen on my big screen TV. I couldn't stop watching FIRST events - I found them to be extremely exciting.

This year, not so much. I tried watching Dallas week one and I quickly found I had other things to do. The only event I've seen live is the event my team competed in, and I think I've watched less than 2 hours of webcast this year. I just can't get into it.

Don't get me wrong - I still love FIRST and I'm not (yet) going to quit over something like this. BUT... I just used to LOVE Saturdays during FIRST season - it was like New Year's day every weekend (I'm a big college football fan too). This year I only watch for academic reasons.

Oh well, the GDC can't be perfect for everyone every year. They had such a good streak of games going. Sure last year had its flaws, but it was still really exciting to watch.

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

You're not kidding. What a great match to listen to: http://www.watchfirstnow.com/archives/122918245

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

ironic....the guy who started this thread is in Arizona, and their team played last weekend. #1 seed picked #2. #3 seed picked #4. The second alliance won. Yes, that guy is on team #3. I guess you could call them the underdog, and they outscored the first alliance every round during playoffs.

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

That would be me, the other Mr. Forbes. Jim's my twin brother.

We were not quite the underdog, we just looked that way since our drive team had to learn how to play the game during the qual matches. Our scores went up linearly from 20 points to 150 points over the event. The #1 seed, 1538, played 100 point games from the start.

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

2:00 is where it gets good. LOL.

Stack! Stack! Stack! Stack!

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

Wow, now that is an announcer! LOL!

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

6th seed alliance beat the #1 seed alliance in KC. 1st and 2nd seed after quals were on #1 seed. No one on the 6th seed was ranked higher than 8th (1710 was 43rd).

IMO rank doesn't mean much this year, resulting in scouting becoming an even more important element of the game.

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

Indeed. I've seen a team finishing 5th seed but all they could do was coop... not a huge advantage for the playoffs...

Scouting makes it, but most good teams reach a maximum level, so final matches are closer

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

Opposite of our experience in our 2 CA regionals. The top 4 or 6 teams were obvious and easily walked through the QFs. The top 2 teams each time were largely unchallenged.

One aspect might be the high skew in OPR in this year's game - unprecedented. See my post here: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...=135689&page=5.

In regions without a few of the very high performers, the distribution may be more even and outcomes more uncertain. But that's not true in places where at least one of the high OPR teams appears.